- Bridge asked Michigan gubernatorial candidates about how they’d tackle the state’s most pressing environmental issues
- Topics included data centers, clean energy, aging dams, climate change, conservation and the Great Lakes
- The candidates responded directly to questions and concerns raised by readers through the Bridge Listens election-year survey
Michigan’s next governor will face no shortage of big environmental issues, from aging infrastructure and invasive species to climate change, data centers, clean energy, conservation fees and more.
The environment is one of Michigan’s most pressing issues, according to readers who have participated in Bridge Listens, our nonscientific election-year survey. So we asked these leading gubernatorial candidates what they would do about key environmental issues if elected:
- Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat
- Former Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican
- US Rep. John James, a Republican
- Businessman Perry Johnson, a Republican
- State Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, a Republican
- Pastor Ralph Rebandt, a Republican
- Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson, a Democrat
- Former federal auditor Kim Thomas, a Democrat
Johnson and Thomas did not respond to Bridge Michigan’s questions despite multiple requests, so they are not included in this story. Neither is independent Mike Duggan, who responded but ended his campaign before publication.
Rebandt is included, though he faces potential ballot disqualification due to faulty petition signatures. State canvassers will decide Thursday.
Read summaries of the participating candidates’ responses below, and click here to see their full, unedited answers.
Data Centers
The question: In 2024, Michigan lawmakers passed tax breaks that prompted a wave of data center proposals in Michigan. That, in turn, has sparked debate about whether the industry’s promised economic benefits are worth its impacts on land, water and the electrical grid. How would you approach the data center industry? Would you change anything about state policies governing the industry?
Data centers have emerged as a top 2026 issue, and one that often blurs party lines.
All gubernatorial candidates who responded told Bridge they believe there should be some accountability measures in place for data centers. But positions varied on how aggressively to enforce those measures — and how much control local residents should have to stop data center developments.
There was bipartisan support for ensuring data centers limit their use of water or other resources, and all candidates said new data centers should not increase electricity rates for residents.
Among Republicans, Nesbitt argued the state should effectively ban subsidies for data centers.
James took a more measured approach, saying “any state incentive for a data center should be tied to measurable public benefit: real job creation, long-term capital investment, responsibility for infrastructure and transparency about water and energy use.”
Cox said “local control by communities must dictate the location of any data centers. This means if a local community is against a data center, that is the end of the story.”
Rebandt wants to go a step further, saying he would institute a one-year moratorium on construction until a list of eight demands is met, including a ban on related nondisclosure agreements.
Among Democrats, Benson called for “public hearings to ensure projects do not go through without residents having the opportunity to share their concerns,” but did not call for locals to be able to ban the facilities entirely. She wants union contracts in place for resulting jobs.
Swanson said data center operators should pay for infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the facilities, a position shared by James, a Republican.
But Swanson said he also wants to require “a built-in escrow account funded by prospective corporations to protect against a project being abandoned after community planning and resources have been committed and spent.”
Dams
The question: In the span of five years, Michigan has endured repeated failure crises at aging, undersized and often privately owned dams whose owners failed to address longstanding safety concerns. These events have endangered the public and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. What steps, if any, would you take to reduce the risks posed by dangerous dams? And what is your position on Consumers Energy’s proposal to sell its 13 dams to a private company?
James, Benson and Swanson all articulated some misgivings over Consumers’ plan to sell dams to a private company.
Swanson, a Democrat, said he is “firmly against” the proposed sale, arguing “privatization of our infrastructure has repeatedly placed the lives, livelihoods, homes, and property of Michiganders in jeopardy.”
Fellow Democrat Benson said she would “prioritize public safety by strengthening dam inspections, improving oversight and enforcement, and ensuring owners are held accountable for long-term maintenance and repairs before disasters happen.”
The oversight would be funded, she said, via a new “dam safety and resilience fund.”
Any proposed sale must “include strong safeguards, full transparency, and enforceable accountability standards,” Benson added, but she didn’t say how the safeguards would financially protect nearby property owners if a dam fails.
Among Republicans, James said he would not “rubber-stamp” the Consumers sale.
“Any buyer must prove it has the financial capacity, technical expertise, and long-term maintenance plan to operate those dams safely,” he added.
A one-size-fits-all approach to Michigan’s aging dams is inappropriate, James argued, and advocated for a more flexible approach.
“Dam policy should be based on engineering, public safety, local input, and peer-reviewed science, not political ideology,” he said. “Some dams may need removal. Some may need repair. Some serve important functions including recreation, flood control, water level regulation, drainage, and aquifer recharge.”
James said he’d also want to see broad infrastructure investment to mitigate flood risk, and pointed to his congressional record as evidence of his commitment to the issue.
Cox did not address the proposed Consumers sale but called the state of Michigan’s dams “a failure of state government to enforce the law.” He cited Bridge’s reporting on known problems with a Cheboygan dam that nearly failed this spring and promised his administration “will not make excuses.”
Rebandt blamed deteriorating dams on the state government, not private owners.
Nesbitt said government regulations make it too difficult for owners to obtain permits required for repairs.
Energy
The question: Michigan in 2023 passed a suite of legislation aiming to hasten the state’s energy transition, most notably a requirement for regulated utilities to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040 and a law that allows the state to approve large wind and solar arrays over local objections. How is the system working, and would you push to change anything about it?
Republican candidates are united in their opposition to the clean energy and siting laws approved by Democrats in recent years.
Cox argued the 100% clean energy law “punishes our residents and drives jobs south of Michigan.”
James said repealing that mandate would be his first priority if elected. Alleging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has “chosen communism over common sense,” he said he would instead pursue an “all-of-the-above energy strategy” that would include “natural gas, nuclear, hydro, renewables where they make economic sense, biofuels and emerging technologies.”
James also promised to replace the members of the Michigan Public Service Commission, who regulate state utilities.
He said current members “have demonstrated they are far more interested in pursuing an extremist ideological agenda and rubber-stamping rate increases for big utility monopolies than protecting ratepayers.”
All Republican candidates argued the switch to carbon-free energy sources would drive up costs.
Benson and Swanson, the Democrats, support the energy transition law.
“If done right, this law puts Michigan in a position to lead the nation: expanding clean energy, strengthening grid reliability and lowering costs for families at the same time,” Benson said.
Swanson agreed with Benson on that front but joined Republicans in calling for officials to revisit the clean energy siting law, which allows the state to override local opposition.
“We must look at ways to return regulatory authority back to local zoning boards across our state on these critical issues,” he said.
Climate change
The question: Leading scientists warn that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuel energy is dangerously warming the globe. In Michigan, effects range from shorter winters and more intense periods of storm and drought to worsening wildfire smoke, disappearing boreal forests and shrinking fish. What, if anything, would you do to mitigate the causes of climate change or help Michigan weather its impacts?
Rebandt, a Republican, called climate change “one of the biggest hoaxes pushed on the American people in our lifetime” — despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing due to human activities.
Cox, a fellow Republican, challenged the premise of the question. Referring to “leading scientists” is like “restating the false predictions of Al Gore in ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’” he said.
Other Republicans directly addressed the question.
“Michigan should take changing weather patterns seriously,” said James. “Farmers already see the effects of intense storms, drought, flooding, shifting growing seasons and unpredictable conditions.”
He said his climate policy would be based on “resilience, innovation and peer-reviewed science.”
Both Nesbitt and James said they’d prioritize adaptation and resilience-related policies to prepare Michigan for a future of more unstable weather.
“We’ll harden infrastructure against storms, support farmers and forests and keep our Great Lakes strong,” Nesbitt said, also promising to launch a “nuclear renaissance for true clean baseload power.”
Among Democrats, Benson said there is a clear need to address the impact of climate change that Michiganders are grappling with “in real time,” with less predictable growing seasons for agriculture, shoreline flooding and erosion.
“Michigan should lead the nation in clean energy manufacturing, innovation, and climate resilience,” she said, promising to grow clean energy jobs that “will protect our water, modernize our infrastructure, expand public transit, and reduce pollution.”
Swanson said climate change “deserves a multi-pronged approach by a coalition of government, private sector, and environmental organizations.”
Great Lakes
The question: Gone are the days when industry openly dumped toxic waste into the Great Lakes. But challenges remain, from invasive mussels that have tanked fish populations to algae blooms fueled by farm runoff and the unsettled debate about the Line 5 pipeline. What do you see as the biggest threats to the Great Lakes, and how would you seek to address them?
There was bipartisan agreement on the importance of responding to invasive species, but divergence on other issues, including the Line 5 oil pipeline on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac.
Both Democrats emphasized corporate accountability and regulatory enforcement as a means of tackling pollution. Benson pointed to aging infrastructure, toxic runoff, sewage overflows and the Line 5 pipeline as intertwined threats.
“I’ll hold polluters accountable, modernize our pipes and water infrastructure, and take action to stop the toxic runoff and contamination that threatens our health, tourism economy and natural resources,” Benson said.
Swanson drew on his experience with the Flint water crisis and the Lockhart Chemical spill, calling for tougher criminal penalties on environmental violators and arguing that existing fines are too weak to deter bad actors.
Among Republicans, Cox called opposition to moving Line 5 into a tunnel “a sacrifice on the altar of progressives’ attempts to stop the use of fossil fuels.” James pledged to work to end litigation over the Line 5 tunnel project, saying he would “stop using energy providers as political targets.”
Cox joined Democrats Swanson and Benson vowing vigilance against governments outside the Great Lakes basin siphoning water from it.
Benson and Swanson pledged to uphold the Great Lakes Compact, an intergovernmental document chartered to prevent such diversions.
James highlighted congressional earmarks he secured for sewer and water projects in southeast Michigan, and called for ending the Whitmer administration’s litigation against the pipeline’s contentious tunnel replacement.
Nesbitt said he would cut unnecessary state spending and instead invest in “modern sewers, stormwater fixes and treatment plants that actually work.”
“No more excuses — just results,” he said, invoking his experience as a sports fisherman. “The Great Lakes are Michigan’s crown jewel. We have a duty to protect them with strong barriers against invaders, upgraded infrastructure, and common-sense leadership that puts clean water and strong fishing first.”
Rebandt said he would focus on fertilizer runoff from both commercial lawn operators and homeowners, while also backing Line 5 tunnel construction.
Conservation and Recreation
The question: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources uses fees from park visitors, hunters and anglers to manage wildlife conservation and recreation, but stagnant revenue and inflation are straining budgets, sparking fears of hatchery closures, campground shutdowns and other cuts. Would you support any fee increases? If so, explain. If not, how do you think the state should pay for managing public lands and wildlife?
Among Democrats, Benson promised to develop a strategic plan during her first 100 days in office to “modernize the department’s structure and revenue sources to ensure resources are being used as efficiently as possible.”
She did not comment on fee increases proposed by Whitmer.
Swanson vowed not to increase fees for parks, camping or hunting, promising to find “alternative funding mechanisms to ensure the DNR has adequate funding to operate.”
Among Republicans, James said he would not consider fee increases “without first requiring a serious review of how current dollars are being spent.”
He said he would explore other funding options, including “federal conservation dollars, public-private partnerships for management of DNR assets and services, sportsmen’s organizations, volunteer groups, local partnerships, and where appropriate, revenue from responsible forest management.”
James also advocated for more spending on the state’s Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign.
Nesbitt argued it would be “bad policy” to increase hunting fees while the state faces “massive deer overpopulation.”
He called for the state to allow deer baiting and “constrain the DNR from trampling our private property.” As for funding, he called for cuts to “non-essential programs” so the state could redirect funding to “core priorities like hatcheries, wildlife management and campgrounds.”
Cox agreed: “If anything, the DNR should reduce license fees to drive increased fishing and hunting,” he said, arguing that would improve wildlife management and increase tourism.
Rebandt said he would want to devolve oversight of Michigan’s natural spaces to conservation districts, because state oversight has fallen short. He’d support recreation and tourism by “enforcing the law on keeping schools out of session between Memorial Day and Labor Day.”
While Michigan law requires school districts to begin classes after Labor Day unless they obtain a waiver — and many districts do — schools do not have to end their school year before Memorial Day.
