Salon Member log in | Help
Benefits of membership

Bill Richardson on greening SUVs

The presidential candidate says there's no need for Americans to choose between their love for monster cars and saving the environment.

By Amanda Griscom Little

Pages 1 2

Read more: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Environment, Politics, Bill Richardson, News, New Mexico, Global Warming, Renewable Energy, Kyoto Treaty, 2008 election, Biofuels, 2008 Energy Interviews

Sept. 3, 2007 | Bill Richardson likes to play up his image as a horse-ridin', gun-totin' man of the Wild West, but don't be distracted by the cowboy swagger -- the Democratic governor of New Mexico also has a serious policy wonk side. That was on full display in May when he unveiled a broad and ambitious climate and energy plan. Billing himself as the "energy president," he's now calling for a 90 percent cut to greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, a renewable-energy target of 50 percent by 2040, and a 50-mile-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2020.

Richardson is no newcomer to energy issues, of course -- he served as secretary of energy at the end of the Clinton administration, and has aggressively pushed clean energy as governor of New Mexico. But some greens might not care for his "clean coal" boosterism or his embrace of "all kinds of biofuel."

I rang up the governor at his office in Santa Fe, N.M., to size up his energy and environmental vision.

For more info on his platform and record, check out this Richardson fact sheet.

You've dubbed yourself the "energy president." Why did you choose that moniker?

Right now, the most important domestic and national-security issues involve America becoming energy independent and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. I believe it's going to take an "energy president" who will lead this country toward these goals by asking all Americans to sacrifice for the common good and be more energy-efficient and promote a green style of living.

Many of the candidates are trying to paint themselves as the green candidate. What makes your platform stronger than the others'?

On energy, both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters have stated that my plan is the most aggressive, with the strongest timetables.

But what differentiates myself from other candidates is I've actually done it. I've done it as energy secretary in the Clinton administration by tightening air-conditioning energy-use standards by 30 percent, building a strong portfolio of renewable energy, and promoting 100-mile-per-gallon vehicles through a fuel-efficiency initiative with the auto companies.

Then, as governor of New Mexico, I believe we have the most clean-energy initiatives of any state. We have a renewable portfolio standard going to 20 percent by 2020. Our state is on track to observe the Kyoto treaty. We have no taxes on hybrid vehicles. We're the first in the country to export wind energy. We also have a number of incentives for solar, wind, biomass, biodiesel and distributed-generation fuel cells.

I was also probably one of the most active pro-environment congressmen. I pursued and made law a number of national parks, wilderness areas, river protections and air-quality standards. When I was on the committee [overseeing the] Interior [Department], I worked on bills including the Jemez National Recreation Area and the South San Juan Wilderness.

You've vowed as president to mandate a 90 percent greenhouse-gas emission reduction by 2050 --

I've also proposed a strong standard in the short term: 20 percent reductions by 2020.

These goals are even stronger than some environmental groups are calling for. Why such dramatic targets?

Because we can't wait. It's a matter of necessity. It's important because it involves our national security. Our energy dependence on foreign oil is so unhealthy -- we could be vulnerable to an oil price shock, to $5-per-gallon gasoline prices, to long lines at the pumps. What I'm also advocating is a dramatic shift in mass transit, like I've done here in New Mexico with the Rail Runner. But we'd have, nationally, transportation policies that promote sensible land use -- not just proposing highway funding bills, but bills to establish light rail and bullet trains and more energy-efficient transportation. Also, land-use policies that advocate open space. This is for a better quality of life for all our people.

Are your climate goals as much informed by your concern about energy independence as they are about climate change?

Yes.

As president, would you subsidize the development of technologies, such as liquefied coal, that could worsen global warming, even if they would boost energy independence?

I'm for clean coal, but I'm not a big fan of liquefied. I do not believe that coal-to-liquids technologies represent a viable solution for the future because of the associated carbon dioxide emissions. I will push for a well-to-wheels low-carbon fuel requirement that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30 percent by 2020, including alternative fuels that will substitute for about 10 percent of our gasoline demand.

But coal does belong in a clean-energy future?

I believe that carbon-clean coal will play a role in our energy future. There have gotta be some very strict clean-coal standards. I'm not an advocate for continuing to use old oil, coal and nuclear. They all have to be part of a mix, but in the past, those three have received an inordinate amount of subsidies and tax incentives at the expense of renewable energy. It's important to emphasize that the future is in renewable energy, renewable fuel, conservation measures. It's in buildings that are 50 percent more energy-efficient, solar roofs in schools, 50-mile-per-gallon vehicles by 2030.

What about nuclear -- can you expand on that? It sounds like you think coal and nuclear need to be part of the energy mix, but they shouldn't be subsidized?

Yes. My dramatic preference would be for clean coal. I oppose the construction of those coal plants in Texas -- too many subsidies for the coal industry. And I opposed giving a tax incentive in New Mexico to just a regular coal plant that's proposed here, Desert Rock. I can't be the champion of global climate change and have a new coal plant that isn't clean.

Next page: "You can have an SUV with a fuel-efficient engine. We do have the technology to achieve this"

Pages 1 2

Related Stories

Obama on energy for '08
The Democratic contender discusses battling greenhouse gases, dealing with China and India, and restoring the EPA from years of Bush ideology.
By Amanda Griscom Little

Hillary Clinton: Coal isn't going away
The presidential contender says we should look into "clean coal," but she can't promise she would never support "dirty" energy.
By Amanda Griscom Little

John Edwards' "green-collar" America
The presidential contender wants to create a million environment-friendly jobs, and end a destructive oil addiction.
By Amanda Griscom Little