Richardsonmania

I attended a big speech by Bill Richardson, the unknown candidate, this morning where he put forward an extremely ambitious energy and climate change agenda that, I believe, will also be released in greater detail on his website soon. I also got a chance to talk to Richardson a bit before the speech and, of course, the trick with something like that is that almost all even moderately successful politicians are pretty charismatic, but nonetheless he seemed very impressive.

I particularly liked his insistence on the idea that most people underplay the role of transportation and land use policy in the energy puzzle. This was appealing because it's what I already thought, but Richardson said it totally unprompted, and it's true. More fuel efficiency is good, and more renewable energy is also good, but we're also going to need people to drive less. And that's going to mean that we'll need policies that make it realistic for people to do so -- mass-transit, but also transit-friendly, high-density constructions.

At any rate, if you've been following this blog you'll know I'm not really much of an environmentalist in my gut. But when you look at it, whatever's in your gut, it'd still be really nice for the world not to perish in cataclysmic climate change in the 2060s and that's going to require dramatic policies. Richardson's ambition on this score is particularly noteworthy because he isn't much of a lefty on domestic issues generally -- he had a pretty conservative, business-friendly record in New Mexico. That leaves his priorities clear. He told reporters after the speech that on his first day in office the troops are coming out of Iraq (presumably, in practice, this would take more than one day to execute) and then on the second the energy mandates start coming down.

Comments

The reason it's underplayed is because it will be the most intractable of part of the energy question. We've constructed a whole way of life around the car, suburban and exurban housing to be precise. What sort of Federal policy is going to address this? Land use policy is largely a municipal matter, and transportation policy is largely set regionally, although the Feds do act as banker on that issue.

Kudo's to Richardson for recognizing it as a key part of the problem...

Posted by hebisner | May 17, 2007 11:20 AM

A Big Media Matt moment.

Hope you have questions for Hillary! ready when you get a ride on her plane.

Posted by otto | May 17, 2007 11:43 AM

"....we're also going to need people to drive less. And that's going to mean that we'll need policies that make it realistic for people to do so -- mass-transit, but also transit-friendly, high-density constructions."

No one with a serious interest in addressing global warming or foreign dependence on oil would dispute this premise. The problem is that up until now, it's been--as you know--a political non-starter.

Whether any of Richardson's positions (or even any of Edwards') get any coverage in the media between now and the primaries is still an open question. I'm not optimistic--I'm predicting we'll be get nothing from the MSM for the next year but spin-and-personality reports on Obama and HRC.

Posted by James Gary | May 17, 2007 11:47 AM

Richardson is in many ways the most attractive candidate in either party, but one warning; anybody displeased (and what sensible person is not?) by Bush's cronyism is not going to be impressed by Richardson's record in this area. Some of it no doubt simply comes with the reality of being a politician from New Mexico, a state with a rich history of these practices, but lifetime professional habits are rarely abandoned.

Transportation policy is an area where cronyism and backscratching also has a rich history, so it is something to pay attention to.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 11:50 AM

No one with a serious interest in addressing global warming or foreign dependence on oil would dispute this premise. The problem is that up until now, it's been--as you know--a political non-starter.

Right. Which was why it was cool to see a politician want to talk about it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 17, 2007 11:55 AM

Well, that's just it, Mr. Gary; how does one get elected by proposing policies which are manifestly unpopular? I mean, I have a long list of things which I think would improve our society, but I also know that a large majority of the electorate begs to differ, so none of it is going to happen. In a political culture in which the price of gasoline plays a large role in the relative popularity of Presidents, it will take some extremely agrressive horsetrading, possibly threatening the interests of other important constituencies, to get people out of their cars by significant measure.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 11:57 AM

Like Matt, I got the chance to meet Richardson in person and I can tell you that he is both a very charming guy and a policy wonk. I asked him a couple pretty involved questions about health care and his answer covered all the details, even after a couple glasses of wine!

Posted by Dan Berger | May 17, 2007 11:58 AM

Trying to jam high-density construction into local policy from a national initiative is a terrible, terrible idea. Communities oppose it, and nobody's going to be too enthusiastic about drastically changing the American way of life (for the worse) out of fear of environmental collapse.

People moved to the suburbs because the convenience of cars allowed them to live better lives on less money. Nobody's going to move away from that lifestyle unless that convenience is taken away from them (ie drastically higher gas prices) and doing so artificially will never fly with the electorate.

We've got to figure out a way to make money off of environmental innovation, such that American lives become more convenient through technological progress. That means renewable fuel and sustainable power. We don't need to revert back to an urban American landscape with all the overtaxed school systems, high-crime, and crazy housing costs (for limited space) that that entails.

Posted by Dave | May 17, 2007 12:00 PM

Absolutely, Matthew, and atttempting to do so successfully will be a very stern test of Richrdson's skill as a candidate. Better to measure that skill early on, I guess.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 12:00 PM

Re: "But when you look at it, whatever's in your gut, it'd still be really nice for the world not to perish in cataclysmic climate change in the 2060s and that's going to require dramatic policies."

That's true if you're in your mid-twenties. But if you're sixty years old, what difference does it make? As George Bush famously said (paraphrase): "who cares what the verdict of history is? I'll be dead".

Posted by Jim W | May 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Richardson is great on the issues he cars about, but confusing Roe and the 80s makes me wonder if he is ready for a national campaign. He's been on the cusp of a vice presidential or presidential run for years now. How can he not have a better understanding of the historical context of abortion? What else does he not know outside of energy and foreign policy?

Posted by Archit | May 17, 2007 12:10 PM

It's going to be a ridiculously tough sell. Intellectually I agree that it's a good and necessary and IMPORTANT thing -- but even knowing all that I have a significant emotional reaction AGAINST it that runs along the lines of "the politicians are trying to take away my freedom!"

The ability to drive from one city to another, on my own schedule, feels immensely liberating. Even if I rarely do it.

Mind you, I realize there's a substantive difference between what Richardson is saying and "we need to take all the cars away from Americans" -- I *know* there's a difference -- but it still provokes that irrational reaction.

Posted by The Baptist Death Ray | May 17, 2007 12:13 PM

To quote Tom Skerrit, playing the Mayor of Seattle in the movie Singles, "People like their cars."

Americans don't want to be fenced in. Also -- land use is done mostly at the local municipal level. It's unwieldly to do anything about nationally.

But yeah, on the merits, I'm totally in agreement. As long as we insist on moving our fat asses 40 or 50 miles in the course of a given workday, it's going to require a lot of energy.

Posted by Orphan Road | May 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Actually, I think in some ways Gore is the most politically realistic of those politicians proposing that the Federal Government do something significant regarding carbon emissions. If one is going to raise the cost of driving a car significantly, one better be ready to give something back to the consumer/voter in return. That is, if one actually hopes to be elected.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 12:13 PM

We've constructed a whole way of life around the car, suburban and exurban housing to be precise. What sort of Federal policy is going to address this?

When I was in Pittsburgh, a local told me that Jimmy Carter was a huge fan of subways as President, and that he used to tour the country, promising federal money to municipalities if they'd build a subway.

Except that in Pittsburgh, which is trisected by rivers, there's no good way to build a subway, for reasons of geology.

But they wanted that federal money! So they went ahead and built an elevated train, which goes underground for a brief span of a couple blocks simply to qualify for the federal funding.

I wonder if any of this is true.

Posted by Steve | May 17, 2007 12:21 PM

Richardson seems pretty cool, but whats up with his gun control ideas?

Posted by Shane | May 17, 2007 12:30 PM

"Right. Which was why it was cool to see a politician want to talk about it."

"Well, that's just it, Mr. Gary; how does one get elected by proposing policies which are manifestly unpopular?"

I suppose my response to both of your points is that Presidential candidates who propose unpopular policies with intended long-term benefits--off the top of my head, deficit hawks Walter Mondale, Paul Tsongas and Ross Perot come to mind--have always existed. They just don't win elections.

I'm with you guys 100%--I'd love to see an actual national debate on the merits of Richardson's positions, and I'd love to see Richardson become a viable contender for the nomination. I just really doubt it will happen.

Posted by James Gary | May 17, 2007 12:31 PM

Shane, he doesn't have gun control ideas, that's probably another reason MY likes him. It's certainly a plus in my book.

But if you really, really want liberals to be perceived as out-of-touch and hostile to the American way of life, the best thing to do would be federal policies to impose high-density land use. People will fucking hate it. It's possible to turn cities from suburbanism to New Urbanism, but it has to be done at the City Council level.

I've always liked Richardson because he seemed to be my favorite type: a libertarianish Democrat. Him seeing land-use as a federal issue makes me doubt my assessment.

Posted by too many steves | May 17, 2007 12:34 PM

"The ability to drive from one city to another, on my own schedule, feels immensely liberating. Even if I rarely do it."

The thing is, no one is suggesting that this freedom be abridged. No one (at least no one serious) is suggesting that we forcibly substitute private automobiles with mass transit for any subset of the population.

What people ARE suggesting is that if we create attractive high density housing options, people will move there (don't believe me? See the West/South Loop in Chicago, or any other luxury condo corridor in many of the non-East Coast cities). And if those high density areas have easy-to-use trains or subways or even buses, then the people who live there are going to CHOOSE to take them. It is just so much easier to commute 20 minutes to work on a train where you can read the paper with someone else "driving"--and if there is a train every 15 minutes from 6 AM to 9 PM, then 90% of workers will be able to come and go as they please.

A good example of this phenomenon (people moving to areas where easy-to-use mass transit is readily available) is playing out right now in Denver. Since the S/SE light rail opened up last year, it's been enormously full, and property values all along the line have been skyrocketing. We're in the process of moving to the city, and the train basically runs from my wife's office's doorstep on the south end of the city, to my office downtown. We told our realtor that we only wanted places within half a mile of the train. We said that we'd pay a 25% premium for that--that a good third of his clients only were looking close to the train line.

Posted by Joe | May 17, 2007 12:37 PM

Richardson isn't just in favor of improved mass transit; he's been putting the State's money where his mouth is. One of the latest big projects is the Railrunner commuter rail system (see details at www.nmrailrunner.com. Note the striking paint scheme!).

This is commuter rail, over regular (not light) tracks, which currently runs from Albuquerque to Bernalillo, and there are plans to extend it north to Santa Fe (and beyond) and south to Belin (and beyond). The current volume of traffic on I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe (and those other cities) because of people commuting the 50+ miles to their jobs by personal auto is really horrific, and it moves at about 85 mph, closely spaced.

If a chunk of this traffic would instead take the train, it would be a lot safer, there would be fewer carbon emissions from vehicles, and people commuting could get more done with their time and arrive at work rested and ready to go, rather in a white-knuckled sweat. Besides, there aren't any parking places in Santa Fe, anyway.

Richardson doesn't just talk. In fact, state Republicans are outraged by just how much he gets done. They're also outraged by how he manages to run a Presidential campaign simultaneously.

Posted by Zandru | May 17, 2007 12:49 PM

High density housing tends to be much more attractive to people without school-age children. If voters with such children perceive that they are being significantly taxed to pay for amenities that they don't wish to use, that presents a problem for a political candidate. Of course, there are a lot of voters without such children, but they certainly have a long term interest in maintaining a birth rate above replacement level.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 12:50 PM

All the talk about what is "in your gut" makes me think you are channeling Colbert.

Posted by Cal Ulmann | May 17, 2007 12:56 PM

Zandru, how many people have jobs close enough to that rail line to make it a convienient option? I mean, I know a little bit about those cities, having done business there, and it seems to me that the major established employers, like Intel or Sandia Labs, are far enough away from the corridor to limit it's utility, and the same goes for employers which might become quite significant in the future, like Eclipse Aviation. If you were starting a city from scratch, it would be another matter, but cities don't start from scratch.

Now, having said that, commuter rail which is built on existing right of ways tends to be fairly efficient, especially compared to transit which needs right of ways to be created.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 1:00 PM

Rather than sticks to enforce high density housing how about some carrots to attract people to it? As Will Allen mentioned above families with children prefer suburban/exurban communities, but what if there was a federal initiative to turn urban schools into magnet programs? And not just a few bucks with a fancy name, but a real "Manhattan Project" level effort to make them the best the country has to offer. If you entice folks to move into town for the schools (which is the reason many moved away) they will soon be demanding things like mass transit.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | May 17, 2007 1:10 PM

The NYTimes apparently does not consider this a big speech or Richardson to be worthy of any coverage at all.

Front page, front politics page, and the caucus blog: none of them have anything on Richardson as of 12 central time!

We do however, get a nice video involving Fred Thompson, a cigar, Cuba and Michael Moore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoAB6fz8ENc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthecaucus%2Eblogs%2Enytimes%2Ecom%2F2007%2F05%2F16%2Fthompsons%2Dquick%2Dvideo%2Dattack%2F

Posted by dan k | May 17, 2007 1:15 PM

I think he's called the most pro-gun candidate, Democrat or Republican. I'm kinda hoping someone can tell me why that is ok (but if the argument is because guns are good, I guess I've heard that one already).

Posted by Shane | May 17, 2007 1:16 PM

The thing is, no one is suggesting that this freedom be abridged. No one (at least no one serious) is suggesting that we forcibly substitute private automobiles with mass transit for any subset of the population.

I know that -- as I said, I know it intellectually -- but I still find I have a visceral reaction as though someone WERE suggesting it. And it's that visceral, Colbert-ian (as someone above noted) that Richardson would be fighting against, even in people who have a rational side trying to set everything straight.

Posted by The Baptist Death Ray | May 17, 2007 1:17 PM

"I know that -- as I said, I know it intellectually -- but I still find I have a visceral reaction as though someone WERE suggesting it. And it's that visceral, Colbert-ian (as someone above noted) that Richardson would be fighting against, even in people who have a rational side trying to set everything straight."

I understood what you were saying, but my point is a little different. I know that most people know that the government isn't going to prohibit commuting in a car.

But it's also not going to start taxing people who choose to drive, or even giving tax breaks to people who choose to take public transportation (at least not in any appreciable levels). What proponents of New Urbanism and green cities say is that if we just give urbanites (and even some surburbanites) the option to take public transportation in a way that isn't a huge hassle, then a lot of them are going to choose to use it most of the time, because it is cheaper, easier, and generally nicer. It's not about carrots or sticks or bans or mandates. It's just about putting the option in place and letting the free market work its magic.

Posted by Joe | May 17, 2007 1:29 PM

The only way you're going to get people out of their huge houses on big lots out in the deep burbs is to substantially raise the cost of that lifestyle relative to the cost of living a more urban lifestyle. This will take far more than just raising the price of gas. In addition, the adjustment time will be extremely long, because people's basic preferences and the housing stock both change slowly.

In short, don't hold your breath, but then Rome wasn't built in a day.

Posted by ostap | May 17, 2007 1:40 PM

There's a lot of stuff that's awesome about Richardson. It's a shame that he'd say something like this

"Democrats, whenever we have a solution, we want to tax," Richardson said. "I'm different. I'm a tax cutter."

Good on foreign policy, good on the environment, but there's no way I'm going to vote for a dude who thinks tax cuts are what our economy needs right now, and attacks the rest of the party on that basis.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 17, 2007 1:43 PM

Why in the world should anybody believe that a politician with a consistently "business friendly" record will suddenly pursue strong environmental policies once he becomes President? I smell a Bush-style "compassionate conservative" con here.

Posted by beckya57 | May 17, 2007 1:44 PM

I wonder how Whizzer White would have ruled on global warming programs.

Posted by Badger | May 17, 2007 1:47 PM

No one (at least no one serious) is suggesting that we forcibly substitute private automobiles with mass transit for any subset of the population.

Let me suggest an analogy. No one is saying we should have forced marriage or laws mandating that only married couples will have children. Yet when someone like Rick Santorum takes the position that a married couple with children is the ideal scenario to be encouraged, and that the federal government shouldn't reward people who deviate from the ideal scenario, don't you sort of have a visceral reaction to that?

The tricky part is to reward certain behavior without creating the impression that you're punishing all other behavior.

High density housing tends to be much more attractive to people without school-age children. If voters with such children perceive that they are being significantly taxed to pay for amenities that they don't wish to use, that presents a problem for a political candidate.

Well, by the same token, the people without school-age children are paying property taxes that subsidize everyone else's public school education. At some point we hope people will understand that it's all for the common good, and maybe by giving more people a little skin in the game we advance that goal.

Posted by Steve | May 17, 2007 2:09 PM

Matt, could you, when you interact with candidates (or just parse their utterances) tell us who is 100% unequivocally against torture, whether in the US or abroad, no matter what euphemism it happens to be called?

As Douglas might have said, torture is the ship, all else is the sea.
I want a candidate with a sane policy towards the environment, health care, taxation, etc. But right now, if America, and by implication the rest of the world, successfully redefine torture as acceptable and commonplace, none of the rest of this stuff matters. And I find it very worrying that few candidates seem to be prepared to stand up on this issue.

Certainly what we know right now is
- Romney and Giuliani want more torture
- McCain says he's against torture (and may even be serious about it) but is so pro-war that he's unlikely to restore the US as a moral force, even if he does sweep out the stables wrt torture on US and pseudo-US soil
- Clinton strikes me as quite happy to go along with torture if it makes her look tough
- Obama - no idea; Edwards -no idea

Oddly enough, the guy who strikes me as possibly the most decent on torture is Bloomberg. As far as I know he has never made a fetish of 9/11 in the city which, given the current US climate, strikes me as a very good start.

But I'd love more solid data on this issue regarding ever candidate.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 17, 2007 2:30 PM

what do you make of Richardson's ludicrous answer to the question he was asked as to what type of people he would nominate to be on the Supreme Court? it was an awful, awful answer. glad he's got interesting energy policy positions...maybe he can be somebody's sec. of transportation..? his treatment of women, and his apparent desire to appoint extremely conservative people to the SCOTUS take him cleanly out of the race for me.

Posted by itsbenj | May 17, 2007 2:36 PM

Meanwhile, those who run into Richardson - but who are willing to ask him tough questions - can start with these:

youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0
youtube.com/watch?v=i0YRHXoygRM

Someone's going to ask him about those sooner or later, Matt might as well get them out of the way now.

Posted by TLB | May 17, 2007 3:16 PM

"No one (at least no one serious) is suggesting that we forcibly substitute private automobiles with mass transit for any subset of the population."

"If a chunk of this traffic would instead take the train..."

Do these two thoughts converge or diverge?

Posted by Klug | May 17, 2007 3:26 PM

I gave Bill a fundraiser at my DC home 20 years ago and got a chance for an hour-long one-on-one with Bill [who dated my wife while they were both at Tufts] after the festivities and schmoozing.

He was a serious, thoughtful person who before running for Congress had been a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Cte., which doesn't hire slow-pokes or dunces. Yet Bill tempered his great intellect with down-home wit and amazing common sense, not in great supply among the Democratic candidates [nor the Repubs, for that matter]. We kept in touch until I moved south a dozen years ago and am now reading his excellent autobiography.

I lean rightward now, but Bill versus several Repubs would cause me to pull the lever [or punch the butterfly] for the Dem Prez candidate.

Posted by daveinboca | May 17, 2007 3:28 PM

Matthew

Richardson does have a good record on energy and environmental issues, but personally I am curious why he owns stock in an oil refinery - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5837

Posted by Pamela Leavey | May 17, 2007 3:57 PM

I presume that he owns stock in an oil refinery in order to make money.

Posted by Will Allen | May 17, 2007 4:27 PM

I think Richardson is setting himself up to be the Democratic presidential candidate's VP choice. Not a bad choice, in my view, and very historic/symbolic for Hispanics.

Posted by Lisa | May 17, 2007 4:33 PM

Hate to say it, but one guy who is pretty good on this score is Romney. As governor of Massachusetts, he was very pro-Smart Growth (giving tax breaks and other incentives to developers of high-density housing near existing transit stations).

He'll probably disavow his support now.

Posted by Sean | May 17, 2007 5:05 PM

WillAllen

That's a given, but in my opinion if the man says we're addicted to oil and we need to change that then why is he making money off it?

Posted by Pamela Leavey | May 17, 2007 5:06 PM

Yes, the meaningful details (land use and transportation policy) get worked out at the local and regional level, but there's a lot that can be done with federal dollars to promote the right solutions.

Hike the gas tax to pay for transit and you both discourage driving and generate the revenue to provide an alternative.

Posted by Sean | May 17, 2007 5:08 PM

"Hike the gas tax to pay for transit and you both discourage driving and generate the revenue to provide an alternative."

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner to the above:

No one (at least no one serious) is suggesting that we forcibly substitute private automobiles with mass transit for any subset of the population."

"If a chunk of this traffic would instead take the train..."

Posted by Klug | May 17, 2007 7:10 PM

The regional government associations are so far ahead of the rest of us on this issue that you don't need to worry about whether they'll be ready.

We have a golden opportunity to deal with several problems at once. A lot of retiring Boomers are going to cast a jaundiced eye on that lawn (if not at first, after a couple of years) and want to move into town, where you can see, do, and get stuff without driving 5-10 miles.

The key, of course, is multi-use on transit spines, but what we also need to do is provide low (or no) interest loans on condos that will be deeded back to the housing authority when the owner dies. Because these would be new buildings, they can be built so they use NO energy for heating or cooling. They've already built a thousand of these buildings in Germany, in case your Americanfried mind is boggled by the concept.

The neat thing about making this work is that there are lots and lots of Boomers. Keeping their retirement costs low, and their health index high by getting them out of their cars, would really reduce the costs to the government of this large aging cohort.

Any politician who doesn't understand what a major issue this is won't be much help to us over the next decade.

Posted by serial catowner | May 17, 2007 7:51 PM

"Democrats, whenever we have a solution, we want to tax, I'm different. I'm a tax cutter."

I don't care if The Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself came down & ran if he said something this incredibly stupid I would not want Him to be the Dem candidate for dog catcher let alone Prez.

What rock has he been hiding under the last 30 years not to understand how bad that is to say? I actually liked the guy up till that. Who would he have as a running mate, Lieberman?

Posted by frankly | May 18, 2007 2:08 PM