An interview with Tom Tancredo about his presidential platform on energy and the environment

11 Oct 2007

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

Update: Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race on Dec. 20, 2007.

Tom Tancredo.

Photo: VictoryNH

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo -- best known for his zealous opposition to illegal immigration -- bills himself on his campaign website as "a solid pro-life, pro-gun, small government Republican." What's not mentioned on his site is anything about the environment or energy issues. (Considering that he's got a lifetime approval rating of 11 percent from the League of Conservation Voters, perhaps that's no surprise.)

But when asked about these issues, Tancredo makes a patriotic call for energy independence, just like the rest of the presidential contenders. And while he likes to joke that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is the last book of fiction he's read, Tancredo also pays lip service to a shift away from carbon-based energy sources and the withdrawal of subsidies from fossil-fuel energy. Still, his free-market-driven vision of America's energy future includes lots more coal mining and oil drilling, as well as nuclear power.

I caught Tancredo by phone while he was campaigning in New Hampshire and tried to get a better picture of how environmental goals fit into his conservative platform.

For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Tancredo fact sheet.

Listen to a clip of this interview:

You support a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb illegal immigration. Environmentalists have raised concerns that such a fence could be harmful to wildlife and the broader ecosystem in the area. Do you think this is a legitimate concern?

What is even more disturbing is the environmental damages caused by illegal aliens crossing the border. On average, an alien crossing the border will drop about eight pounds of trash on a one- to three-day journey. This amounts to hundreds to thousands of pounds of garbage left in an ecosystem completely unprepared for that type of pollution.

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

What do you see as the most pressing energy and environmental issues facing the nation?

We can take care of a couple of issues with one sort of strategy. If we successfully reduce our reliance on oil produced by countries that are dangerous to us -- and that's a good thing from a national-security standpoint -- you will automatically reduce the amount of carbon we produce in the United States. A major initiative to move away from carbon-based products would accomplish a great deal.

How do you envision such an initiative? Is this a priority for you?

Yeah, it certainly is, because it's a national-security issue, primarily.

I don't doubt that global warming is a true phenomenon. I'm saying the extent to which you can attribute it directly to man's actions, I think, is still at least debatable. But that doesn't matter if we move in the direction I'm saying.

So what can the federal government do? Besides investment in research and technology, which of course I think it must do, we could require, for instance, all federal vehicles to be alternative-fuel vehicles. A lot of things are happening right now as a result of the market, and I am, frankly, reluctant to tamper with the market to a great extent.

I've heard you say you trust the market far more than you trust government. If the market were a level playing field and all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what would happen to the renewable and alternative energy industries?

You would see the most efficient develop; the most inefficient would lag behind or not survive. I don't think that subsidies are a good way to go. Even now, the markets are already working. You look at the number of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles that are being purchased, it's really quite significant. Toyota took over GM's spot as the No. 1 auto producer in the world, and why? Something called the Prius.

Would you, as president, remove subsidies from fossil-fuel industries?

Yeah, I say remove subsidies, I certainly think that's appropriate.

However, R&D is a subsidy, and I would support efforts in research and development. We can obtain a lot more fossil fuels from things like shale, but it may require some R&D to find ways to make it cheap enough so that you can extract the oil from the shale.

I also think that it is appropriate for us to remove restrictions on the development of fossil-fuel resources within the continental United States and off of the continental shelf.

Again it goes back to national-security issues. What I'm trying to do is rely less and less on any sort of fuel from countries that are potentially very dangerous.

Would you fund R&D for emerging technologies like wind and solar?

Yes, and it can be broader than that. It can be R&D into biotechnology and biofuels. There are two reasons I am willing to do that: One, the national-security thing. The other is that we have OPEC, so there isn't truly a free market. You have to have some degree of government involvement in this because the OPEC nations can and do control the market to a certain extent. When emerging technologies become a threat to oil, OPEC can [flood the market with oil], driving the price down to make it impossible to compete, and that new technology goes down the toilet.

Can you clarify your take on global warming? It sounds like you think it's a problem but not necessarily one that's human-caused.

It may certainly be a phenomenon that's got nothing to do with the impact of humanity on the environment, or very, very little anyway. It may be a cyclic thing that we will simply have to deal with. I don't know. There's plenty of reliable research on both sides.

So I say, look, it really doesn't matter. The thing we must do is reduce our reliance on potentially violent countries. If in reducing carbon emissions we actually have a positive impact on this global-warming phenomenon, then great.

Do you support a cap on carbon emissions?

I really think there are a lot of problems with that, especially in terms of enforcement -- you are talking about the possibility of a lot of fraud. I'd look very skeptically at any type of cap-and-trade scheme. Let's put it this way: It's not impossible, but I'd be very skeptical.

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

We should encourage countries to rely on markets more than anything else to accomplish the goal.

You're a strong supporter of nuclear power in the U.S. What do you see as the advantage of increasing nuclear power?

I believe that we have developed the technology to where it is very safe. The biggest problem we have, of course, is with storage [of the nuclear waste]. We're having a hell of a time trying to get Yucca Mountain certified [as a waste-storage site]. In the meantime, we've got communities in Texas that are saying, "Let's do it here." Why? Because there are a lot of jobs involved, there's a lot of money involved. It's a great market-oriented solution. It also allows us to have an alternative fuel that is clean and plentiful. What more could you ask for?

So your waste-storage solution would be Yucca Mountain or a distributed storage plan?

Absolutely, we can keep looking at Yucca Mountain as the important place, but it's not the only place. There are already sites in Texas that we are working to try to open. It will happen. We will get the storage. It's all about supply and demand.

What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?

I think coal gasification, especially if we can perfect the in-ground storage of carbon. [Oil] prices are high enough now that it makes it feasible to move in the direction of coal gasification.

What about liquefied coal?

Same thing -- lots of it. Again, the trade-off there is the carbon issue. As you know, there's a lot of technology being developed to try and store the carbon.

What about ethanol?

Same thing. That's another point where markets will be helping to determine this, because at a certain point [ethanol] becomes less than efficient both in terms of the energy trade-offs that are involved and just the sheer cost. When you mandate a certain amount of fuel like we do now, it is an indirect subsidy. Subsidies for the creation of biofuels -- that's not something I'm crazy about, theoretically speaking.

There's growing belief among evangelicals and other communities of faith that we need to be stewards of the earth and protect the planet from global warming. What's your take on this?

I think it would be better for them to deal more directly with issues relevant to their communities of faith.

There are some Republicans in Colorado who have been disgruntled by the increased drilling for oil and natural gas in the state. What's your take?

John McCain [R]

Barack Obama [D]

Ralph Nader [I]

Cynthia McKinney [Gr]

Bob Barr [L]

I'm supportive of the drilling, especially [for natural gas] on the Roan Plateau. It's an important source of clean fuel, and the footprint is very small. Everyone wants to use the energy, everyone wants to claim that they are supportive of a greater environment -- and yet here when we can accomplish that, when we increase the use of coal-bed methane and natural gas and a variety of other alternatives to petroleum-based products, they are screaming, "Not in my backyard."

It's sort of the hypocrisy of the Kennedys, in a way. They talk about how much they want the rest of us to make sacrifices in order to accomplish [environmental] goals, but they are not willing to have a wind farm where they can see it from [Cape Cod].

We all have to accept the responsibility. I don't like it when states are talking about "you can't drill off of our coast" or "you can't drill here," but they have no reluctance about consuming all of the oil production that originates from the rest of America. There's a lot of hypocrisy there.

What environmental achievement are you most proud of?

My work on the Healthy Forests [Initiative] -- frankly, I think that's enormous. If we could begin to implement that in a more effective way, I think we could see a lot of really important developments, not the least of which is the reduced risk of major, catastrophic forest fires. Healthier forests are also healthy for the environment because they suck up out of the environment what we don't want, and produce what we do.

Who is your environmental hero?

I have none.

Can you talk about a memorable outdoor experience you've had?

I just got done with a competitive shooting event here in New Hampshire, outdoors. It was great! First you shoot trap, and then you move to a target range with a rifle, and then you move to a target range with a pistol. I finished all three a little bit ago. I did really well.

Do you enjoy hunting?

Yes, I do. A while back, Mitt Romney said he's been hunting all his life, but he just got his first license last year. I actually have been hunting all my life.

I had golden retrievers for years. You get mesmerized by them and sometimes miss a good shot because you're watching the dogs work. They're just wonderful. They're in their element, doing exactly what they were born for.

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

I actually love the grassland, the Pawnee National Grassland in northeastern Colorado. It's quite beautiful. I know most people don't think of grasslands as offering that kind of beauty, but to me they do. You just look over that sea of waving grass, and I think it is breathtakingly beautiful.

What have you done personally to reduce your environmental footprint?

I have a 2005 Prius. It's a great car. It also lets me drive in the restricted lane on the way to work.

Amanda Griscom Little writes about environmental politics and interviews green luminaries for Grist. She is a contributing editor for Outside magazine, and her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.

Comments: (7 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Tancredo: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I live in Colorado, Tancredo's home state.
That said, I am pleased to report that I am not represented by this clown in Congress. He's a jerk.

And I say that with all due respect.

Tancredo is a one-trick pony. His favorite three issues are, in this order: illegal immigration, illegal immigration, and illegal immigration.

Did I mention that Tancredo has also shown himself to be very passionate about the issue of illegal immigration?

Not that our sadly dysfunctional immigration policies in this country don't need to be fixed. They do. But Tancredo's policies seem to be driven largely by his xenophobia rather than rational concepts of reform. Believe me, this is not the guy you want trying to implement immigration reform.

But his environmental record is inspiring, eh? I mean, the dude supported the Healthy Forests Initiative [sic], for God's sake. This clearly marks him as one who is passionate about environmental protection. (Um, right?)

Tancredo represents a district which, if I can grossly overgeneralize, is more interested in low taxes, large roomy houses, and large roomy cars for their family with 2.6 kids than anything else. (Although, while Tancredo's constituents don't like to pay taxes, they don't seem to complain about all the taxpayer largesse that flows into their district via multi-million-dollar defense contracts with missle-builder Lockheed-Martin. I guess "sucking off of the gommint teat" is all in the eye of the beholder, eh?).

As much as I dislike Tancredo, I will make the one concession: massive immigration into the United States is, to a large extent, an environmental issue that the U.S. needs to come to terms with.

This statement may not conform to the politically-correct dogma of the left, but it is clear that population growth in the U.S. is a major cause -- if not the major cause -- of environmental degradation. I don't care whether that growth results from native reproduction, from immigration from Scandanavia, or from immigration from Mexico. As soon as possible, it's got to be slowed and, ultimately, reversed. Otherwise there will be little 'wild' left to save in North America.

Current projections are that the population of Colorado will double (double!) within something like 30 years. Yipes. That means twice as many people building homes in rural and semi-wild forest areas, twice as many people mountain-biking the foothills near Denver and Grand Junction, twice as many hikers in the backcountry, twice as much traffic on our highways. I see the wild areas of my state disappearing before my eyes, year by year. In a single generation. It's not a pretty sight. Never mind what things will look like in 'seven generations' -- that concept is simply too depressing to contemplate.

So, I'm all for immigration reform. But that reform needs to be sensitive to those who are already here and are ready to work hard. And it needs to make the businesses that exploit cheap immigrant labor responsible for their self-serving actions, rather than focus only the immigrants who get caught in the crossfire.

Unfortunately, Tancredo's approach achieves neither. To be true to his heart, maybe Tancredo should take his family back to the Old Country in Italy, and leave North America to the native North Americans ...

by GonzoDon at 9:11 PM on 11 Oct 2007

Tancredo

Need I remind readers that Tancredo actually suggested we Bomb Mecca and Medina? There's nothing green about that!!! There's nothing sensible about that!!! This man is a fascist.

by zacaroni at 7:01 AM on 12 Oct 2007

Tancredo

In response to GonzoDon's lengthy, yet unenlightening comment, I see Tom Tancredo as this country's only hope with respect to many issues: immigration, security, education, trade, taxes, economy and sovereignty! It continues to amaze me when seemingly educated adults resort to name-calling and labeling when posting comments for the world to see.

I, for one, can't imagine where G. picked up the term "one trick pony" - it's so original and full of meaning! In defense of Congressman Tancredo, using his logic, I'd have to label every other presidential candidate as "one flipping male donkey".

G. is correct is stating that our illegal immigration problem must be solved and those who employ illegals should be held accountable. Tom Tancredo focuses on employer sanctions nearly every time he discusses immigration reform. Yet I do NOT agree with G. that we need to be sensitive to those (illegals) who are already here and working hard. Need I remind G. every one of those who entered our country illegally or overstayed their visas, knew they were doing so UNLAWFULLY! Not one of them is sensitive to my rights as a law-abiding citizen. Not one of them is sensitive to our nation's constitution and laws. Not one of them is sensitive to American workers who find their wages being suppressed because of cheap, imported and illegal labor!

Tom Tancredo has the courage to attack this problem as it should be, from all directions and as most American WANT it to be: build the fence, fine employers who hire illegals, end birthright citizenship to babies born here of illegal parents, end sanctuary cities and states, stop handing out benefits to non-citizens and make illegal immigrants go back home, get in line and wait their turns to become a U.S. citizen.

Personally, I don't know much about Tom Tancredo's house or neighborhood, but, as a teacher, I'm sure he did NOT get paid for the job he did! And I can only imagine he doesn't quite live as high on the hill as Romney with his $250million, Giuliani with his $18-70million, Edwards with his $30million and the Clintons with their $10-50 million. GonzoDon, perhaps you should extend your bashing to some of those candidates, as well.

by proud2BTancsupporter at 8:54 PM on 12 Oct 2007

Get your facts straight Zarconi

Zarconi : If you're going to take the time to post a comment, at least take the time to make sure you post enough information to include the entire context of which you are posting. Congressman Tancredo was asked - if terrorists attacked several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, what would you do? Tancredo's response: after determining that it WAS the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you COULD take out their holy cities, as an act of deterrence.

You question Tancredo's response as being "sensible".
What word would you use to describe the scenario of our cities being hit by nuclear devices?

by proud2BTancsupporter at 12:12 PM on 13 Oct 2007

I have to admit

I have to admit that I did not read this article. That is because I am from Colorado and I know Tancredo well enough to know that no matter what he says about the environment, he's still a douche bag. Seriously.

by jessifromdenver at 7:47 AM on 16 Oct 2007

I've heard this one before

I notice that Tom Tancredo, (like many other people), defends the construction of an ecologically destructive barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border by pointing out that illegal immigrants (and their garbage) degrade the environment. To me, this is tantamount to saying that we must destroy wilderness areas along the border in order to save them.
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem-I'm saying that we don't need a "remedy" that's worse thank the "disease". Would we try to treat a case of gout by amputating the patient's feet? I don't think so.

Let the jaguars return!

by Storm Dragon at 4:40 PM on 17 Oct 2007

Jack-@$$.

When Tom Tancredo speaks, his words have a clear resemblance to mine... as I bullshit my way through an essay during a test I forgot to study for. Tom, please... stop. You're an embarrassment to everyone.

by rkmanatt at 12:34 AM on 19 Oct 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Tancredo on the Record

An interview with Tom Tancredo about his presidential platform on energy and the environment