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.

Do you think we’ll have to expand nuclear capacity?

Nuclear has to be part of the mix, but I would eliminate the subsidies that nuclear and coal and oil got from the last energy bill and shift those to renewable energy, to a more equal playing field.

Nuclear will not be able to move forward unless we resolve the waste issue. The [Yucca Mountain] site in Nevada has significant water, environmental and transportation problems with it. The other alternative of putting nuclear waste at existing regional sites around the country is not going to work. I favor a technological solution — let’s get our best scientists at the national labs to find a way to dispose of this nuclear waste safely. Until that is resolved, nuclear should not get any advantages.

What role do you think ethanol and biofuels should play in a 21st century energy system?

A very important role, both of them — all kinds of biofuel, biodiesel. We need to have more fuel-efficient fuels.

We should provide incentives for distribution by, for example, helping gas stations convert at least one pump to handle E85 or other biofuels. The federal government also should use its purchasing power — as we have done in New Mexico — to transform the energy marketplace by, for example, purchasing more hybrid and flex-fuel cars for its own use.

And I believe in cooperative ventures with other countries. I would expand our ties to Latin America with more collaboration in renewable energy and technology. That’s the future for that region, what Brazil has done with ethanol, for instance — they’re totally energy self-sufficient.

You are a strong supporter of both corn and cellulosic ethanol. How, specifically, will you structure policies that transition the U.S. away from corn ethanol and toward cellulosic?

Our goal should be bold — to replace 20 percent of liquid transportation fuels with biofuels by 2020. We should significantly ramp up federal investments in the research and development of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol.

You have a strong incentive for electric cars in your auto proposal. Do you think electric cars will win out over biofuel cars?

They will all be part of the mix. We in New Mexico were very proud to get Tesla Motors to move here from California. It’s the perfect combination for us: It’s high-tech jobs plus clean energy.

Do you think climate and energy will be front-burner concerns in the 2008 election?

Absolutely. They are among the most important issues in the presidential campaign. The first is Iraq, the second is a close tie between universal healthcare and energy independence.

You’ve said on the one hand that voters need to be willing to sacrifice some of their creature comforts for a new energy landscape, but also that Americans should be able to keep SUVs. Can you explain this contradiction?

What I’m asking for is not sacrifice, like Americans’ wearing sweaters and turning the heat down. What I’m asking for is being more energy-efficient with appliances, with vehicles, with mass transit. Maybe, instead of driving to work, once a month go mass transit.

I believe very strongly in what John F. Kennedy asked all Americans to do and that’s sacrifice a little bit for the collective good. We need, as a moral imperative, to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel because it’s in our national interest that we do so as a nation. It’s going to take a president to lead this dramatic shift and not just little energy bills. We need to energize every American to become green.

But Americans will be able to keep their SUVs because the technology is improving?

Yes. You can have an SUV with a fuel-efficient engine. We do have the technology to achieve this.

You say your energy programs are going to produce 10 times more value than they cost, right? How does this math add up?

Our energy programs are going to be great for the economy mainly because they are going to create two sets of new jobs in this country — one in renewable technology, which are high-wage, high-skill jobs, and the second in retrofitting homes for the construction industry, also higher-wage jobs. It will be not just a job boom, but a technological boom.

So that boom in jobs will add up to 10 times more than the cost of jump-starting that trend?

Absolutely.

Can Detroit achieve the sharp fuel-economy standards you’re proposing — an increase to 50 mpg by 2020?

Detroit will benefit from this. We’ve got the technology. They need a little gentle prodding and they need incentives, but Detroit has always stepped up with ingenuity. They must realize that to keep jobs in America, to be part of this globalized world, they gotta compete. I’m not at all averse to giving Detroit tax incentives for these vehicles or having the government jointly invest in R&D with them, rather than clubbing them over the head.

In 2005, you signed an environmental justice order [PDF] in New Mexico. How would you address environmental justice as president?

I would issue an executive order that would respect neighborhoods, especially in minority areas; I would make it part of a “Quality of Life Initiative.” It would have several components: promoting environmental justice, as well as a new open-space policy, a smart land-use policy and a new transportation policy that would emphasize light rail and more energy-efficient transportation.

After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?

Protecting our parks, not drilling in ecosystems and offshore areas, the need to create more open space and wilderness areas, and finding ways to conserve water more effectively are critically important.

Who is your environmental hero?

Mo Udall, because he gave me, when I first came into Congress, a very good environmental ethic. I remember him taking me to Alaska where we worked on the Alaska wilderness initiatives. He was a Western environmentalist — I patterned myself after him.

And Al Gore deserves enormous credit for pushing global climate change.

You often talk about your love of the wilds of New Mexico and the outdoors in general. Can you describe your inner cowboy?

I own a horse — that’s my main recreational activity. His name is Sundance. I love to go out into the mountains of Santa Fe and spend time with him. That’s my main recreation. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time for it.

If you could spend a week in one park or natural area, where would it be?

Yellowstone.

What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?

We got a Ford Escape hybrid for the governor’s fleet and an ethanol vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe FlexFuel that can run on E85. The governor’s mansion has energy-efficient windows, and we’ve installed compact fluorescent bulbs wherever possible. We also are involved in a renewable-purchasing program that supplies 90 percent of the electricity from solar and wind. We’ve also made water-conservation improvements to the residence, like low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads, xeriscaping, and a water-efficient irrigation system.

This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.

Are the criticisms justified? Does this front-runner have what it takes to tackle the climate crisis and lead America to a cleaner, brighter energy future? To find some answers, I reached Obama by phone in his office in Washington, D.C., between Senate votes.

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

Why should voters consider you the strongest candidate on environmental issues? What sets your green platform apart from the rest?

To begin with, people can look at my track record. I’m proud of the fact that one of the first sets of endorsements I received in my race for the U.S. Senate was from the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. I’ve since cast tough votes on behalf of the environment. For example, I voted against the “Clear Skies” bill that George Bush was promoting, despite the fact that the administration had heated up support for the bill in southern Illinois, which you know is a coal area of the country. So I think people can feel confident that I don’t just talk the talk, I walk the walk.

How central will energy and the environment be to your campaign?

I consider energy to be one of the three most important issues that we’re facing domestically, along with revamping our education system and fundamentally reforming our healthcare system. And the opportunities for significant change exist partly because awareness of the threat of climate change has grown rapidly over the last several years. Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for that, as do activists in the environmental community and outlets like Grist. People recognize the magnitude of the [climate] problem and are ready to take it on.

Not only is there environmental concern, but you’re also seeing people who are recognizing that our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East is distorting our foreign policies, and that we can’t sustain economically continuing dependence on a resource that is going to get more and more expensive over time. As all those things converge, we have to move boldly on energy legislation, and that’s what I’ll do as the next president.

How central of a role do you think the issues of energy and the environment will play overall in the 2008 campaign? Will they take a back seat to Iraq?

Bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible end is the most pressing challenge we face, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only challenge we face. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and slashing our greenhouse-gas emissions will also be defining issues in this campaign.

You’ve consistently emphasized consensus and putting aside partisan battles. Many argue that when it comes to climate change, the maximum of what’s politically possible falls short of the minimum we need to do to solve the problem. In other words, consensus won’t get us where we need to go. Will you fight the political battles needed to move the consensus on this issue, even if that means aggravating partisan rifts?

I am the cosponsor of the most aggressive climate change legislation in the Senate, along with Barbara Boxer [D-Calif.] and Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.], which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We are going to have to make some big decisions to meet those goals. Consensus doesn’t mean 100 percent consensus — there is undoubtedly going to be resistance from certain parts of the energy sector, and there may be ideological resistance within the Republican Party, and we are going to have to attend to the regional differences in terms of how people get energy. But I believe that we can put together a strong majority to move forward, as long as we are thoughtful about the potential losers in any big piece of energy legislation.

Do you believe that we can achieve political consensus on this goal of 80 percent reduction by 2050?

I think with presidential leadership we can meet this goal, and it will be one of my top priorities. But it is going to require a thoughtful approach that accounts for the possibility that electricity prices will go up and that low-income people may need to be compensated. We’ll have to deal with the fact that many of our power plants are coal burning, and consider what investments we’re willing to make in coal sequestration. If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way.

Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program?

I believe that, depending on how it is designed, a carbon tax accomplishes much of the same thing that a cap-and-trade program accomplishes. The danger in a cap-and-trade system is that the permits to emit greenhouse gases are given away for free as opposed to priced at auction. One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap-and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away. So as I roll out my proposals for a cap-and-trade system, I will price permits so that it has much of the same effect as a carbon tax.

You have personally addressed automakers with a call for more efficient car technologies. Is Detroit ready for this shift?

We made some progress recently in the Senate, with the first fuel-efficiency standards increase in 20 years. It only went up to 35 miles per gallon — far short of what we needed and what technology would allow.

We have to work not only to make our cars more efficient but [to make] the fuel we put in those cars a lot cleaner. I believe I am the only candidate who has proposed a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard, something that California has already initiated.

You’ve received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven’t retracted it. Why?

I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquids were higher than gasoline, we couldn’t do it because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting carbon-dioxide emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.

How much should we be willing to pay in taxpayer money to make liquid coal that clean?

Our original bill on coal-to-liquids — which generated a lot of heat in the environmental community, no pun intended — proposed $200 million for demonstration projects, to see where this technology might take us.

If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion, then that is something all of us should welcome, particularly because China and India are building coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate, and they likely have life spans of several decades. Coal is a cheaper resource, and they’re going to be figuring out a way to exploit it, so we should help to find technologies that will ensure that if it is used, it is used cleanly. The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better geologic coal-sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.

But I stress again that my position has been consistent throughout: If we are using coal in the absence of these clean technologies, then we are going to be worsening the trend of global warming, and that is something that we can’t do.

Do you support a freeze in the U.S. on new coal development until these clean-coal technologies are commercially available?

I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.

As president, would you oppose subsidizing any technology that increases global warming — even if it reduced our dependence on foreign oil?

As a general principle I would agree with that. I would not make huge investments or try to take technologies to scale that worsen the climate change situation. But it may be appropriate for the federal government to make small investments in pilot projects to see if we can make dirty fuels cleaner.

I think that with nuclear power, we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way, and if we can do that and deal with the some of the safety and security issues, [nuclear power] is something that we should look at.

My general view is that we should experiment with all sorts of potential energy sources — don’t prejudge what works and what doesn’t, but insist that we have very strict standards in terms of where we want to end up, and enforce those standards vigorously.

Some argue that we should only commit to a global climate treaty if China and India do as well. Do you agree? How would you bring China and India to the table?

We shouldn’t look at it as a single tit-for-tat exchange. The U.S. is the world’s largest economy and the largest single source of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, so it is our responsibility to take the first step. We cannot expect China and India, with a billion people each, to take the lead on this if we do not — but we can expect them to join us if we demonstrate leadership. If we must take the first step, our second and third steps must be conditioned on meaningful participation by all countries. This is also an enormous opportunity for us to provide our technological expertise to these nations so they can leapfrog to cleaner technologies.

You are a strong supporter of both corn and cellulosic ethanol, both of which would get a major boost from your proposed National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. How, specifically, will you structure policies that transition the U.S. away from corn ethanol and toward cellulosic?

No single feedstock is going to get us to energy independence, and none will be the perfect solution — each faces its own challenges. Cornstarch ethanol provides a critically important bridge toward energy independence and corn remains a strong part of the domestic biofuels industry. But developing greater volumes of cellulosics is a critical next step in domestic biofuel development, and is the key component of my Low Carbon Fuel Standard bill.

Through greater fuel economy and the use of hybrid and plug-in vehicles, we can notably reduce our dependence on foreign oil over the next decade. It is important to note that domestic fuel security, environmental protection and economic development all must be considered in unison as we progress. My National Low Carbon Fuel Standard provides a way for us to better understand the impacts of an advanced biofuels industry on the environment, so that as we move forward on cellulosics and other domestic fuels we do so responsibly.

What environmental achievement are you proudest of?

In 2006, I developed an innovative approach to gradually increase CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards while protecting the financial future of American automakers. The resulting Obama-Lugar-Biden Fuel Economy Reform Act gained the support of senators who had never supported CAFE increases before. This, in turn, helped lay the foundation for Senate passage of updated CAFE standards last month.

After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?

Restoring the strength of the EPA to adequately enforce our clean-air, clean-water and other environmental protection laws, after over six years of ruling by ideology rather than science and adherence to the law.

Who is your environmental hero?

If I think historically, Rachel Carson probably had as much to do as anybody in helping trigger an environmental consciousness in this country.

I also admire Teddy Roosevelt, who probably wouldn’t have seen himself as an environmentalist in modern terms, but who had a great appreciation of the outdoors and the beauty of our land, and understood that part of the role of the president is sound stewardship.

If you could spend one week in a natural area in the U.S., where would it be?

I have very fond memories as a kid of traveling to Yellowstone, marveling at the scenery and chasing after bison, much to my mother’s distress.

But when I think of my own connection to the Earth, I think of my time in Hawaii, my birthplace. I think those of us who grew up in Hawaii have a particular attachment to the land and understand how fragile it is. When you are snorkeling through the coral reefs, you realize that a slight change in temperature or increase in sediment and runoff could end up destroying it all and making it unavailable for your children. That is something you worry about.

What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?

We just bought a Ford Escape, so I traded in a nonhybrid for a hybrid. We are in the process of replacing our light bulbs in our house and trying to limit the use of our air conditioning, trying to make sure that we unplug and turn off all of our appliances when we’re not using them. It’s a fun project to work on with my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old.

This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.

But many enviros aren’t convinced that Clinton is at the head of the class on green issues, noting that she supports “clean coal” and, like nearly every other 2008 presidential candidate, pounds the drum for corn ethanol. Can she win the green lobby to her side? To get a feel for her chances, I caught Clinton by phone after a picnic on the Iowa campaign circuit.

For more information on her platform and record, check out this Clinton fact sheet.

What makes you the strongest green candidate? What sets your energy and environmental platform apart?

I believe my proposals for energy and environmental priorities are really well thought out and comprehensive. You know, I have been focusing on these issues for years. Obviously, I have been a child advocate for most of my adult life, and as first lady I focused on the environmental effects on children’s health. I have served, since I arrived in the Senate, on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am proud of the work that I’ve done to stand up against the Bush administration’s many efforts to weaken environmental laws.

I have worked to pass the Brownfields Revitalization Act and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. I’ve taken many actions specific to New York, like pushing for the Hudson River cleanup by GE. I have been very committed on health-related effects — that is why I’ve got legislation to try to deal with asthma and other respiratory diseases and to reduce pollution from power plants. Time and time again I have tried to protect public lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act to try and get back what my husband had done as president to protect the national forest system. I believe strongly in supporting the “polluter pays” principle, and I am going to work to try to reinstate that.

I have done a lot of other things that I care a lot about, but one final point I would mention is that early on in my Senate career I introduced bipartisan legislation to establish an environmental health tracking network, to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being. That was important when I began to tackle the toxic legacy of 9/11.

In the Senate, you have supported the goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Is this a centerpiece of your platform?

It is. I joined with Sens. [Barbara] Boxer and [Bernie] Sanders because I thought that their bill was the most forward leaning in terms of what needs to be done to deal with the threat of global warming, and I’m very proud to support their legislation.

And obviously I have my own proposals. I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would be funded by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America.

How would the funds be distributed among alternative energy sources — for instance, would they be weighted toward coal, ethanol, solar or wind?

My model is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which brought together the best minds in academia, business and government. It incentivized researchers and entrepreneurs to tackle the space program and the Cold War military challenges, and [eventually] led to the invention of the Internet.

What I want to do is not only look at existent, known forms of renewable energy and how we can move more quickly to commercial application and distribution for solar, wind and geothermal, but also look at other forms of biofuel and biodiesel. You know, let’s take a look at the internal combustion engine. Let’s figure out if there are some new ideas out there that would play to America’s strengths as we move toward less of a dependence on foreign oil and more homegrown energy.

What role will coal play in your plan?

I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove it one way or another.

The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal — of which we have a great and abundant supply in America — is not going away. So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards? It is not going to do us any good if we substitute one dirty energy source for another.

What about nuclear power?

I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear.

Do you believe we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade system?

There is a lot of interest now in figuring out what the most efficient and effective means of controlling and decreasing greenhouse gases would be. I’m looking for what will work and produce results. A cap-and-trade [program] can be designed and implemented in a number of ways. I would strongly favor using an auction for the allocation of the permits — an auction that would [sell] as close to 100 percent of the permits as possible [rather than giving a percentage of them away for free]. But I think that there are a number of other serious proposals. I will entertain what I think are the best proposals that are politically viable. We still face tremendous opposition from the Republicans.

Whatever we do, we have to do it soon. We can’t keep talking about it. If we can’t get to the endpoint soon with a comprehensive proposal, then let’s make as much progress as possible while we have a Republican president who is beholden to the oil companies and who is uninterested in taking action.

Would you oppose subsidizing any technology that would worsen global warming, even if it would advance energy independence?

Absolutely. I believe that it has got to be two for the price of [one], it has got to be a win-win. We can’t make the [global warming] problem worse. Now, obviously, you have to have waivers because of national security implications — because if terrorists go after our oil supply, we are going to keep figuring out where to find oil as we make a transition. It is always dangerous to say, “never” and “I will never do this.” But certainly, my goal would be to subsidize clean technologies just like we subsidized gas, oil and coal for years.

How would you balance the call for higher fuel-economy standards with the call to help the U.S. auto industry? What fuel-economy targets would you support?

I believe we need to increase our fuel efficiency in order to reduce global warming. I have supported a fuel-efficiency standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and I’ve supported a variety of proposals, including tax incentives and other approaches, to help ensure that the next generation of vehicles is much more efficient than the last.

Some people believe we should only commit to a global climate treaty if China and India do as well. Do you agree? How would you bring China and India to the table?

Global warming is a global problem that’s going to require a global solution. As president, I will work to involve both China and India. But I think it’s important for the U.S. to provide leadership by taking aggressive steps to reduce our contribution to global warming pollution.

After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?

The Bush administration has reversed decades of bipartisan consensus and progress on the environment by using executive action to weaken environmental safeguards in clean-air laws, clean-water laws and laws protecting our public lands. For example, the Bush administration issued regulations that allow power plants to emit more mercury pollution and changed the rules to allow discharge of untreated sewage. The administration has also worked to undermine one of the most important conservation accomplishments of my husband’s administration: his decision to protect nearly 60 million acres of the most pristine areas in our national forests. As president, I would restore these protections. I would tell my EPA administrator to protect the environment instead of polluters.

Who is your environmental hero?

You know, I have a great deal of respect for [former] Vice President Gore. He has been beating the drums and sounding the alarm of global warming for many, many years. He has never given up on his mission to try and raise awareness and to get the country to take action. I may not agree with everything he proposes — I don’t agree 100 percent with anything that any one person proposes — but I am certainly grateful to him for being such a public spokesman.

What is your most memorable wilderness or outdoor experience?

When I finished college, I spent a summer in Alaska, washing dishes at a lodge in Mount McKinley National Park [now Denali National Park] and sliming salmon in Valdez. America has an incredible natural heritage, something that I learned to appreciate early in life.

What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?

We have taken quite a few steps to make sure our house is as green as possible — common-sense and simple steps that everyone can take advantage of. For example, we have switched not only lamps to compact fluorescent light bulbs but also down lights, track lights and vanity lights. We’ve installed motion-sensor light switches so lights automatically turn off when there is no one moving in the room, and switched to buying our power from ConEdison’s green power program. We’re also reducing our demand for energy by replacing windows and doors to keep more heat and cold in. This has taken our total [kilowatt-hour consumption per year] from about 14,000 to about 4,300. We’re currently working with the Rocky Mountain Institute to determine how we can best incorporate solar energy into our home.

This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.

How committed is Edwards to his new green vision? To find out, I caught up with the candidate on his cellphone as he hurtled through the fields of rural Iowa in his campaign bus.

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

You were the first presidential candidate to call for reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, and you were the first to make your campaign carbon neutral. What inspired these pledges?

What inspired me is that the world is at crisis on this issue of climate change. It requires action now. I feel a personal responsibility and also a responsibility as a candidate for president to lead on these huge issues that face the country and the world, and there is none bigger than this one. Without American leadership, nothing will happen.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

I’m not waiting to see what other candidates say, or what the political climate is. I believe that you have to lead if you want to be president of the United States. That’s the reason I came out early with a very bold plan to address climate change. So I think if you want to know who is the most likely candidate to lead in a serious way on this issue, look at who is leading throughout the campaign.

Can you give some examples of what makes your platform stronger than other candidates’?

First of all, the 80 percent reduction by 2050 is aggressive. I think it is completely achievable, but it is clearly aggressive. So is the banning of the building of any additional coal-fired power plants, until and if the carbon-sequestration technology is available. And the plan to make America producer of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the planet.

The most central point I’d make is that all of us have to take responsibility in order to address an issue like climate change. The great movements in American history — and it is certainly true of the green movement — didn’t begin in the Oval Office, they began out here in America where people with convictions spoke out and stood their ground.

Your proposed ban on coal-fired power plants would cause a political firestorm. How will you push this through?

It’s like anything else: You have to make the case to the American people that it is the right and responsible thing to do. There will always be powerful interests that have a financial stake in the status quo; you just have to be a powerful advocate for America. It is our responsibility as stewards of the planet, and if America doesn’t lead on this, it is going to have devastating consequences to us and to our children.

Do you think we need a carbon tax?

Well, I think I accomplished the same thing in a different way. What I have proposed is capping carbon emissions in America, ratcheting the cap down each year to eventually achieve the goal of 80 percent reductions by 2050, and then auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases and using that money to change the way we use and produce energy in this country. I think it is just another mechanism for doing the same thing.

You’ve proposed a 40-mile-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2016. The auto industry argues this would cripple them. Can they hack it?

With the system I’ve proposed, they can. When we auction off the right to emit greenhouse gases, we will put a significant part of the proceeds toward helping automakers transition to the development of the most innovative and fuel-efficient cars on the planet.

What role should the U.S. play in crafting a new international climate agreement?

America’s responsibility is to clean up our own house in a very aggressive way, and as we are doing that then we have the credibility to go to China and India and the countries that are most crucial to developing a world response to this problem.

We — the great innovators that we are — need to make technology available to developing countries that will need it in order to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gases. China is building more than one coal-fired power plant a week and none of them are scrubbed, which will do incredible damage to the environment. America has to lead them in a different direction.

As president, would you support technologies that would worsen global warming even if they helped to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Technologies like liquefied coal? I am against liquefied coal. We cannot add to the damage that is already being done to the environment by using additional carbon-based fuels. I would come down on the side of making sure that America is doing what needs to be done about climate change.

Is Iraq a war for oil?

It’s a good question, but the answer would require getting inside of the head of George Bush.

The thing that I am certain is true is that our dependence on oil has an incredibly negative effect in trying to stop the forces of terrorism. It props up bad governments, particularly in the Middle East, who don’t educate their kids, don’t reform their governments, don’t economically develop, and in many cases are largely isolated from the rest of the world, and the main reason is because they are on drugs, and that drug is oil. So long as they are mainlining oil, they will never reform.

Which is why America needs to make a switch from our addiction to oil and carbon-based fuels to wind, solar, safer biofuels, and cleaner renewable energy, which will have positive impacts far beyond economic impacts. No. 1: It will create at least 1 million “green-collar jobs” in this country. No. 2: When we drive down the price of oil, it creates an environment where these countries that are mainlining oil all of a sudden have no choice, and they have to reform, they have to educate their kids, they have to economically develop.

On top of that, if you look at the consequences of America moving to develop biofuels, which are clearly crucial going forward, we have the landmass to support that here in America. But the Europeans probably do not, so they are either going to need to buy from us or develop their own capacity. And there is a very good chance that they will do that in Africa, in which case you help billions of people in Africa who have no means of helping themselves out of poverty. Which means the positive consequences of America leading on climate change are almost endless.

There’s concern in the environmental community over the impacts of corn ethanol. How will you structure policies to shift us away from corn ethanol and toward cellulosic ethanol?

The development of corn-based ethanol production and use now lays the foundation for the use of cellulosic ethanol in the future. By expanding the ethanol market, we build demand and infrastructure — such as biorefineries and distribution systems — that will be used for cellulosic production.

I’ll create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol, requiring 25 percent of chain gas stations to carry E85. I’ll also create a $13 billion-a-year New Energy Economy Fund to invest in renewable and energy-efficient technology, including new methods of producing and using ethanol, like cellulosic ethanol. To raise these resources, I’ll charge greenhouse-gas polluters for emission permits and repeal subsidies for big oil companies.

After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?

As president, I’ll work to reverse every harmful environmental executive order and regulation issued by the Bush administration. In my first year, two of my top priorities will be submitting legislation that strengthens the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and restoring the “polluter pays” principle in the Superfund.

What environmental achievement are you most proud of?

I am proud that I was the first presidential candidate to call for an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. And I’m glad that other candidates have followed me in adopting this call for change.

Who is your environmental hero?

You know, that’s a funny thing: Today, I actually think it is Al Gore.

How has your experience with the natural world shaped your view of environmental issues and your approach to environmental policy?

One wonderful thing about running for president of the United States is that you get to see all parts of America. I have seen all parts of it from oceans to forests to rivers to streams to farms. We live on this beautiful planet and I feel a huge personal responsibility to protect it.

If you could spend a week in a park or natural area of the United States, where would that be?

Probably the Appalachian Trail.

Describe your most memorable experience or adventure in the outdoors.

Though they worked hard, my parents found time to take us camping at Hartwell Lake in Georgia with our extended family. We’d all pitch a tent and go fishing on the lake. We loved it.

I’ve since been blessed to have the opportunity to share the outdoors with my own kids. In the summer of 1995, my son Wade and I climbed Mount Kilimanjaro. The climb was physically challenging, but eventually I joined Wade and our friends at the top. I’ll never forget the experience.

I think passing a love of the outdoors through generations is a great American tradition — a powerful reminder of our obligation to act as stewards. When we go hiking or swimming or camping or boating with our kids, we’re reminded of both the gift and the responsibility we’ve been given.

You have been criticized for building a large house. How do you reconcile that with concerns about consumption and energy use?

From the very beginning we were very energy conscious with this home, which is how we got a five-star rating, and it’s why we use solar to provide some energy. It is why [my wife] Elizabeth and I are committed to our home being carbon neutral, and our campaign being carbon neutral.

What kind of car do you drive?

We drive a Ford Escape Hybrid.

If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind would he be?

George Bush is like the dry brush in Crawford, Texas, and it’s time to clear the brush.

This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.

Murdoch’s climate conversion marks a major turning point for a man who has made campaign contributions to numerous conservative Republicans, including recently ousted Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Conrad Burns, R-Mont., both of whom have expressed skepticism about the reality of climate change. Now, a willingness to address the climate challenge will be a “litmus test” in his political giving, Murdoch said.

Still, Murdoch is hardly a sentimental do-gooder. “Acting on this issue is simply good business,” he said during the launch of his climate plan last week.

Whatever the motivation, News Corp.’s global reach is immense, and its grand climate plan could, if faithfully implemented, have a seismic impact that makes that of “An Inconvenient Truth” look like a tremor.

I sat down with Murdoch in his midtown Manhattan office after the launch to discuss how he came to embrace the climate cause, what he thinks of President Bush’s environmental record, and whether an action hero can drive a hybrid car. (Full disclosure: I have a book contract with HarperCollins, a News Corp. company.)

What motivated you to implement your climate plan? Was there a “conversion moment” when you realized this needed to be a priority?

I grew up in Australia, which is facing its worst drought in 100 years — that has struck a personal chord for me. I’ve read about the climate issue over the years, but I was probably a bit more skeptical than my son, James, who’s a complete convert, and who converted me. I saw what he did at [British Sky Broadcasting] and we said, well, let’s make it companywide.

So this is an example of younger-generation sensibilities trickling up?

Well, more twisting my arm, at first. But I’ve become more enthusiastic day by day. I don’t think there’s any question of my conviction on this issue — I’ve come to feel it very strongly. The more I’ve looked into it, the more I’ve been able to see what we can do, not just from an operations standpoint but by subtly introducing [the climate issue] into our content.

What do you intend to achieve with your climate plan, and how will you meet your goals?

We want to help solve the climate problem. We’ll squeeze our own energy use down as much as we can. We’ll become carbon neutral for our own emissions within three years, and be entirely transparent throughout the process, publicly reporting our reductions and offsets. But that’s just a start. Our audience’s carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours, so clearly that’s where we can have the most influence.

You’re known for making business-savvy decisions. What’s your bottom-line argument for your climate program?

Whatever it costs will be minimal compared to our overall revenues, and we’ll get that back many times over, by running a more efficient company and by growing morale among our employees. This program is a huge morale builder.

What’s the business logic of weaving the climate issue into your content?

From what we see within our own company and from reading polls, the younger generation gets the issue of climate change completely. I think it will grow our appeal to younger audiences and bond our programming to them.

What opportunities does it present from an advertising perspective?

There will be a lot of national and international marketers who will want to take advantage of the public mood around climate change. Car manufacturers are going to want to compete on fuel economy, for instance. It may not be the main thrust of their marketing, but we are certainly hearing from advertisers that they want to reach audiences on this issue.

Can you give some examples of how you’ll infuse this issue into your programming?

Oh, the opportunities are endless. We own SPEED [a cable channel focused on cars and motor sports], for example — that’s got 60 or 70 million homes it goes into. We can get a lot of green programming in there. We’re going to encourage this effort among the writers on all of our entertainment programming, whether it’s sitcoms or movies or reality shows. Then there’s the online arena, where we have MySpace, where we’ve already launched a channel dedicated to climate change. MySpace has got 175 million profiles on it, and that represents huge reach among the grass roots.

Do you worry that it will seem awkward to wedge the climate issue into your programming?

No, we’ve got to make sure it doesn’t happen that way. There’s got to be a certain degree of gradualism — it has to feel natural, it has to make sense. Can a hero drive a hybrid car? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But what about a biodiesel SUV?

In your speech, you said, “We want to inspire people to change their behavior.” Would you characterize this climate campaign as “activist media”?

There certainly is an activism element to it.

Might that complicate expectations of journalistic objectivity?

We’re known for saying what we think in our newspapers. But this will in no way compromise journalistic independence. We’re not a monolithic organization. We have on all our media outlets lots of columns representing many different sides.

But do you see Fox News and your newspaper outlets covering the climate issue differently as a result of this program?

Well, certainly giving it more attention. There will be more articles, more references, but the same broad range of opinions.

You said in your speech, “The debate is shifting from whether climate change is really happening to how to solve it.” Doesn’t that mean that the nature of the coverage would be changing, too?

Yes. I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life.

Some of the commentators on Fox News have expressed skeptical views about climate science — take Sean Hannity, for instance, or Bill O’Reilly. Have you heard any reaction from them to this program, or any backlash within News Corp.?

I haven’t discussed it with them yet. And, no, I haven’t heard any talk about it. Probably Sean’s first reaction will be that this is some liberal cause or something, you know? But he’s a very reasonable, very intelligent man. He’ll see, he’ll understand it. As will Bill — he just likes to get debate going between people. And that has its benefits — someone says, “No there isn’t,” someone says, “Yes there is,” and they have it out for 10 minutes and it’s entertaining and creates more consciousness.

You’ve been a longtime supporter of President Bush. What do you think of his climate strategy?

I’ve been a supporter and a critic of President Bush. I certainly supported his election. If you want my opinion, I think he’s a greenie at heart, but they keep having committees and talking about what they should do, in some cases instead of doing it. I think he’s a bad communicator; he should be getting out in front on this issue publicly.

But I think they’re doing a lot behind the scenes, with ethanol and corn, for instance. This administration has put a huge amount of funding going toward climate research, and doesn’t get any credit for it. It’s typical of Bush — I mean, he’s tripled or quadrupled the money going to Africa for AIDS, and you never hear him talk about it.

Will you support, going forward, politicians who are trying to block action on climate change?

No. I think that that would be a litmus test, almost. If you had someone who is totally opposed to doing anything about climate change, I would oppose them.

Would you want them to support a mandatory cap on carbon emissions?

I would agree with that, to an extent. We have to be careful not to make this country totally noncompetitive, because it would just throw tens of millions of people out of work. Or worse, cause us to have to write a lot of tariffs, which would throw tens of millions of people out of work in other countries.

Do you have a favorite in the 2008 race?

I don’t know who’s sailing.

No, I mean the presidential race.

Ah! I thought you were talking about the America’s Cup! [Laughs.] No, frankly I have fairly skeptical feelings about all of the candidates at the moment.

What are you doing on a personal level to reduce your carbon footprint?

Well, I got a hybrid car, which is a Lexus. It’s a great car, but, I confess, I haven’t learned how to read the dashboard yet!