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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Page last updated: Feb 06, 2014