Bernie Sanders on Energy & Oil Democratic primary challenger; Independent VT Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large)

Sub-sections under Energy & Oil:
• Green New Deal
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Energy & Oil

Fossil fuel profit is a moral issue

Would reinstate LED lightbulb rule, encourage use

SANDERS: Duh! Actually, I follow this issue of LED lightbulbs. We use much less electricity, these lightbulbs last a lot longer, and it is a major, major breakthrough. It's not just moving to sustainable energies. It is also being much more efficient in terms of the energy that we use. If you can get lightbulb that utilizes one-tenth of the power an old inca lightbulb used, of course you're going to encourage that technology.

Q: How do you get people to relinquish the car they love for an electric car that may be less powerful and more expensive?

SANDERS: You do it with financial incentives. You make it worth people's while by heavily subsidizing the industry. We can create a whole lot of jobs by moving away from internal combustion engine cars to electric cars. Every day, these cars are developing a longer range and they're more power

Scientists say "12 years before damage is irreversible"

Keep US in Paris Climate Agreement & increase targets

A: Sanders's campaign confirmed that he would keep the United States in the Paris Agreement and increase emission reduction targets, but did not provide an on-the-record quote.

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?

A: Sanders's campaign said he would restore Obama-era regulations.

Q: Do you support new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond what was in place under President Obama?

A: Sanders's campaign said he would go beyond Obama-era regulations, but did not elaborate or provide an on-the-record quote.

Q: Do you support a national renewable energy standard? If so, what would it be? If not, why not?

A: Sanders's campaign reiterated his support for the Green New Deal, which calls for 100 percent renewable energy.

No more debate on climate change; it's here & costs $100Bs

SANDERS: Well, what Congress should do is move aggressively in listening not only to this report from the Trump administration but from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which tells us that climate change is already doing irreparable harm all over this planet. What Congress has got to do is take Trump on, take the fossil fuel industry on, and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar and wind.

Q: The report estimates knocking as much as 10% off the size of the U.S. economy by the end of this century because of related costs.

SANDERS: The debate is over about the reality of climate change and the incredible and costly harm it's going to do to this country. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in damage that we're going to have to pay for.

Rising oceans creating world's first "climate refugees"

Unless we drastically change course in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures will continue to rise. Millions of people will be displaced by rising sea levels, extreme weather events, & flooding.

The growing scarcity of basic human needs could well lead to perpetual warfare in regions around the world, as people fight over limited supplies of water, farmland, and other natural resources. A world in which we see mass migrations of people is not going to be a safe or stable world. That's not just my opinion--that is the opinion of leading national security experts in our country and throughout the world. Yes, climate change is our nation's great national security threat.

Pushed energy efficiency block grants

Inexpensive Venezuelan oil donated to low-income Vermonters

In just forty-eight hours, as a direct response to that ugly attack, our donors contributed $1.2 million into the campaign, with an average contribution of $23. In an e-mail thanking our contributors I stated: "I hope that sends a very clear message that the American people are sick and tired of politics as usual and negative campaigning."

2015 & 2016 were hottest years on record: debate is over

While carbon dioxide accounts for 81% of greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the sole problem. Methane, which is released during the extraction and combustion of natural gas, oil, and coal, accounts for 11% of greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrous oxide--a by-product of fossil fuel combustion--accounts for 6%.

The results of dumping these heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere year after year are frighteningly clear. The year 2015 was the hottest year on record, and 2016 is on pace to be hotter still. July 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded on the planet. Thirteen of the fifteen hottest years have occurred since the year 2000.

Need revolution to move away from coal and oil

SANDERS: What candidates are saying is if we stand up to the fossil fuel industry, and transform our energy system away from coal and oil and gas to energy efficiency and wind and solar and geothermal and other sustainable technologies, you know what happens to that Republican who listens to the scientists? That Republican loses his campaign funding from the Koch brothers. I'm the only candidate who says no president can do it all. We need a political revolution. When millions of people tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are less significant than the long-term health of this planet, we will win.

I oppose fracking; anyone who says it is safe is wrong

SANDERS: My answer--my answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.

CLINTON: #1, I don't support it when any locality or any state is against it. #2, I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it, #3, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

Q [to Sanders]: A number of Democratic governors say that fracking can be done safely, and that it's helping their economies. Are they wrong?

SANDERS: Yes. Secretary Clinton has the support of all the Democratic governors. I am not part of that establishment. I am a member of the Environmental Committee. And I talk to scientists who tell me that fracking is doing terrible things to water systems. We have gotta be bold now. We gotta transform our energy system to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We've gotta do it yesterday.

Climate change partly causes rise of terrorist groups

SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world--this is what the CIA says--they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops ask you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.

Address climate change so we can leave planet to our kids

CHAFEE: It's certainly the chaos in the Middle East. And it all started with the Iraq invasion.

O'MALLEY: I believe that nuclear Iran remains the biggest threat, along with the threat of ISIL; climate change, of course, makes cascading threats.

CLINTON: I think it has to be continued threat from the spread of nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands.

WEBB: Our greatest long-term strategic challenge is our relation with China.

Q: Senator Sanders, greatest national security threat?

SANDERS: The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.

Climate change is a moral issue: tax on carbon

Opposed Keystone Pipeline from day one

Combat climate skeptics with overwhelming evidence

Bernie has repeatedly called climate skeptics out on their rejection of science. For example, during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July 2014, Bernie said: "We have a major political party which is rejecting what the majority of the scientific community is saying."

It's no secret that large energy corporations fund scientists who work towards emphasizing the complexity of the knowledge surrounding climate change and its contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions. They also donate a lot of money to politicians. Bernie refuses to take money from any corporate donors.

Keystone pipeline transports the dirtiest fossil fuel

Bernie was a congressional leader in opposing the Keystone XL pipeline in 2014 and recently applauded president Obama's veto promise on the measure.

Bernie said about other 2016 presidential candidates' environmental policies: "It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline. We must make significant reduction in carbon emissions and break our dependency on fossil fuels. That is why I have helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Keystone pipeline, which would transport some of the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world."

Charge companies for carbon emissions; then fund renewables

Considered to be a "climate change hawk," Sanders argues that shifting global temperatures are a significant threat and caused by human activity. He has sponsored a bill which would charge companies for their carbon emissions and use some of the money raised to boost renewable energy technology.

Transform to sustainable system & away from fossil fuels

Unless we take bold action to address climate change, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: Where were they? Why didn't the US lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community was sure would come?

Weatherize millions of homes and buildings

Gas tax increases are regressive

Unfortunately, there WERE elements of regressive taxation in that proposal, including a 4.3% increase in the gas tax. That's about $30/year for the average Vermonter, not much but still regressive in that it hits the average working stiff who travels 100 miles a day to and from work.

Government loans to help people erect solar panels

Need to be fervent if we care about our children

Rep. Tim RYAN: We have to invent our way out of this thing. Make sure that people can actually make money off of the new technologies and then cut the worker in on the deal.

SANDERS: We have got to be super aggressive if we love our children and if we want to leave them a planet that is healthy and is habitable, so I don't disagree with Tim. What that means is we got to, A, take on the fossil fuel industry, B, it means we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, at a hell of a lot of good union jobs, as we do that. We got to transform our transportation system, and we have to lead the world.

Not enough to beat Trump; must beat fossil fuel industry

End fossil fuel; move toward wind and solar

Co-sponsor of Green New Deal

Transform our energy system away from fossil fuel

We have 12 years to transform to sustainable energy

How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change when the leading scientists of the world tell us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and is already causing devastating harm in the United States and in much of the world. Further, they tell us that we have a very short 12 years in order to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy if we are going to have a planet that is healthy and habitable for our kids and grandchildren.

Climate change is issue for entire international community

Cut carbon 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050

We have a short window of time to dramatically cut the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. I have laid out a plan to cut U.S. carbon pollution by at least 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels by establishing a tax on carbon, aggressively implementing energy efficiency efforts, quickly moving away form fossil fuels, and deploying historic levels of new renewable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal. This is an absolutely and necessarily achievable goal. It is also a huge opportunity in terms of strengthening our economy and creating jobs.

Energy efficiency truly is a win-win-win in the fight against climate change, in terms of reducing energy use, saving consumers money, and creating jobs.

Job training for transition to green energy

Massive and sustained investment in sustainable energy

One of the best ways to incentivize the development of renewable energy is by expanding federal investment and production tax incentives for building new energy-generation projects. The solar investment tax credit (ITC) is an up-front credit equal to 30 percent of the cost of building a commercial or residential solar project, and the production tax credit (PTC) is a $0.023/kWh credit taken over ten years by wind, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass projects based on the amount of energy actually produced.

Tax carbon, methane, and other greenhouse gases

• Levying a tax on carbon, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions to aggressively combat climate change;
• Making massive investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy.

Perfect score on "350 Action's 2020 Climate Test"

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)

• Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
• Gov. Jay Inslee (WA)
• Andrew Yang (CA)

• Donald Trump (NY)
• Former Rep. John Delaney (MD)
• Former Gov. John Hickenlooper (CO)

End fracking in the US

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

1. Water vapor
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Methane
4. Nitrous oxide
5. Sulfur hexafluoride
6. Hydrofluorocarbons
7. Perfluorocarbons
8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5 required)

Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.

Congressional Summary:
• On budget resolutions, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that includes a National energy tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
• The term "middle-income" taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income and married couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less.
• The term "widespread applicability" includes the definition with respect to individual income taxpayers.
• The term "National energy tax increase" means any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming energy.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): The climate change proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This [amendment creates a procedure to block] any bill that would raise the cost of energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by. I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Graham Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.910 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S135 on Apr 2, 2009

  Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.

  Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.

  Sec. 202 is amended by inserting at the end the following: "The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if the legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to sec. 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974."

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): This idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast track. It is subject to 50 votes.

  The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to come to the floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't go anywhere. If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a constitutional democracy.

  Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like "a freight train through Congress" and is "an outrage that must be resisted." Senator Conrad said: "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this purpose."

  I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that rejects that idea.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Johanns Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.735 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S126 on Apr 1, 2009

  Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

  OnTheIssues.org Explanation:A "Cloture Motion" would end debate on the bill, and then allow a vote on passage. This motion failed (3/5ths of the Senators must vote YEA), based on objections of how the new incentives would be paid for.

  Congressional Summary:A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.

  • TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
  • Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables.
  • Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
  • Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.
  • Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions
  • Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit.
  • Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.
  • Sec. 121. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property.
  • Sec. 122. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
  • Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
  • Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.
  • Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.

    Opponents argument for voting NAY:Sen. SPECTER: H.R. 6049 would revive important tax provisions that expired at the end of 2007 and extend provisions that are set to expire at the end of 2008. I support extension of the R&D tax credit, the renewable energy tax incentives, and many other important provisions in this package.

    Despite the positive elements of this legislation, the main sticking point is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. The White House issued a statement recommending a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. [Vote NAY to] allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be quickly signed by the President.

    Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-150 on Jun 17, 2008

    Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.

    OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This is a motion on an omnibus spending bill, sending instructions to the committee resolving differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Sen. Boxer introduced this motion, and Sen. DeMint introduced a counter-motion. Voting for the Boxer motion means you favor Boxer's method over DeMint's method, which means speeding up Congressional action on global warming.Opponents argument for voting NAY:Sen. DeMINT. When we are talking about trade agreements, there needs to be a level playing field. This motion would prevent Congress from passing any law with new mandates on greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the U.S. economy or result in job loss unless both China and India had the same mandates--in other words, if we had a level playing field. It is not going to help the environment in the United States or the world if we pass mandates that raise the cost of doing business in our country, if we create mandates that do not exist in India or China.Proponents argument for voting YEA:Sen. BOXER. I rise to speak against the DeMint motion and in favor of the Boxer motion. The DeMint motion is a throwback to 10 years ago when everybody, including myself, was saying we better watch out and not do anything about global warming until the undeveloped world acts. We cannot do that anymore. This is a time when we need to stand up as the leading country in the world and say that we can fight global warming, and we can win this fight.

    But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine saying we are not going to do anything about human rights until China acts. Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of leadership and finally grab hold of this issue? I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, I am giving over my proxy to China & India, and I can't do anything about it.

    Reference: Motion to Instruct Conferees (China-India) re: S.Con.Res.70; Bill Motion to Instruct S.Con.Res70 ; vote number 2008-132 on May 15, 2008

    Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

    Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
    • Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
    • Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
    • Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.

    It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.

    This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.
    Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 65-27

    Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN); Bill H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-226 on Jun 21, 2007

    Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

    Voting YES would amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. It would be a violation for any foreign state:
    1. to limit the production or distribution of oil & natural gas;
    2. to set or maintain the price of oil & natural gas; or
    3. to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil & natural gas;
    4. when such collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil & natural gas in the US.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    Our NOPEC bill will authorize filing suit against nations that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    No one likes OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.

    The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise.

    In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the US starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?

    Reference: NOPEC Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act; Bill S.Amdt.1519 to H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-215 on Jun 19, 2007

    Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning.

    Amendment would require the consideration of global climate change, in planning, feasibility studies, & general reevaluation reports. Would require accounting for the costs & benefits from the impacts of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks; potential future impacts of global climate change-related weather events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity, storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding; & employs nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that provide natural flood and storm buffers.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a statement here to finally recognize the reality of what is happening with respect to climate change.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    The same people today who are saying we are all going to die from global warming, just back in the middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?

    If a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then around 1945 we would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases. But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period.

    Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been driving the temperature change. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change.

    Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of all goods would rise sharply.

    Reference: Kerry Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.1094 to H.R.1495 ; vote number 2007-166 on May 15, 2007

    Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.

    Vote to amend a bill providing for exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.

    We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.

    This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.

    Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill H R 4761 ; vote number 2006-354 on Jun 29, 2006

    Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.

    Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following:
    • The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations.
    • The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.
    • Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
    Proponents of the resolution say:
    • Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily
    • In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day.
    • We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack
    Opponents of the resolution say:
    • $3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels.
    • Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy.
    • There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery.
    • We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel.
    • Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits.
    Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Bill HR 5254 resolution H RES 842 ; vote number 2006-228 on Jun 7, 2006

    Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.

    To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including:
    • Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases
    • Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel
    • Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs
    • Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster
    • $2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation
    Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act; Bill HR 3893 ; vote number 2005-519 on Oct 7, 2005

    Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

    Vote to pass a bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize o $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. It would add to the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2004; Bill HR 4503 ; vote number 2004-241 on Jun 15, 2004

    Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

    Energy Omnibus bill: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize a $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. The bill would call for producers of Ethanol to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA; Bill HR.6 ; vote number 2003-630 on Nov 18, 2003

    Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.

    Require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency [CAFE] standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 mpg in 2005 and of 27.5 mpg in 2007. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-311 on Aug 1, 2001

    Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

    Amendment to maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-317 on Aug 1, 2001

    Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.

    Vote on an amendment that would allow the implementation of the portions of the Kyoto climate change treaty that are already allowed under law. The Kyoto protocol of 1997, which aims to reduce emissions of certain greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, has not been ratified by the United States. The amendment would allow federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to implement procedures already allowed under law that are also part of the Kyoto accord before the treaty is ratified by Congress. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Olver, D-MA; Bill HR 4690 ; vote number 2000-323 on Jun 26, 2000

    Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices.

    Sanders adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:

    The Problem

    Escalating energy costs have almost no correlation with supply and demand. Adequate capacity to supply our current energy needs is and has always been plentiful within the energy markets. Newly formed deregulated energy companies are creating an artificial shortage and reaping tremendous profits while doing so.

    The Progressive Caucus Solution: Wholesale Cost-based Pricing with Refunds

    In the 1930s, wholesale electricity prices and wholesale natural gas prices were regulated, and the regulations provided for refunds if unjust or unreasonable rates were found. Since the late 1970s, these laws have been methodically dismantled leaving little federal price regulations to protect consumers. However, energy prices are easily manipulated as production and delivery systems are complex. Cost-based rates for wholesale electricity, natural gas, heating oil should be established to protect consumers from unjust and unfair prices. Cost based rates allow utilities to recover the cost of their investment and operations while also allowing a reasonable profit. This is not a price cap— FERC sets prices based on a specific, professional rationale. Establishing cost-based rates ensure adequate supply is available and removes the profit incentive from shorting the market. The rates should be set retroactively to the beginning of 2000. Refunds will be issued to families and businesses who have racked up incredible debt in 2000 and 2001, paying the unreasonable and unjust charges that the energy producers, generators and wholesalers inflicted.

    The Progressive Caucus advocates:

    • Implement wholesale cost-based pricing of electricity & natural gas to ensure consumers are not gouged. Require refunds when necessary.
    • Grant FERC new powers to regulate heating oil prices at the wholesale level. Cost-based pricing of heating oil will ensure consumers are protected from heating oil price spikes.
    Source: Progressive Caucus' Consumer Energy Rate Relief Act 01-CPC1 on Mar 16, 2001

    Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it.

    Sanders co-sponsored the Morris K. Udall Arctic Wilderness Act:

    Title: To preserve the Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, as wilderness in recognition of its extraordinary natural ecosystems and for the permanent good of present and future generations of Americans.

    Summary: Designates specified lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System [which would preclude oil exploration and drilling].

    Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR770 on Feb 28, 2001

    Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances.

    Sanders co-sponsored establishing greenhouse gas tradeable allowances

    OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the US by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the US and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances.

    SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's greatest environmental challenge--climate change.

    The National Academy of Sciences reported, "temperatures are, in fact, rising." The overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is real, that it is happening as we speak.

    Terrible things are happening at the poles, which will have global implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns are among the global concerns.

    The International Climate Change Task Force recommended that "all developed countries introduce mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow for future integration into a single global market." That is already being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of this legislation.

    If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity. We have done relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. That is what the US national policy is today: gather information and make reports. I would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations of Americans.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; never came to a vote.

    Source: Climate Stewardship Act (S.342/H.R.759) 05-S0342 on Feb 10, 2005

    Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.

    Sanders scores 100% by CAF on energy issues

    OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

    • 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
    • 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
    • 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
    About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):

    The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

    About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":

    Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.

    Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006

    Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Sanders co-sponsored signing on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
    • Whereas there is a scientific consensus that the continued buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens the stability of the global climate;
    • Whereas there are significant long-term risks to the economy and the environment of the US from the temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations;
    • Whereas the US has the largest economy in the world and is also the largest emitter of greenhouse gases;
    • Whereas reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the introduction of new energy technologies and other climate-friendly technologies;
    • Whereas the development and sale of climate-friendly technologies in the US and internationally present economic opportunities for workers and businesses in the United States;
    • Whereas President Bush, in the State of the Union Address given in January 2006, called on the US to reduce its 'addiction' to oil and focus its attention on developing cleaner, renewable, and sustainable energy sources;
    • Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States should act to reduce the health, environmental, economic, and national security risks posed by global climate change and foster sustained economic growth through a new generation of technologies
    • by participating in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and leading efforts in other international fora,
    • with the objective of securing United States participation in binding agreements that establish mitigation commitments by all countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases;
    • establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
    • achieve a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
    Source: S.RES.30/H.CON.RES.104 07-SR30 on Jan 16, 2007

    Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization.

    Sanders 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; and
  • providing 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

  Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness.

  Sanders co-sponsored designating sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS WILDERNESS.

  The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 is amended by adding at the end the following:

  Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 'Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--1002 Area. Alternative E--Wilderness Designation, October 28, 1991' and available for inspection in the offices of the Secretary, is designated as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act'.

  Source: ANWR Wilderness Act (S.2316 ) 2007-S2316 on Nov 7, 2007

  Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025.

  Sanders co-sponsored setting goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025

  A resolution that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the US should provide from renewable resources not less than 25% of the total energy consumed and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. [Governors also signed letters of endorsement at www.25x25.org]

  Rep. SALAZAR: "Our resolution establishes a national goal of producing 25% of America's energy from renewable sources--like solar, wind and biofuels--by 2025. The "25x'25" vision is widely endorsed, bold, and fully attainable. If implemented, it would dramatically improve our energy security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment.

  "I am pleased that more than 20 of my colleagues in the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the "25x'25" vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former governors and several State legislatures across the country. The Big Three automobile manufacturers--Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors--are all behind "25x'25" So are many agricultural organizations, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to John Deere.

  "These Americans understand that we cannot continue to import 60% of our oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the US, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. They know that we will have to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal--"25x'25" is the first step."

  Source: 25x'25 Act (S.CON.RES.3 / H.CON.RES.25) 2007-SC03 on Jan 17, 2007

  Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards.

  Sanders co-sponsored allowing states to define stricter emission standards

  A bill to permit California and other States to effectively control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, and for other purposes. Amends the Clean Air Act to approve the application of the state of California for a waiver of federal preemption of its motor vehicle emission standards.

  Source: Reducing Global Warming from Vehicles Act (S.2555&H.R.5560) 2008-S2555 on Jan 24, 2008

  Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Bernie Sanders. Click here for a summary of Bernie Sanders's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Bernie Sanders's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Bernie Sanders. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Bernie Sanders. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Bernie Sanders. Click here for other VT politicians. Click here for VT primary archives. Click here for VT secondary archives.
  2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Energy & Oil:			Bernie Sanders on other issues:
  VT Gubernatorial: Christine Hallquist David Zuckerman Keith Stern Matt Dunne Phil Scott Rebecca Holcombe Shap Smith Sue Minter VT Senatorial: Al Giordano Brooke Paige John MacGovern Lawrence Zupan Patrick Leahy Scott Milne Freshman class of 2019: "Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions: * Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019 ** Served in Congress in a previous term *** Lost recount or general election	Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans): AZ-8*:Lesko CA-39***:Kim FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube GA-7:Woodall ID-1**:Fulcher IN-4:Baird IN-6:Pence KS-2:Watkins MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber MS-3:Guest MT-0*:Gianforte NC-9***:Harris ND-a:Armstrong NM-2***:Herrell OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez OK-1:Hern PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler SC-4:Timmons SD-0:Johnson TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline WI-1:Steil WV-3:Miller	Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats): AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow CT-5:Hayes FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala GA-6:McBath HI-1**:Case IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood KS-3:Davids KY-6***:McGrath MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley MD-6:Trone ME-2:Golden MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar NC-9***:McCready NH-1:Pappas NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle OK-5:Horn PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb SC-1:Cunningham TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred UT-4:McAdams VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton WA-8:Schrier	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile VT politicians Contact info: Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-332, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-5141

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: May 14, 2020