|
Elizabeth Warren on Energy & Oil
Massachusetts Senator; former head of CFPB; Dem. Presidential Challenger
|
|
|
Stop all new offshore and public lands drilling
We should stop all new drilling and mining on public lands and all offshore drilling. If we need to make exceptions because there are specific minerals that we've got to have access to, then we locate those and we do it not in a way that just is
about the profits of giant industries, but in a way that is sustainable for the environment. We cannot continue to let our public lands be used for profits by those who don't care about our environment and are not making it better.
Source: 9th Democrat 2020 primary debate, in Las Vegas Nevada
, Feb 19, 2020
Don't think smaller on climate; it's about corruption
Senator Klobuchar says we have to think smaller in order to get it passed. Why can't we get anything passed in Washington on climate? We've got two problems. The first is corruption. The first thing I want to do is pass my
anti-corruption bill so that we can start making the changes we need to make on climate. The second is the filibuster. If you're not willing to roll back the filibuster, then you're giving the fossil fuel industry a veto.
Source: 9th Democrat 2020 primary debate, in Las Vegas Nevada
, Feb 19, 2020
Environmental standards in trade agreements
Q: You say you support environmental standards in trade agreements?WARREN: You know, we won't let you pollute here in the US. It can't be the case that you get to produce these products and sell them in the US when you created huge carbon emissions
somewhere else around the globe, because it hurts us all. What are those trade policies always driven toward? Not American workers. Not American consumers. Not American values. What have they driven toward? "Make giant multinational corporations more
profitable." That's been it. They don't want to hear that we could put other restrictions on trade, that we could use trade to lift standards all around the world, that we could use trade to lift regulatory standards all around the world. And the reason
for that is we have not had a government that is working on behalf of the American people. We've had a government and a trade policy that has been all about giant multinational corporations. That is corruption, and I plan to change it.
Source: CNN LGBT Town Hall 2020
, Oct 10, 2019
No more nuclear plants; get off nuclear energy by 2035
Q: Would you push for a carbon tax as an efficient way to reduce carbon emissions?WARREN: If you're going to be spewing carbon into the air, it's your responsibility to clean it up. But I actually have a more aggressive plan: By 2028, we don't have
any more new building that has any carbon footprint. By 2030, we do the same thing on vehicles, on our cars and light-duty trucks. And by 2035, we do the same thing on electric generation. That will cut 70% of the carbon that we are curren
into the air.
Q: What about nuclear energy to help replace fossil fuels?
WARREN: It's not carbon-based, but the problem is it's got a lot of risks associated with it, particularly the risks associated with the spent fuel rods that nobody can figure
out how we're going to store these things for the next bazillion years. In my administration, we're not going to build any new nuclear power plants and are going to start weaning ourselves off nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable
Source: Climate Crisis Town Hall (CNN 2019 Democratic primary)
, Sep 4, 2019
Climate is the existential crisis for the world
Climate crisis is the existential crisis for our world. I have a plan for a green industrial policy that takes advantage of the fact that we do what we do best, and that is innovate and create. I've proposed putting $2 trillion in the research.
We then say anyone in the world can use it, so long as you build it right here in America. That will produce about 1.2 million manufacturing jobs. The second thing we will do is sell those products all around the world.
Source: July Democratic Primary debate (first night in Detroit)
, Jul 30, 2019
Ten-fold increase in green research & green manufacturing
There's going to be a worldwide need for green technology, and we can be the ones to provide that. We need to go tenfold in our research and development on green energy going forward. Then we need to say any corporation can come and use that research.
They can make all kinds of products from it, but they have to be manufactured right here in the United States of America. Then we have to sell it around the world. We should have that 1.2 million manufacturing jobs here in America.
Source: June Democratic Primary debate (first night in Miami)
, Jun 26, 2019
Co-sponsored Green New Deal
Signed on as a co-sponsor of the proposal,
after previously expressing support for the "idea" of the GND.
Source: Axios.com "What you need to know about 2020"
, May 8, 2019
Renewable energy on public land or offshore; end drilling
Proposed a plan to require 10% of electricity generation to come from renewable sources located offshore or on public lands and that would unlock 50% of currently inaccessible federally owned land for public use.
The proposal also includes an executive order that would end drilling offshore and on public lands.
Source: Axios.com "What you need to know about 2020"
, May 8, 2019
Supports Green New Deal; invest in green infrastructure
I am a strong supporter of the Green New Deal. The first reason that I'm a strong supporter is it is a way to say urgency. Now, we cannot wait any longer.
We have got to make change. The second part about the Green New Deal right now is it calls for a huge investment in our infrastructure.
And I think that's just absolutely critical. And when I say our infrastructure, it's about our green infrastructure, it's about our power infrastructure, but it's also about
hardening our infrastructure so that we can withstand heavier storms, so that flooding is not so much a problem, so that we move to distributed generation of power. Lots of pieces that we need to do.
Source: CNN Town Hall 2020: 5 candidates back-to-back
, Apr 22, 2019
Return to Paris climate accord, & build on it
Q: As president, would you keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement and commit to more ambitious targets in 2020?Warren: "I believe we need to return to the Paris climate accord, and then we need to build on it. We need to do far more to reduce global
emissions, but we can only do that when we're leading from the front."
Q: Would you restore Obama-era climate change regulations that the Trump administration has reversed, like the Clean Power Plan, methane limits and vehicle emissions standards?
Warren: "I have strongly opposed the Trump administration's efforts to roll back the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era methane limits and vehicle emission standards. As president, I would reverse these rollbacks."
Q: Do you support a national
renewable energy standard?
Warren: "I am an original cosponsor of the Green New Deal resolution, which commits the United States to meet 100 percent of our power demand through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources."
Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com)
, Apr 18, 2019
Oppose subsidies for fossil fuel companies
Q: Do you support new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond what was in place under President Obama?Warren: "I oppose subsidies for fossil fuel companies and have spoken out repeatedly against the influence that Big Oil and carbon-based
industries wield in Washington. My Climate Risk Disclosure Act would require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations, raising public awareness of how dependent companies are on
fossil fuels and using market forces to speed the transition to clean energy."
Q: Do you support increasing federal funding for clean-energy research?
A: Ms. Warren's campaign did not answer this question, but she wrote on
Facebook, "We need to invest in clean energy."
Q: Do you think nuclear energy should be part of the U.S.'s decarbonizing toolbox?
A: Ms. Warren's campaign did not answer this question.
Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com)
, Apr 18, 2019
Perfect score on "350 Action's 2020 Climate Test"
The environmental group 350 Action released a candidate scorecard known as the 2020 Climate Test to assess presidential hopefuls on three major metrics: support for a Green New Deal, opposition to new fossil fuel development and refusal to accept money
from energy companies.Three candidates have made firm climate-forward commitments, issuing their support for the Green New Deal, vowing to keep fossil fuels in the ground and banning donations from Big Oil.
- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT)
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
Four candidates have supported two of 350 Action's three benchmarks.- Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)
- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
- Gov. Jay Inslee (WA)
- Andrew Yang (CA)
Three candidates
have failed all three of 350 Action's tests, attacking the Green New Deal or making no firm pledges to work against fossil fuel companies.- Donald Trump (NY)
- Former Rep. John Delaney (MD)
- Former Gov. John Hickenlooper (CO)
Source: Mother Jones, "On Climate," on 2020 Presidential Hopefuls
, Mar 27, 2019
America must lead in combatting climate change
I want to say something that is very controversial. In Washington, this is a very controversial statement: I believe in science. Climate change is real, it is manmade, and we are running out of runway to be able to fix this problem.
We need to be thinking about hardening our infrastructure against the climate change that's coming our way and in terms of building green energy infrastructure.
We've got to be working in every single direction. More money on research. More money on how we get our vehicles so that we get to a place where we have a sustainable Earth. The United States is a world leader.
The problem is we are leading in the wrong direction right now on climate. We've got to go the other way. We've got to show the world what can be done.
Source: CNN Town Hall on 2020 Democratic presidential primary
, Mar 18, 2019
Supports the idea of a Green New Deal
- Climate change: Supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Warren favors forcing public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and any potential effects climate change might have on their businesses.
-
She also supports "the idea of a Green New Deal," a broad package of proposals floated by some Democrats and environmental groups aimed at taking action against climate change.
-
But while Warren fielded questions from voters about climate change at an Iowa event this month, she did not focus on the issue the day she
announced she was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
, Jan 17, 2019
BP fined $42B for 2010 explosion, then deducted it on taxes
One loophole gives corporations a tax deduction for paying punitive damages when they break the law. In 2015, the New York Times reported that "at least 80 percent of the more than
$42 billion that BP has paid out because of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico qualifies for a tax deduction."
Think about that: BP got fined for killing people and nearly destroying the Gulf of Mexico--
and its fine was tax deductible, sort of like a charitable contribution or a regular business expense. And BP wasn't the only corporation rewarded this way.
Source: This Fight is Our Fight, by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, p.115-6
, Apr 18, 2017
Cannot support export bill just cause big oil does
The fastest-moving legislative is a bill to lift the four-decade ban on exports of American crude oil. "The bill in front of us would upend decades of energy policy. If the oil industry's rosy projections turn out to be wrong, the bill has next to
nothing in the way of environmental or economic protections. We may need changes in the oil export ban, but any changes we make should be based on independent data and should address legitimate concerns."
Source: Daily Caller on 2016 Veepstakes, "Anti-corporate Crusader"
, Apr 28, 2016
Invest now in 21st-century energy
If we invest now in twenty-first-century energy, we can lower the costs of production for all of our future work. Right now, renewable energy competes with old energies that get lots of special breaks in Washington.
Massachusetts can lead the world in using green technology to cut production costs and make our products competitive around the world. We could do this right here, right now--and create jobs here in Massachusetts.
Source: Quotable Elizabeth Warren, by Frank Marshall, p.112
, Nov 18, 2014
Invest in our kids instead of subsidizing Big oil
I wanted to talk about Wall Street bankers and taxes and education, but Brown wanted to go in a different direction. At the heart of the election, I talked about how giant companies and billionaires were exploiting a bonanza of tax loopholes and how
Scott Brown and the Republicans were determined to keep these loopholes open. I talked about how we should be investing in educating our kids instead of subsidizing Big Oil. And how billionaires should pay at least as high a tax rate as their secretaries
But I wasn't the only one under attack: an environmental group had already gone after Scott Brown for his votes supporting Big Oil.
The League of Conservation Voters made a $1.9 million ad buy in the Boston media market in late October 2011, criticizing Brown for his vote to support Big Oil.
Source: A Fighting Chance, by Elizabeth Warren, p.231&263&328
, Apr 22, 2014
Invest in energy technology instead of subsidizing Big Oil
In putting a spotlight on Big Oil subsidies, I have been pleased to work alongside the League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and so many other organizations dedicated to protecting our environment for our children and grandchildren.
We should be investing in energy technology of the future, not subsidizing Big Oil.
Source: A Fighting Chance, by Elizabeth Warren, p.333
, Apr 22, 2014
Transition to green energy now for long-term growth
Will we continue to subsidize the dirty fossil fuels of the past, or will we transition to 21st century clean, renewable energy? We know that we can generate power with alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and hydropower.
We know that we can make energy usage more efficient. If we commit ourselves to clean energy and energy efficiency now, in the long run we can reduce price swings and costs. (from Elizabeth Warren's Issues Section on Energy & The Environment)
Source: GreenLifestyleChanges.com on 2016 Veepstakes
, Sep 25, 2012
Lead the world in using green technology
If we invest now in 21st century energy, we can lower the costs of production for all of our future work. Right now, renewable energy competes with old energies that get lots of special breaks in Washington.
Massachusetts can lead the world in using green technology to cut production costs and make our products competitive around the world. We could do this right here, right now--and create jobs here in Massachusetts.
Source: 2012 Senate campaign website, www.elizabethwarren.com
, Sep 15, 2011
50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.
Warren co-sponsored H.Res.637/S.Res.386
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030 for the purposes of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, growing our economy, increasing our shared prosperity, improving public health, and preserving our national security.
- Whereas failing to act on climate change will have a devastating impact on our Nation's economy, costing us billions of dollars in lost GDP;
- Whereas extreme weather, intensified by climate change, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year in recovery efforts, and this will only continue if climate change is left unaddressed;
- Whereas climate change will have devastating public health implications, including increased asthma attacks and exacerbation of other respiratory diseases, especially in vulnerable populations;
-
Whereas inaction on climate change will disproportionately impact communities of color and exacerbate existing economic inequalities;
- Whereas the transition to a clean energy economy is feasible with existing technology;
- Whereas the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs and will increase our country's GDP and increase disposable household income;
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should--- Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
- Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.
Source: Resolution for 50% Carbon-Free Electricity by 2030 16-SRes386 on Mar 3, 2016
Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization.
Warren signed the Resolution on Green New Deal
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of:
- achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
- establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
- investing in infrastructure and industry;
- securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
- promoting justice and equality.
The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including:building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; andproviding higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.Opposing argument from the Cato Institute, 2/24/2019: While reasonable people can disagree on some aspects of the Green New Deal's proposals, one fact is uncontroversial: the US cannot afford them. The Green New Deal would likely cost upwards of $6.6 trillion per year. The federal government should look for cheaper ways to address problems like climate change. Instead of the Green New Deal, the federal government could adopt a revenue??neutral carbon tax to decrease emissions without exacerbating the fiscal imbalance. Economists from across the political spectrum support carbon taxation as the most cost??effective way to address climate change. And a carbon tax would be most effective if uniformly adopted by other countries, too.
Source: H.Res.109/S.Res.59 19-HR0109 on Feb 7, 2019
Page last updated: Aug 19, 2021