Bill Richardson in Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson
On Energy & Oil:
States have addressed global warming; now feds should too
No challenge is greater or more important than gaining energy security and addressing threats to the earth as a whole. But my approach is to be candid about your challenges without saying the sky is falling.
We should recognize the mistakes we have made getting to where we are, and I particularly fault the president and the
Congress for their failure to act responsibly in recent years, while crediting the states and cities and other nations who have worked hard to reverse direction on energy and climate issues.The American people do not need or deserve scolding.
They are ready to change. They want a better future. And they see possibility and opportunity--not the grim and fearful scenarios painted by people who do not accept the idea that we need to change.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 19-20
Oct 26, 2007
On Foreign Policy:
At UN,embraced Clinton’s vision of international cooperation
Ten years ago I was the US Permanent Representative at the UN, known as our “UN Ambassador.” When I came to the UN, I saw an opportunity to help Pres. Clinton with his strong vision for international cooperation and US leadership in a world increasingly
trending toward democracy and human rights (despite some obvious exceptions).President Clinton’s general principles on world affairs earned enormous respect around the world. He was seen as a both a leader and team player. The vision of stable
nations working together to bring peace to troubled nations seemed to be within our grasp. The US was respected around the world, and working at the UN meant making new friends--not new enemies, as we have seemed to do in more recent years--in our
concerted program to maintain world peace, protect human rights, and support civil government around the world.
I was excited about the opportunity to use my background in foreign affairs, energy, and Congress to support his international program.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 21-22
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Hydrogen cars only in 30 years; need plug-ins & hybrids now
Hydrogen vehicles are not quite ready for market yet, owing to all the expensive and as yet imperfect technology, as well as the demand for a whole new transportation infrastructure to produce, refine, transport, store, and sell hydrogen.
They are a 30-year solution to a five-year problem. That’s why my own view is that the President and others should quit talking about the hydrogen car and instead emphasize new gas-saving technologies that could be in the market within a few years.
The time will come for hydrogen, but plug-in and hybrid vehicles are a first step toward needed short-term progress.In 1997, for most Americans, the idea of hybrid electric cars or hydrogen cars, seemed about as likely to catch on as jet packs
or personal space ships. Yet, ten years later, Americans have accepted hybrid technology with open arms. Tax incentives have helped, but the largest incentive has been the rising price of gasoline.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 29
Oct 26, 2007
On Homeland Security:
Qaeda targets oil infrastructure until we wean ourselves off
Bin Laden makes a point of targeting oil infrastructure because he knows what kind of devastating impact he can have on the world’s economy, even on the fundamentals of the global market system, by attacking oil. It’s energy and oil terrorism.
He knows we are dependent on foreign oil, and that our economy remains more oil-intensive than other developed nations’ and that the US suffers more than most countries when oil prices rise.
Taking the long view, bin Laden believes that the US is not only vulnerable to volatility in oil prices, but also that it lacks the discipline and vision to wean itself off oil.
Bin Laden knows the US is a sleeping giant--one he wrongly believes will never wake up. He thinks we can’t change.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 32
Oct 26, 2007
On War & Peace:
UN pressure in 1997 kept Saddam from restarting nuke program
In November 1997, after months of wrangling between Saadam and weapons inspectors, my team and I worked closely with the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Iraq for defying inspectors. Every member voted for the resolution.
The Bush administration thinks that using military power is the way to solve the world’s problems. Yet our experience in 1997, working multilaterally to contain Saadam, brought us together with other nations. We employed force in a strategic way,
in collaboration with our allies, patrolling Iraq’s skies and the Persian Gulf. Today, instead, having used force almost unilaterally to invade Iraq, and having conducted the war and reconstruction so badly, we are isolated. As a result,
Iraq is in civil war.
In 1997, we sent a very clear message to Iraq that you have to back off, you have to start behaving, and there are going to be consequences unless you do. International cooperation worked better than unilateral action.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 34-35
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Opposes gas tax: it burdens everyday people
For decades, politicians protected the American people from a gasoline tax proposed by some as a means to fund alternatives that would have created energy price competition and alternatives.
I don’t support a heavy-handed gas tax because it would put the burden mostly on the backs of the everyday people who keep the country running.
It wouldn’t be fair and it could lead to serious economic problems all the way from households and small businesses and farms to the gross national product and our rate of economic growth. Yet what has happened without the gasoline tax hasn’t been
fair either. Instead of paying a gasoline tax or bringing alternatives to market in a more practical way, Americans have had to pay far more to the oil companies, with demonstrably negative progress in reducing our oil dependence.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 48-49
Oct 26, 2007
On Corporations:
Corporate role is profit, not protecting national interests
The international oil companies are now a superpower just as nations once were. We cannot depend on them to bail us out. These corporations have been doing their job, and very well. It is not their job to take care of the US; it is not their job to find
& develop alternative energy sources, or to spread freedom & democracy. It is not their job to defend our nation’s oil interests overseas, or the shipping lanes such as the Persian Gulf that are so critical to both the world trade in petroleum & the
stability of oil prices & the world economy.Their job is to make profit & pass it on to shareholders. That is the beauty of our economic system. It is a model that has built progress & prosperity around the globe, raising the standard of living &
fulfilling the hopes & dreams of billions.
But that model cannot protect US national interests, either at home or abroad. Congress, the states, & the president have responsibility for that. It is a critical responsibility that they haven’t lived up to.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 52
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Regulated utilities can profit by “selling efficiency”
Why would coal companies oppose electrical efficiency? Coal companies make money when they sell coal. So protecting profit means opposing efficiency.Utilities that are regulated aren’t concerned about protecting coal as long as they make money. With
decoupling, a policy that allows companies to sell efficiency and price electricity so that pricing encourages conservation, the utilities make money by being efficient & selling energy. That is the basic distinction that separates the utilities from the
coal companies: while the utility market can be restructured to allow utilities to profit from conservation, coal companies can profit only when they sell coal.
Those governors who are most responsive to coal companies are most threatened by efficiency
carbon-clean technology, & renewables. A similar dynamic occurs when we talk about using coal to produce transportation fuel substitutes by a process called “coal to liquid” that would almost double climate-changing carbon emissions from liquid fuels.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 66-67
Oct 26, 2007
On Foreign Policy:
US can inspire world with sacrifice instead of arrogance
The Bush administration has burned up the goodwill that the world once had for us. Many have been calling our recent international actions and attitude “arrogant.” Real leadership is never arrogant. It is inspiring, it is positive, and it’s strong--never
blind or deaf to the world’s concerns as we address our own.One of the great failings of arrogance is that it fails to inspire others. Why would the rest of the world want to follow an America that won’t inspire, that won’t sacrifice?
As a nation, we have sacrificed our young men and women in Iraq, but the President hasn’t called on the American people to sacrifice in the national interest--the war, for instance, is a credit-card purchase. It’s different from the first
Gulf War, when we collaborated with dozens of countries not only to provide armed forces but also to join in paying the costs. Sacrifice and inspiration are part of America’s image internationally, and how we think of ourselves too.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 71
Oct 26, 2007
On Homeland Security:
Ignoring Nuclear Test Ban creates world distrust
The Bush administration tossed aside the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our message to the world: We can be trusted to create any kind of weapon of mass destruction we want. Most of the world,
I believe, trusts the US to manage its nuclear arsenal carefully and responsibly, and they are resigned to the fact that we will control a large arsenal of highly destructive weapons.
Yet they also want us to abide by accepted rules for testing, for development of new weapons, for balancing our strength against other nations’. When we step out of standing agreements, and begin developing new weapons on our own, the world loses faith.
Why are we the arbiter of who can own or design weapons of mass destruction? People who don’t trust the US can’t answer that question.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 73
Oct 26, 2007
On Foreign Policy:
US is isolated; need vision to rejoin world
I’ve never seen the US as isolated, as alone, as it finds itself today.The polls from most nations, including some of our closest allies, show that approval & trust of the US is at an all-time low. It’s not just that the US has abdicated its leadershi
role as the leader of the free world. It’s also unsettlingly true that our leaders have alienated people around the world.
I don’t believe this is a situation that will take long to correct. The people of the world want to believe we are responsible &
compassionate, that we are committed to freedom and basic rights, and that we want to participate constructively in world affairs. Visionary leadership and visionary action to implement a new role for the US, will turn the situation around quickly, and
America will find itself surrounded by friends and allies once again.
The key to regaining our leadership role will not be the war on terror: it is the creation of a new energy future that provides hope and prosperity for the US and other nations.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 76-77
Oct 26, 2007
On War & Peace:
Multilateral security with Iran; instead of saber-rattling
Today some speak of “keeping all options on the table” with respect to Iran, translating to saber-rattling and the possibility of military action or even invasion of Iran. We have already had two wars in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region in the past
15 years.My view is that the US should work closely with Persian Gulf nations, with our allies, and with UN Security Council members to create a multi-lateral security arrangement for the Persian Gulf.
No region in the world demands more international attention. We need to have dialogue with Iran, not just close our eyes and shake our fists.
It is in Iran’s interest, as well as Saudi Arabia’s and the other
Arab states’, to move oil safely through the Straits of Hormuz. It is the one interest, putting aside religious and cultural differences, that might constructively engage those nations with each other.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 80-82
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Iran & Russia are exploring natural gas control like OPEC
Iran, along with Qatar, Russia, and other gas-producing nations, is exploring the concept that there should be an international gas cartel like OPEC is a cartel about oil. I warned about this kind of threat to natural gas markets in 2004.
OPEC leaders applied an oil embargo against the US that plunged our economy into a recession, created inflation throughout the economy, created hours-and miles-long gas lines. That was in the winter of 1973-74.
A second oil price hike later the same decade had similar effects.
So, discussions about a natural gas cartel should cause concern. The growth of liquefied natural gas technology has the potential to turn a mosaic of regional natural gas markets
into a single global market. If the creation of an international gas cartel succeeds, the world could be subject to price and supply disruptions and the leverage of natural gas toward politically divisive projects.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 84-86
Oct 26, 2007
On Free Trade:
Communism is teaming up with corporations to open up China
Today we say that communism is dead, but it is successfully teaming up with corporations, in places like China.There are few areas at which communism is more efficient than capitalism, but one is ruining the environment. It took the US capitalist
free-market economy hundreds of years to achieve the same levels of environmental destruction that China, at its current pace, will achieve in about 20.
China’s economic officials predict that China will build another coal-based electric-generating
unit every week for the next decade. Why would China decide, on its own, to use more expensive, climate-friendly, carbon-clean technologies? Especially when it sees the US refusing to adopt carbon limits and expanding its own carbon emissions every year?
We must find a way, not only to agree with China and India on the technologies, energy investments, and emissions limits that will create some future security for our climate, but also to assure them that they will have the energy they need.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 89-92
Oct 26, 2007
On Technology:
Subsidize inter-city rail--it works in New Mexico
I have instituted commuter train in the central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico, connecting cities north and south of Albuquerque and now headed toward a connection between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
The New Mexico Railrunner, which runs on conventional tracks that we bought from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, has been a success.
It is subsidized, as all forms of public transportation must be, but it is attracting transit-oriented development nearby as well as a large number of passengers who welcome the opportunity to commute by rail instead of by individual car.
My investment in “park-n-ride” busses between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, while we work on an efficient rail connection, has been standing-room only. People who have said westerners won’t use public transportation are nuts.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 98
Oct 26, 2007
On Environment:
Invest in bike lanes & commuter bike facilities
European nations are continuing to invest in bike lanes and facilities. While Congress is funding “bridges to nowhere” in its huge, pork-laden annual highway bills, cities in Europe are working to get beyond car culture. It seems inconceivable that the
US would implement a strategy to get people onto bikes, even though they are healthy, affordable, eco-friendly and a great alternative to vehicles. But isn’t this something we should consider along with public transportation and more efficient vehicles?
Places like London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Paris have wet winters, like many of our cities. Yet people bike and are happy about it. There are bike lanes so riders don’t have to worry about car conflicts. There are huge bike parking lots near train
stations and commercial centers. This kind of investment makes tremendous long-term sense. I won’t accept the shibboleth that Americans won’t ride their bikes to work. If they could do so safely and conveniently, many would commute by bicycle regularly.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 99-100
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Energy incentives are just anti-government ideology
The President has stated that he will oppose mandates that would limit emissions. His policy is based entirely on incentives. It is doomed to failure. Incentives are important, but they don’t work unless they have some teeth in the form of requirements.
That was the experience of the European Union when it adopted voluntary fuel economy standards affecting Europe’s car industry. The industry fell far short. Same here in the US. Opponents of renewable electricity requirements say incentives will work.
But incentives have gotten wind and solar to the point where they command only 1% of the electricity market--not the 30% that is necessary for us to begin working toward a sustainable future in the next ten years.
Industry and investors have little or no reason to buy or produce more efficient technology without the power of mandates. To announce a global warming strategy based on technology and incentives is no more than a dream.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.102-103
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Supernova of clean energy policy in New Mexico
New Mexico has done more, faster, than any state ever, to address clean energy, energy efficiency, and climate change. We have done it in a supernova of clean energy and efficiency policy. The list [includes]:- Energy efficiency: a new law in 2004
that finally required the utilities to start planning for energy efficiency.
- Green building: requiring state agencies to use green building practices that cost a little more but save money and energy in the long run.
- Renewable energy: a requirement
for utilities to use renewable power, now requiring 20% renewables by 2020.
- Transportation: a new commuter rail line that will soon connect Albuquerque and Santa Fe. We eliminated the sales tax on hybrid cars.
- Renewable fuels: increased the
biodiesel percentage in diesel fuel.
- Incentives: more than matched the federal incentives for installing solar collectors & solar hot water heating.
- Overarching climate change action: I adopted strict targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.105-107
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Climate change cynics don’t consider cost of inaction
Cynics about climate change--people who don’t believe that change is happening or that we’re contributing to it or that we can afford to make changes--have not considered the price of inaction. Likewise, I don’t believe they have considered the affordabl
costs of developing & implementing alternatives to oil & coal.Americans pay the price of inaction every day at gas pumps. As sea levels change, droughts extend, and famine and disease spread, they will pay the price of inaction sometime in the future.
Sadly, future generations will pay the price for that cynicism so characteristic of the President’s policies. These cynics ignore the value of a healthy environment, a diverse and competitive energy economy, and converting petrodollars to jobs & energy.
They ignore the value of energy efficiency, both in saving money and energy today and in protecting against price spikes.
Worse, they cynically advance policies that are at best half-measures, and at worst diversions from the real change we need.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.121-122
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
50-mpg cars by 2020 even if it costs $6000 per car
I reject the car companies’ & oil companies’ arguments that higher fuel economy raises costs for customers. Standard and Poor’s said that my proposal to increase fuel efficiency to 50 mpg by 2020 would add as much as $6,000 to the cost of an average car.
First, I think that number is wildly inflated. But even if it were accurate, getting twice as many miles per gallon equates to a great fuel savings. That savings, with prices around where they are today, would keep about $1,000 in the average driver’s
pockets every year. If fuel prices go up, the savings would be even greater.Even if it did cost $6,000 more for the car, and then $6,000 less for gas, that would mean extra money going to American auto workers instead of the oil-controlling nations
and companies. All Americans need to start thinking that way. You can call it sacrifice, or investment, or robbing Osama to pay Paul, but it’s the mindset we have to have. We can invest in ourselves instead of the oil industry and oil despots.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.124-125
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
Carbon auction: use market to make emitter pay for emissions
We need to build a market in which it costs to emit global warming pollution. We need to manage the carbon market.Now, carbon emissions have no economic consequences except to benefit the individual emitter who gets to sell a produce or service.
In that sense society is subsidizing not only climate change, but the emitter’s individual business decision.
The formula needs to be reversed. Carbon emissions must cost the emitter.
Once this step is taken, there will be a different type of economic race--no longer a race to the bottom, a race to produce and sell more products regardless of their carbon impacts, but instead a race to the best, most affordable options that
reduce carbon emissions.
I propose the concept of a “carbon auction.” The tents are simple: it will cost to emit carbon, and the aggregate amount of carbon pollution rights will diminish year-to-year.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.131-132
Oct 26, 2007
On Corporations:
Government is needed to keep markets competitive
In properly functioning markets the hardest working and most innovative companies win, and the weakest lose. The goal of government is to keep the dynamic going & protect the innocent. But we also play a role in government that the market players do not:
trying to assist with competition and choice that is anathema to those who dominate any industry. It’s why Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts; it’s why we have the Federal Communications Commission to oversee the use of our airwaves; and it’s why we
regulate weights and measures at gasoline pumps. People in industry don’t necessarily like it. But it’s necessary.When oil prices rose to what seemed unimaginable heights in 2000, I thought there was a further role for government. As Energy Secretary,
I felt it was my duty to act, to try to bring prices back into a safe and stable range.
I had four areas I could take the initiative: talk to OPEC; get more domestic oil; use the Strategic Petroleum reserve; and assist the hardest-hit Americans.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.147-148
Oct 26, 2007
On Foreign Policy:
Jaw-boning is a non-military way to get things done
When oil prices spiked in 2000, it was critical, as the US Energy Secretary, for me to show oil producers that we were not going to accept sharp price increases. The Saudis weren’t pleased that I embarked on what some people called a “jaw-boning” mission
to seek Saudi & OPEC production increases that could mitigate the sudden price spikes.Jaw-boning isn’t military, it isn’t regulatory, it isn’t strategic. It’s a tactic we use to change perception, to create publicity or a sense of obligation,
& to begin signaling that we are starting to take action.
The Administration has refused to jaw-bone on oil prices, saying it prefers private dialogue with oil producers. My view is that jaw-boning can’t really be effective unless it’s public. The pric
of oil is about triple what it was when Bush took office. My jaw-boning effort was successful. Oil prices settled back down by the end of 2000, as we were leaving office. Our actions to secure northeast heating oil supplies in the late summer paid off.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.148-151
Oct 26, 2007
On Government Reform:
Use regulated free market for food, drugs, land, & energy
As a market-oriented policy maker, I believe that the best approach is for government to set conditions and let the private sector compete for business. However, when common interests, such as the clean water or public lands, are at stake, there must be
rules and standards. This is how we operate our economy across many levels. For example, the Federal Reserve regulates the money supply. Similarly, we regulate what foods and medicines are allowed in the US marketplace through the FDA.
We might have the greatest “free market” in the world, but we are increasingly sensible and practical about the basic rules we apply in that free market. It’s time for us to learn how to use and improve existing energy markets. Why?
- Because our
individual interests in energy use have misserved the national interest in energy independence.
- We need to “intervene” in the energy markets because the types of energy we have become most reliant on are also the most damaging to the atmosphere.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.176-178
Oct 26, 2007
On Principles & Values:
The New Realism: end policy based on unilateralist illusions
I often talk about the New Realism. This administration’s lack of realism has led us to a dangerous place. We need to take a different path, one past on reality, not unilateralist illusions.
As a nation, we must understand that the gravest dangers that threaten us today do not threaten only us--and that therefore to pursue our national interest and meet these challenges, we must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between.
It will be a path not of hard words, but of hard work, and a path of moral strength, not pious judgments.
We will need strong diplomacy, backed up by a strong military and alliances. This is the path of American leadership.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.195
Oct 26, 2007
On Free Trade:
No such thing as completely free market; so regulate
Generally, trade helps nations & people understand each other better. Trade levels the economic playing field. But it is crucial to make sure our trade agreements require fair labor practices and basic environmental safeguards.If China can fairly make
shirts cheaper than Americans, we’ll need to make something we’re better at making. But if the Chinese shirt is cheaper only because their workers make sweatshop wages and the owners pour chemicals into local rivers, we can’t go along.
I’m not sure a
lot of the advocates of free trade understand the difference between free & fair trade. All goods cost something to make, but it matters what gets calculated in the cost: whether it’s raw materials, or human rights, or the cost of defending oil transport
routes, or damage to the environment.
In the real world, there is no such thing as completely free trade. All trade needs to have regulatory sideboards to prevent a cost-reduction competition via the exploitation of people and the environment.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.205-206
Oct 26, 2007
On Energy & Oil:
2020 Vision: An energy revolution in 5 simple steps
Following are the broad goals of my energy & climate policy, [which I call] “2020 Vision: An Energy Revolution in 5 Simple Steps”- Goal 1: Reduce oil dependence by as much as 50%
2020 Vision (oil):- Plug-in cars
- Fuel-economy standard
for conventional cars all the way to 50 mpg
- A 30% reduction in the carbon impact of our liquid fuels
- Smart growth and transportation
- Goal 2: Efficiency and renewables in our electricity and natural gas markets
2020 Vision (gas &
electric):- 30% renewable electricity by 2020
- Improve energy efficiency by 20%
- Require carbon-clean investments for new power generation
- Goal 3: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 20% by 2020, and 90% by 2090 by implementing
a market-based cap-and-trade system
- Goal 4: Nurture & invest in science and technology [by ramping up energy research]
- Goal 5: Lead by example [by breaking our oil addiction in negotiation with the world].
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.213-230
Oct 26, 2007
On Technology:
Nurture & invest in science and technology
[As one of my goals of my “2020 Vision” energy & climate policy, we should] nurture & invest in science and technology. Picture a world in which America is the main engine of global innovation and ingenuity. We have the world’s best-trained intellectual
and academic base. At America’s colleges, at its national laboratories, and among its most vigorous entrepreneurial and investment communities, there is a vital new enthusiasm and commitment to meeting our energy and climate challenges.
Actually, that is a picture of the world in 2007. Luckily we ramped up investment in research & technology and kept our leadership position, which seemed threatened by the politics of energy & climate change during the dark days of the early 2000s.
- Make a one-time investment in a new Energy & Climate Investment Trust Fund
- Fund ongoing energy & climate research at universities and agencies.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.228
Oct 26, 2007
On Principles & Values:
Lead by example by climate negotiations with the world
[As one of my goals of my “2020 Vision” energy & climate policy, we should] lead by example. Picture a world united around the concepts of reversing climate change trends and reaching for a safe and secure energy future. In this world the US is no longer
the lone ranger. Instead, it leads the world by example--reducing its own voracious demand for oil, sharply cutting back on its greenhouse gas emissions, working closely with allies to implement energy & climate agreements that recognize our national
interests and those of other nations. In the process, we will strengthen the economy & rebuild America’s future.2020 Vision to Lead by Example- Back to the negotiating table, toward mandatory international emissions limits.
- Invigorate and
motivate the North American Energy Council.
- Work to finance the small incremental cost for developing nations to adopt low-carbon technologies and options.
- Work to stabilize the defense of international oil and gas transportation routes.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p.230-234
Oct 26, 2007
Page last updated: Feb 06, 2014