All would-be nominees criticized their competition’s environmental stances in the hour-long, televised debate that covered issues ranging from pollution to the future of environmental issues in a struggling economy.
The candidates, who are gearing up for the primary election in September, crowded into the packed JFK School of Government Auditorium at Harvard University for the debate.
The first round of the debate had five journalists put forth questions to specific candidates. The candidates were asked to address such issues as affordable housing and open space, the Big Dig and recycling.
In the opening question of the night, Senate President Thomas Birmingham was asked how he planned to sustain and, if possible, increase environmental spending in a state that ranked 45th in the nation in that category.
“Environmental spending is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if an income tax cut isn’t looked at,” Birmingham said, referring to Massachusetts’ thinly spread budget.
The questions also covered quality of life issues. Former Democratic Party Chairman Steve Grossman was later asked if he thought pollution from cars could be reduced by improving Massachusetts’ public transportation system.
“There is a need to extend transportation,” Grossman said. “If I was governor, I would extend the blue line to Lynn and add commuter lines to Fall River and New Bedford.
“However, there is something bigger here: people sitting in their cars for two hours every morning spewing pollution, leaving at 6 a.m. to get to work on time. This is a quality of life issue as well as an environmental one.”
When asked if he had been on the MBTA lately, Grossman evaded the question, turning toward the need for less pollution in the form of exhaust fumes coming from MBTA buses.
Environmental questions turned into personal advancement often. Sen. Warren Tolman (D-Middlesex, Suffolk) praised his own record when confronted with the issue of asthma and other health problems that are suspected to stem from polluting facilities prevalent in lower-income neighborhoods.
“I think that it is very important to have a person with a record of achievement on issues to deal with this job,” Tolman said. “I would work with other state senators in the region to come up with a solution and establish an environmental injustice committee. We don’t want to exacerbate the communities that have these facilities by building any new ones.”
The second half of the debate allowed the candidates to ask specific questions to one another and then counter with a rebuttal.
Birmingham opened up this round of debate with a pointed question for state Treasurer Shannon O’Brien, requesting an explanation for her negative vote on the Cape Cod Land Bank and Community Open Space Bill. O’Brien responded by calling the bill’s effectiveness into question.
“The beaches bill is terrific, and you passed it through legislature. But being a governor means you actually have to get things done,” she said.
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the visibly shorter man when seated next to the towering Tolman, brought humor to the dialogue and a round of laughter from the audience by asking Tolman whether or not he believed “it is more environmentally friendly to be under five feet tall.”
Reich’s easy nature allowed him to lead the debate, according to many audience members who were put off by the self-promotions other candidates made.
“Reich was definitely ahead,” Dougherty said. “He had a great presence.”
Lauren Padawer, a member of the Somerville CDC, said the debate was hindered by the candidates’ tendency to compliment themselves.
“There was a great exchange of dialogue, and good issues were brought up that might not have come up normally,” said Lauren Padawer, a member of the Somerville CDC. “But the candidates were bombastic about their own achievements.”
“Overall the debate wasn’t too substantial; the candidates kept skirting around the questions,” said Harvard University junior Ruben Marinelarena.
“They kept making their own plugs,” he said. “Reich and Grossman were good, but O’Brien and Birmingham were giving themselves soundbites the whole time. This is not the right forum for that.”
Many important issues were brought up, but, according to many audience members, an hour was insufficient for covering all relevant topics.
“They covered essential issues, but an hour was not enough, especially with five candidates,” said Dianne Williams, an independent technology consultant.
“I wish there were more details,” she said. “One thing they left out was the issue of emissions for SUVs. We’re an auto state, and they didn’t talk enough about that. Also they didn’t talk about environmental injustice and people’s idea of NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, and that is very important.”
“I thought there were many issues left out,” Padawer said. “They didn’t talk about agricultural issues, genetic engineering, factory farming and consumerism as prevention especially among businesses.”
“I would have liked to see more audience questions,” said Kate Widland, a Harvard University senior and co-chair of the Harvard Environmental Action Committee. “This was a great debate about these issues. It really educates Massachusetts voters about the environment.”