You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.
If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much -- something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.
Today, the government decides, and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.
But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.
To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.
What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.
To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion.
So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.
What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?
They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.
And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.
You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.
You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?
I think they're more capable of it than politicians.
What's your position on a carbon tax?
I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it. It shouldn't be allowed.
Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?
You should be held responsible in a court of law, and you should be able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in any way whatsoever.
Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn't be emitted? Congress?
Not under my presidency -- the Congress wouldn't do it. The people who claim damage would have to say, look, I'm sitting here, and these poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped, and I want compensation.
You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?
Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.
Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?
Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.
What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?
I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work.
What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?
Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.
But coal technology has been proven to harm people -- with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates -- so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?
Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another's property or person.
If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, "safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.
What's your take on nuclear?
I think nuclear is great. I think it's the safest form of energy we have.
Ethanol?
I don't think anything's wrong with ethanol -- it's just not economically competitive. It's only competitive now because those who produce it get subsidies.
What environmental achievement are you most proud of?
Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that you don't need government expenditures and special-interest politics to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think that's the most important thing I can contribute.
If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United States, where would it be?
There's probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.
Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?
My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas, and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river.
Can you elaborate on what you've done personally to reduce your energy and environmental impact?
Well, no, other than the fact that I'm just always aware of doing anything damaging to the environment. I don't think I do anything that damages it at all. I don't ride my bike because I think I'm destroying the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it's a great way to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.
This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
About the writer
Amanda Griscom Little is a columnist for Grist Magazine. Her articles on energy, technology and the environment have appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to the New York Times Magazine.
Related Stories
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.
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.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)