Tancredo pushes for more nuclear energy R&D

The presidential hopeful says alternative energies aren't just good for the environment -- they're good for America.

By Amanda Griscom Little

Read more: Republican Party, Environment, Politics, News, Tom Tancredo, Green Living, 2008 election, 2008 Energy Interviews

Oct. 22, 2007 |

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. -- best known for his zealous opposition to illegal immigration -- bills himself on his campaign Web site as "a solid pro-life, pro-gun, small government Republican." What's not mentioned on his site is anything about the environment or energy issues. (Considering that he's got a lifetime approval rating of 11 percent from the League of Conservation Voters, perhaps that's no surprise.)

But when asked about these issues, Tancredo makes a patriotic call for energy independence, just like the rest of the presidential contenders. And while he likes to joke that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is the last book of fiction he's read, Tancredo also pays lip service to a shift away from carbon-based energy sources and the withdrawal of subsidies from fossil-fuel energy. Still, his free-market-driven vision of America's energy future includes lots more coal mining and oil drilling, as well as nuclear power.

I caught Tancredo by phone while he was campaigning in New Hampshire and tried to get a better picture of how environmental goals fit into his conservative platform.

You support a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb illegal immigration. Environmentalists have raised concerns that such a fence could be harmful to wildlife and the broader ecosystem in the area. Do you think this is a legitimate concern?

What is even more disturbing is the environmental damages caused by illegal aliens crossing the border. On average, an alien crossing the border will drop about eight pounds of trash on a one- to three-day journey. This amounts to hundreds to thousands of pounds of garbage left in an ecosystem completely unprepared for that type of pollution.

What do you see as the most pressing energy and environmental issues facing the nation?

We can take care of a couple of issues with one sort of strategy. If we successfully reduce our reliance on oil produced by countries that are dangerous to us -- and that's a good thing from a national-security standpoint -- you will automatically reduce the amount of carbon we produce in the United States. A major initiative to move away from carbon-based products would accomplish a great deal.

How do you envision such an initiative? Is this a priority for you?

Yeah, it certainly is, because it's a national-security issue, primarily.

I don't doubt that global warming is a true phenomenon. I'm saying the extent to which you can attribute it directly to man's actions, I think, is still at least debatable. But that doesn't matter if we move in the direction I'm saying.

So what can the federal government do? Besides investment in research and technology, which of course I think it must do, we could require, for instance, all federal vehicles to be alternative-fuel vehicles. A lot of things are happening right now as a result of the market, and I am, frankly, reluctant to tamper with the market to a great extent.

I've heard you say you trust the market far more than you trust government. If the market were a level playing field and all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what would happen to the renewable and alternative energy industries?

You would see the most efficient develop; the most inefficient would lag behind or not survive. I don't think that subsidies are a good way to go. Even now, the markets are already working. You look at the number of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles that are being purchased, it's really quite significant. Toyota took over GM's spot as the No. 1 auto producer in the world, and why? Something called the Prius.

Would you, as president, remove subsidies from fossil-fuel industries?

Yeah, I say remove subsidies. I certainly think that's appropriate.

However, R&D is a subsidy, and I would support efforts in research and development. We can obtain a lot more fossil fuels from things like shale, but it may require some R&D to find ways to make it cheap enough so that you can extract the oil from the shale.

I also think that it is appropriate for us to remove restrictions on the development of fossil-fuel resources within the continental United States and off of the continental shelf.

Again it goes back to national-security issues. What I'm trying to do is rely less and less on any sort of fuel from countries that are potentially very dangerous.

Would you fund R&D for emerging technologies like wind and solar?

Yes, and it can be broader than that. It can be R&D into biotechnology and biofuels. There are two reasons I am willing to do that: One, the national-security thing. The other is that we have OPEC, so there isn't truly a free market. You have to have some degree of government involvement in this because the OPEC nations can and do control the market to a certain extent. When emerging technologies become a threat to oil, OPEC can [flood the market with oil], driving the price down to make it impossible to compete, and that new technology goes down the toilet.

Can you clarify your take on global warming? It sounds like you think it's a problem but not necessarily one that's human-caused.

It may certainly be a phenomenon that's got nothing to do with the impact of humanity on the environment, or very, very little anyway. It may be a cyclic thing that we will simply have to deal with. I don't know. There's plenty of reliable research on both sides.

So I say, look, it really doesn't matter. The thing we must do is reduce our reliance on potentially violent countries. If in reducing carbon emissions we actually have a positive impact on this global-warming phenomenon, then great.

Next page: "It's not impossible, but I'd be very skeptical"