Joe Biden: Face global warming or global conflict

The presidential candidate says failing to address climate change would lead to new wars and a changed U.S. military.

By Amanda Griscom Little

Read more: Democratic Party, Environment, Politics, News, Joseph Biden, Global Warming, Ethanol, Climate Change, Energy Crisis, 2008 election

Sept. 17, 2007 | Joe Biden says his top priority as president would be "energy security." "If I could wave a wand, and the Lord said I could solve one problem, I would solve the energy crisis," he said this spring at a political rally in South Carolina. "That's the single most consequential problem we can solve."

During his 34-year Senate career, Biden, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been known more as a chieftain of foreign policy than a champion of environmental protections (though he has earned a respectable 84 percent lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters). These days, he's emphasizing how closely geopolitics and environmental stewardship are intertwined. To solve what he sees as the defining challenge of our time, Biden has been pushing for more U.S. involvement in international climate negotiations, more compact fluorescent light bulbs, more-stringent fuel economy regs and a whole lot more biofuels.

How well will Biden be able to balance his energy-independence goals with an ambitious climate agenda? I tracked him down on the campaign trail in Iowa to find out.

For more information on his platform and record, check out this Biden fact sheet.

Why do you consider yourself the strongest candidate on energy and the environment? What sets your platform on these issues apart from the rest?

I would be most capable of getting this country back into an international climate regime, getting us back to the table the fastest and with the most prospect for success, because of my extensive engagement in foreign policy. I'm also in the best position to make it clear to the United States Congress that this is not merely an environmental issue, it is a security issue. I held hearings this year pointing out that if we do not do something of consequence about global warming, drastically and soon, we literally are going to find ourselves reconfiguring our entire military to deal with occasions for new wars, which are going to be about territory and arable land. You see what's happening in Darfur [Sudan] now -- that's part of the problem.

You've said that your first priority is "energy security." Can you clarify what this goal means and how you'd achieve it?

If the predictions of the scientists are correct, you could see ocean levels rise three feet. If that occurs, you're going to displace over 35 million people just in South Asia, and they're going to physically be looking for a new place to land. Just that, all by itself, is going to initiate major new conflicts relating to war. You're going to have nations fighting over arable land, more border disputes and, as a consequence, a great deal of instability.

How would you achieve energy security? What specifically do we need to do to get there?

To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States by capping emissions, increasing renewable fuels, establishing a national renewable portfolio standard [RPS], requiring better fuel economy for automobiles. I would cap emissions at 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and set a national RPS of 20 percent. I would announce an executive order that the federal government would not purchase one single automobile for its fleet that gets less than 40 miles to the gallon. And I would not build a single solitary federal project without it being a green project. That would have the effect of getting states to do the same thing, and that would create a pot of somewhere between a third and a half a trillion dollars that would be a lure to every major business in America to go green.

These measures would put us in a position to be able to actually attempt to lead the world. But we have no credibility right now.

How would you bring China and India to the table on a global climate treaty?

By engaging in significant joint ventures with them both on new technologies. You're already having an awakening awareness in China about the consequences of pollution.

Sometimes the goals of achieving energy independence and reducing climate change are at odds. Would you --

Exactly right. You're the first one who's ever asked me a question that way.

Would you, as president, oppose subsidizing technologies that would worsen global warming, even if they would reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

Yes, I would, because at the end of the day it's a net loser for us.

Next page: Clean coal won't bring energy independence, but could slow climate change