Candidate Watch
Richardson: 'I Am the Greenest of Them All'
Bill Richardson on the campaign trail.
"I like to compete with other governors about which is the clean energy state. We are the only state that follows the Kyoto treaty."
--Bill Richardson, on the Stephanie Miller radio show, November 7, 2007.
The governor of New Mexico has a good record on environmental issues. But is he correct in claiming that his state is cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 1997 Kyoto protocol that the Bush administration has refused to ratify. And is New Mexico "the only state" that is "following" the Kyoto treaty? That seems quite a stretch.
The Facts
Let's look first at what the Kyoto protocol says, and what New Mexico is doing. The treaty establishes maximum levels of carbon emissions for different groups of countries. If the U.S. had ratified the treaty, it would have been required to reduce its emissions for the 2008-2012 period (averaged over five years) down to seven percent below 1990 levels.
After the Bush administration refused to ratify the treaty, states and cities around the country started setting their own targets. In 2005, Richardson issued an executive order that committed New Mexico to cut greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2012, and by a further 10 percent by 2020.
That is a laudable objective, but it is still a long way from meeting the targets established by the Kyoto protocol. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Richardson's Executive Order will cap carbon dioxide emissions in New Mexico at 48.6 million metric tons by 2012. In 1990, the state accounted for 33.9 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. In order to meet the Kyoto target, New Mexico would have to reduce its emissions by a further seven percent, to around 31.5 million metric tons.
To put it another way, even if the state meets the targets established by the governor, New Mexico will be producing nearly 50 percent more carbon dioxide emissions by 2012 than the Kyoto target for the United States. It is hard to square that harsh statistic with Richardson's claim that New Mexico is "the only state" in the nation that "follows the Kyoto treaty."
To be fair to both Richardson and New Mexico, there are some extenuating factors at work. As one of the fastest growing states in the nation, New Mexico clearly has a tougher time meeting the Kyoto target than states in the Northeast, whose population is either stagnant or declining. If the United States ratified the Kyoto protocol, it would commit itself to meeting the emissions reduction targets on a national basis, rather than a state-by-state basis. New Mexico is one of a handful of states that have taken the lead in cutting their carbon emissions.
"I would put them in the top ten," said Judi Greenwald, who tracks the performance of individual states for the Pew Center. "For a growing state they are doing a lot." Greenwald credited Richardson with "a leadership role" on the issue of global warming, but described as "incorrect" his claim that New Mexico was ahead of every other state.
A state-by-state comparison drawn up by the Pew Center shows that 17 states have so far established their own targets for reducing carbons emissions. California, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut are some of the states that can claim to be in the forefront of the "Green state" movement, together with New Mexico.
New Mexico environmental officials are more modest about their achievements than the governor. One official burst out laughing when I called the New Mexico Environment Department yesterday afternoon to check on the state's carbon emissions levels. She evidently found it difficult to believe that the Washington Post was interested in such a subject, but passed me on to the environmental and energy policy coordinator.
"I'm not sure we are ahead of California," said Sandra Ely. "But for the size of our state, we are doing exceptionally well."
Richardson campaign spokeswoman Katie Roberts did not attempt to defend the governor's Kyoto claim. Instead she pointed to a string of environmental initiatives, including "a strong new energy efficiency bill," higher renewable energy standards, "a hefty climate action plan", and tighter clean car regulations.
The Pinocchio Test
Bill Richardson has succumbed to the temptation of local boosterism with his claim that New Mexico, alone among the 50 states, is "following" the Kyoto Protocol. That statement is not true. It seems strange that a candidate with a generally good record on environmental issues should want to hype it even further. We would like to cut the governor some slack for his leadership on global warming, but we have to stick to our rating scale. Four Pinocchios.
Posted on November 9, 2007 at 6:00 AM ET
| Category:
4 Pinocchios, Bill Richardson, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Environment
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Ron Paul Faces $1.1 Trillion Budget Shortfall |
Next: Edwards vs. Clinton on Iraq
Posted by: The Angry One | November 9, 2007 08:23 AM
The column doesn't say that following Kyoto is a laudable objective. It says that reducing greenhouse gases is a laudable objective.
Posted by: Blarg | November 9, 2007 09:03 AM
It's implied that Kyoto is a laudable goal. Richardson's planned figures are "long way" from the Kyoto figures, so it is implied that Kyoto is a "more laudable" goal.
Not that the above matters much. What matters is that this news column is taking it for granted that the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases outweigh the costs. 95 senators thought otherwise (at least about Kyoto) in 1997; why?
Posted by: The Angry One | November 9, 2007 10:08 AM
"We would like to cut the governor some slack for his leadership on global warming, but we have to stick to our rating scale. Four Pinocchios."
What???? So, this was a "whopper", top of the scale? Have you even READ your rating scale Mr. Dobbs? Richardson's cheerleading sounds more like a standard garden variety "painting his state in the best light possible". If this is the top of the scale, there's no room for outright lies like Giuliani's fabricated prostate cancer numbers. I don't get it. One Pinocchio, two if you're just in a bad mood today. Four just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Michael the Random Fact Checker | November 9, 2007 11:06 AM
Angry One:
"What matters is that this news column is taking it for granted that the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases outweigh the costs. 95 senators thought otherwise (at least about Kyoto) in 1997; why?"
Because they all rely on millions in campaign donations from the fossil fuels industries to keep their jobs maybe? Because until recently Exxon had confused half of the public into thinking that global warming was a hoax maybe? Because they have no backbone, and fewer morals maybe? Because precious few of them ever talk to scientists maybe? How many reasons would you like? I can go on.
Posted by: Mark | November 9, 2007 11:12 AM
Kyoto is a horrible system for accomplishing a vital goal. Rather than trying to fix it, the Bush administration pulled out of talks altogether. This was under the pretense that it would just stunt economic growth. Now that we're seeing $100 oil, and the Europeans have taken the lead in developing the next generation of alternative energy technologies, this claim seems to be false. The administration clung to the ExxonMobil line that climate change could be naturally occuring, opted to "continue to study the issue," and proceeded to water down (and in some cases actually falsify) the results of this climate change research. As a consultant for several embattled EPA clean energy programs from 2003 to 2005, I was prohibited from even referring to climate change in public communications.
The most significant effect of all this is that China has been allowed to play the card that the biggest GHG emitter (us!) wasn't doing anything about climate change, so they wouldn't either. In the past few years, they have built literally thousands of cheap, ultra-polluting 1950's-era coal plants to power their massive economic expansion, rather than some combination of nuclear, wind, or even modern-era coal power plants. And they're getting the Europeans and Japanese to pay for upgrades of their filthiest facilities through Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism.
Now we're going to have to sign on anyway (which was inevitable), and, with the leverage the Chinese have over the dollar (owning half our multi-trillion dollar debt) and the supply of our goods, they'll probably have more say than we do over the final terms of the climate agreement.
Posted by: Josh | November 9, 2007 11:37 AM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Posted by: votenic | November 9, 2007 11:46 AM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Posted by: votenic | November 9, 2007 11:47 AM
Josh,
That's the most amazing thing I've heard - how come we don't ever read that Bush admin officials falsified some of the records pertaining to global warming? Is this widely known?
Posted by: | November 9, 2007 12:44 PM
Richardson obviously was trying to distinguish himself more severely on the "green front" from the rest of the candidates, but I think you were a little harsh on the judgment. Did anyone even bother asking Richardson what he meant by the comment?
I think 4 Pinocchio's was over the top. Can you really blame for trying to find a way to get people to notice his environmental record when he needs the votes fast?
Posted by: Masha | November 9, 2007 12:46 PM
YES! I completely agree with you Michael the Random Fact Checker. If him patting himself on the back is 4 pinocchios, than what on earth would you have given Bush on Iraq's WMD? I mean, is there some other agenda going on in this article or what? What happened to media neutrality? Would they have given this same rating to Obama or Clinton if they had said the same?
Posted by: Masha | November 9, 2007 12:52 PM
Gotta agree that 4 pinocchios is pushing it. Obviously there's exaggeration here, and one bit of seemingly 'outright' lie in richardson's use of the word 'only.' But as others have noted, you don't seem to have asked Richardson what 'meeting kyoto' meant despite the fact that you admit there is some leeway there, which means that saying 'only' may be stretching the truth as well.
To put it another way: if I just read Richardson's statement and your assessment that it was a "whopper," i would be left thinking that New Mexico has done little or nothing about greenhouse emissions.
Posted by: /b | November 9, 2007 01:52 PM
"the Bush administration refused to ratify the treaty ..."
Uh - not sure where you got your copy of the constitution, but the Bush administration (or any administration for that matter) can't ratify a treaty. It's up to Congress to ratify treaties - and as has been said, Congress never would have ratified this treaty. Maybe before you go off checking other peoples fact, you should get you facts correct.
Posted by: d | November 9, 2007 02:16 PM
I would point out that "whopper" is not exactly the most descriptive term ever. I find it odd that the Washington post would put such a designation after an article in which they themselves gave the governor and our state a great deal of credit. At worst, this particular statement falls under the criteria for Two Pinocchios; "Significant omissions and/or exaggerations."
The continued bias against Governor Richardson is not only offensive to a candidate who has - by almost any analyst's measure - the single best resume in the field, but is an affront to his supporters, his colleagues, and the entire state of New Mexico.
Posted by: New Mexico for Richardson | November 9, 2007 04:17 PM
Just quickly, in the Gov's defense (and in full disclosure I used to work for him), you make a mistake in your own 4 pinocchio rating. After the 2005 executive order establishing targets, he later adopted another executive order that accepted the specific targets and programs suggested by the climate stakeholders task force. He established the initial targets lower in recongnition that there were fewer years to meet Kyoto targets, but pushed the task force to see if it could devise sensible proposals that would meet Kyoto after all. Very few other governors even dared to establish targets like these. What the Gov did on Stephanie Miller was to abridge his two executive orders' targets and purposes. It's really not a big deal and it's unfortunate that the Post took it that way. If you read his recent book (Leading By Example, which again out of disclosure I helped him with) you will find by far the most comprehensive, integrated, and aggressive climate and energy program. That might deserve the Post's attention, rather than focusing on a minor verbal gaffe. The Post's failure to cover candidates not based in Washington is unfortunate for voters and the country.
Posted by: Ned Farquhar | November 11, 2007 05:57 PM
Gotta agree with the chorus of voices here. Governor Richardson might be stretching the facts (i.e. he's the greenest of all candidates, but not all states), but this isn't a whopper. WMDs in Iraq is a whopper. "Read my lips, no new taxes" is a whopper. "I never had sexual relations with that woman" is a whopper.
We are ONLY reducing our greenhouse gases by 50% rather than the slightly stricter Kyoto Treaty protocol sounds more like a "Some shading of the facts" to me.
Posted by: Expat Teacher | November 12, 2007 02:11 AM
Clinton can't win over Obama with her health plan, as the plan if fully unrealistic and very expensive. However, there are intensive mudslings against Obama, Edwards, and Romney on republican side. The slings are anonymous, but the choice of targets shows pretty well in the direction of Mrs. Clinton's campaign, as Obama and Edwards are two main rivals for the primary, and Romney is the very possible and non corrupted, in difference with some others, possible rival for general election. Clintonier should really become the noun for mud and dirt producers and slingers, should not it? By the way, mrs. Clinton has done a lot to increase Green Gases, or, at least, to prevent the implementation of the available remedy for this prevention. Those, who are interested to find out more, are welcome to visit my storefront - www.lulu.com/aepelbaum, to read books' previews there, to buy any, if they want, and to contact me for more explanation, if they will, as my contact information could be picked on my family's site - www.moscowtochicago.com.
Posted by: aepelbaum | November 19, 2007 11:07 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
A fine column overall, but a few nits on the background information:
"That is a laudable objective..."
Why? Compliance with Kyoto implies letting "developing nations" pollute at will. China, a gravely feared nation in WaPo columns about currency value or economic growth, amazingly rates as a "developing nation" too poor to comply with international pollution standards.
My sources (actually Wikipedia) say that Bush can't ratify the protocol, as the column complained. He can submit it to the Senate for ratification, which he has not.
That's no biggie, but it is unfair to single out Bush, when Clinton and the U.S. Senate of 1997 didn't ratify it, in fact the Senate voted 95-0 against it in a sense of the Senate vote.
America shouldn't ratify Kyoto because it's not in America's interests. It is not a laudable objective.