Harvard Political Review: President Obama recently announced that the United States would cut oil imports by one-third before 2025. Is his energy plan ambitious enough?
Bill Richardson: It’s not ambitious enough, but it’s politically realistic. I believe it’s the best we can do under the present Congress and the mood of the country. My hope is that the crisis in Japan will spur Congress to make the initial steps to pass the two most significant parts of the change of our energy policy: the renewable portfolio standard, with the goal of increasing renewable energy by 30 percent, and greenhouse gas emissions standards.
HPR: The President also stated that nuclear energy would continue to be a staple of the U.S.’s energy diet. Is the promotion of nuclear energy in the U.S. responsible, especially in light of recent events?
BR: I believe nuclear energy needs to be a part of the energy mix. We have 104 reactors in 31 states. But I believe we have to be very careful about expanding. We need to have very sensible evacuation plans. We need to be careful about commissioning new reactors in seismically active areas of the country. We need to strongly review the existing reactors that have some of that faulty Japanese technology. And we need to tighten the standards for containment vessels in earthquake-prone areas.
HPR: Recognizing our current involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, along with our huge national deficits, are our national security efforts worth their enormous costs?
BR: Yes they are. I believe these interventions are in the national interest of the country. In Iraq, we are withdrawing, so it makes sense to have a sensible withdraw plan. In Afghanistan, the president has made a commitment to withdraw, but we still have to maintain some kind of presence. In Libya, it is a limited intervention that hopefully will be reduced in the days ahead. America is the prime force in international politics. We have to fulfill our international responsibilities.
HPR: What is the role of the U.S. in the Middle East right now?
BR: We need to be able to respond to these popular protest movements more effectively. I believe America needs to develop new lines of communication with protesters and dissidents through technology, as opposed to the old Voice of America media programs. We have a lot of national security interests in the Middle East, including our relationship toward the Israeli-Palestinian settlement. At the same time, we have to look at how we can associate ourselves with democracy and popular movements, while not harming our national security. Thus far, President Obama has done a good job of not just striking that balance, but of getting ahead and associating America with these dissidents and protesters that are emerging everywhere.
HPR: Who will play the role in keeping stability in the region as so many countries take on infant governments? Will the U.S.?
BR: No. The main responsibility is of the population of the countries themselves. But I believe it is up to NATO countries, European countries, Western countries, and the U.S. to help develop programs of civil society of democratization, of transitions from dictatorships to democracies, free institutions and free press, and protection of human rights.
HPR: America’s math and science scores have consistently fallen in the world rankings over the past decade. What does this mean for U.S. national security?
BR: It hurts our competitiveness. Our main competitors are testing better than our kids. I think it is important that we renew our emphasis on math and science and technology and find ways to incorporate some significant reforms: making teachers stronger and better, promoting Advanced Placement programs in math and science, getting our national laboratories and science institutions more involved, and by fostering more scholarships in science and math.
Beatrice Walton ‘14 is the World Blog Editor. This interview has been condensed and edited.