Source: San Francisco Chronicle
URL: http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2008/01/17/an-interview-with-sen-barack-obama/
Date: 17/01/2008
Event: Obama: "under my plan... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
Credit: San Francisco Chronicle
People:
[Partial transcript of Senator Barack Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board.]
Caille Millner: Caille Millner, one of the editorial writers. So Senator, you introduced a bill promoting coal to liquid fuels, and then you said you'd only support them if they emitted fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. Now, all the scientific evidence points to coal being dirtier than pretty much anything else. So how are you going to square your support for coal with the need to fight global warming?
Barack Obama: I've already done it. You know, I voted against the Clear Skies Bill - in fact, I was the deciding vote - despite the fact that I'm a coal state and that half of my state thought I'd thoroughly betrayed them, because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
But this notion of "no coal" I think is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal and China's building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is we have to figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And, you know, how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can't, then we're going to still be working on alternatives, but -
Caille Millner:Alternatives including coal, or other -
Barack Obama: Let me describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigours of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are placed, imposed every year.
So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, bio-diesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing that I've said, with respect to coal - I haven't been some coal booster - what I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying "If technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it". That, I think, is the right approach.
The same, with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don't know how to store nuclear waste wisely, and we don't know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it's wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But, I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine - and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue - what's the best approach to take, as opposed to us saying, at the outset, "Here are the winners that we're picking", and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
* * *
Marshall Kilduff: Senator, Marshall Kilduff, editorial writer. I had a question about the environment. Welcome to the smoggiest state in the union. Let's let California to pass some strict tailpipe rules, that the current administration is opposed to. I wonder what you might do, as President, allowing California to draw up its own rules.
Barack Obama: I will continue the tradition that started with the catalytic converter, where we let California lead the way. I like the idea of ratcheting up, not a race to the bottom, when it comes to some of these rules. My general attitude is: I always want the federal government to set the floor, but let other states be more aggressive in dealing with these issues. And California's historically led the way - that's been traditionally the attitude that both Democratic and Republican administrations have taken. This recent reversal, I think, is a mistake, and it's one that I would argue fiercely against. Now I'm going to try to catch up, nationally, to what you guys are doing locally, because I think it's the right thing to do.
Marshall Kilduff: Just to follow that, the President signed a package to raise the mileage rules to 35 miles a gallon in 2020. Is that about the right level, or -
Barack Obama: I would like it higher.
Marshall Kilduff: You'd like it higher?
Barack Obama: I would like it higher. Look, you know, I was - I was up at Mountain View, at the Google campus, and they were showing off a plugin hybrid that, I think, got 150. We can do better. We can do better. We can push harder. You know - and I'm not averse to giving some help to the auto industry in making some of the transition. But this is a big, important measure that has to be taken. If we could get it just up to 40, we'd save the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf. You know, that is a goal that's important, not just for climate change, it's important for our national security and our economy.
Marshall Kilduff: Well, we might get into your powers of persuasion and experience, here. Is that going to be achievable, to really promise something like 40 miles a gallon, when this 30 mile a gallon level was such a battle to get to?
Barack Obama: Well, you know, my instinct is that the American people are increasingly mindful of the costs that are associated with a bunch of gas-guzzling. And, you know, this is - this is part of the question of leadership, that I think is so critical, and part of the argument that Senator Clinton and I have on many of these issues.
The problem is not technical. And the problem is not, uh, you know, sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is: can you get the American to say "This is really important", and force their representatives to do the right thing. That requires mobilising a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate change is a great example. You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal - uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants, natural gas - you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that money on to consumers.
They - you can already see what the arguments are going to be during the General Election. People will say "Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they're gonna destroy the economy, this is going to cost us $8 trillion", or whatever their number is. If you can't persuade the American people that: yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term - because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy - that the economy will benefit. If we can't make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington - you're not going to get that done.