Sen. Bernie Sanders rallies supporters of the End Polluter Welfare Act.

At a time when we have more than $15 trillion in national debt, American taxpayers are set to give away over $110 billion to the oil, gas, and coal industries over the next decade. Clearly, we cannot afford it. The five largest oil companies made over $1 trillion in profits in the last decade, with some paying no federal income taxes for part of that time, so they certainly do not need it.

It is time we end this corporate welfare in the form of massive subsidies and tax breaks [PDF] to hugely profitable fossil-fuel corporations. It is time for Congress to support the interests of the taxpayer instead of powerful special interests like the oil and coal industries. That is why I joined with Rep. Keith Ellison to introduce legislation in the Senate and the House called the End Polluter Welfare Act. Our proposal is backed by grassroots and public-interest organizations 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and many others.

It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America. It is equally obscene that as those members of Congress fight to continue never-ending fossil-fuel subsidies worth tens of billions, they are working overtime to deny a one-year extension for key sustainable energy incentives for the emerging wind and solar industries. Instead of passing strong legislation to help reverse global warming, Congress continues giveaways to the 200-year-old fossil-fuel industry even as that industry’s carbon pollution wreaks devastation on our planet. Enough is enough.

While there have been attempts to remove some of these fossil-fuel subsidies in the past, our legislation is the most comprehensive ever put together in that it would end all of the tax breaks, special financing arrangements, and federal research support for fossil fuels. Our bill would make sure the fossil-fuel industry pays its fair share by reforming royalties for drilling or mining on public lands or in federal waters. It would also end the loopholes that allow tar-sands pipeline operators to avoid paying the oil-spill cleanup tax.

It is important that the American people understand just how egregious these fossil-fuel handouts [PDF] are:

• A tax deduction for an oil spill? We all remember the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst oil spill in U.S. history. What is less well-known is that BP is claiming a $9.9 billion tax deduction on the money it had to spend cleaning up its own mess and paying for damages it caused. That is absurd.

• They manufacture what? Coal and oil lobbyists added fossil fuels to a bill aimed at helping American manufacturers, so those industries too could claim “manufacturing” tax deductions. The added cost for taxpayers: $12 billion over the next 10 years.

• Good enough for Big Oil, but not clean energy. Most of us have not heard about Master Limited Partnerships. These special financing arrangements allow oil and gas investors to avoid paying certain corporate income taxes, but they’re not available to clean energy businesses. Ending this fossil-fuel loophole would not only start to level the playing field for clean energy investment, but would save the government an estimated $2.4 billion over the next decade.

• Free federal oil and gas leases? Fossil-fuel corporations are supposed to pay the government fair market royalties in exchange for the right to drill on public lands or in federal waters. But thanks to a loophole in federal law, some oil and gas corporations drilling in the Gulf of Mexico pay zero in royalties. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office estimated this could cost taxpayers up to $53 billion over the life of these loophole leases.

These are just a few examples of the obscene subsidies that the oil, gas, and coal industries reap from the government year after year. We know that with the enormous sums these industries spend on lobbying and campaign contributions — no doubt made worse by the new era of unlimited corporate campaign spending ushered in by Citizens United — passing a bill like our End Polluter Welfare Act will not be easy. But we know too that all across our country, and across the political spectrum, the American people are angry and frustrated with a government beholden to big-money interests. They want their elected officials to stand up for the needs of working families and our environment, not the powerful special interests.

While it is true that the fossil-fuel industry has a virtually unlimited supply of money and lobbyists in Washington, D.C., they still can be defeated. If the American people stand up and demand that the fossil-fuel industry and other corporations pay their fair share in taxes, we can defeat them. If the American people demand that we transform our energy system away from polluting fossil fuels, and to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we can defeat them. With your help, we can defeat them. Join this fight by signing up to be a citizen cosponsor of this legislation.

Many in Congress talk of getting “big government off the backs of private industry.” Here’s an industry we’d like to get off the backs of the taxpayers.

As a senator who is the longest-serving independent in Congress, and as the president of an independent and nonpartisan budget watchdog organization, we do not necessarily agree on everything when it comes to energy and budget policy in the United States. But one thing we strongly agree on is the need to end wasteful subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry. After 60 years, this industry should not require continued and massive corporate welfare. It is time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet.

Nuclear welfare started with research and development. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since 1948 the federal government has spent more than $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) on nuclear energy R&D. That is more than four times the amount spent on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, and hydropower combined.

But federal R&D was not enough; the industry also wanted federal liability insurance too, which it got back in 1957 with the Price-Anderson Act. This federal liability insurance program for nuclear plants was meant to be temporary, but Congress repeatedly extended it, most recently through 2025. Price-Anderson puts taxpayers on the hook for losses that exceed $12.6 billion if there is a nuclear plant disaster. Government estimates show the cost for such a disaster could reach $720 billion in property damage alone, so that’s one sweetheart deal for the nuclear industry!

R&D and Price-Anderson insurance are still just the tip of the iceberg. From tax breaks for uranium mining and loan guarantees for uranium enrichment to special depreciation benefits and lucrative federal tax breaks for every kilowatt-hour from new plants, nuclear is heavily subsidized at every phase. The industry also bilks taxpayers when plants close down with tax breaks for decommissioning plants. Further, it is estimated that the federal costs for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste could be as much as $100 billion.

Even with all of those subsidies, the private sector still will not agree to finance a new nuclear plant, so wealthy nuclear corporations recently secured access to $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Maybe the Wall Street banks agree with the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the risk of default on nuclear loans at above 50 percent. The nuclear industry’s financial troubles are not new. In the 1960s and ’70s, 100 reactors were cancelled due to cost overruns. Things were so bad that Forbes called it “the largest managerial disaster in business history.” Despite this history, some want to dramatically increase federal loan guarantees for nuclear plants.

It is shocking that the nuclear industry continues to receive so much federal support at a time of record debt. Of course, nuclear subsidies benefit some of the wealthiest and most powerful energy corporations in America, which may explain the persistence of nuclear welfare.

For example, Exelon, which takes in $33 billion in revenue annually, is the leading operator/owner of nuclear reactors in the United States. Entergy, with revenues of more than $11 billion annually, is the second largest. Together, these two companies own or operate almost one-third of U.S. reactors, and based on their revenue they are doing pretty well. Why do they need federal welfare year after year after year? Will it ever end?

Well, as Secretary of Energy Steven Chu confirmed at a recent Senate hearing, without federal liability insurance and loan guarantees, no one would ever build a new nuclear plant. Whether you support nuclear energy or not, we should all be able to agree that with record debt, we cannot afford to continue to subsidize this mature industry and its multi-billion-dollar corporations. If the nuclear industry believes so fervently in its technology, then nuclear companies and Wall Street investors can put their money where the mouth is. Let them finance, insure, and pay for nuclear plants themselves.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an unmitigated disaster. Its full consequences will not be known for decades. What we do know, however, is that BP President Tony Hayward was incredibly wrong when he stated that the spill will have “a very, very modest environmental impact.” Quite the contrary! In fact, one of the most beautiful and productive coastal regions of the world is being turned into a giant cesspool and, in the midst of a major recession, thousands of workers are going to lose their livelihoods.

It goes without saying that BP must pick up the full costs of the cleanup and the economic damages. BP earned $5.6 billion in the first quarter of this year. BP, not the American taxpayer, must pay for the devastation it caused.

Further, we must learn that with any risky technology, whether it is offshore oil drilling or nuclear power, it is not good enough to be 99 percent safe. One event can have a calamitous and irreversible impact. We need a major investigation to understand how this accident occurred. We must make certain that precautions are put in place so nothing like it ever happens again.

This crisis occurred at a time when the United States was considering opening new areas to offshore oil drilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that Congress must end that policy. There must be no new offshore drilling. Not now! Not ever!

Offshore drilling simply does not achieve the goals that its advocates claim, and it is not worth the risk. If we are serious about wanting to break our dependence on foreign oil and move to energy independence; if we want to lower the cost of energy; if we want to combat climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions; if we want to create millions of new jobs — then more offshore drilling is not the way to go. 

The simple truth is that we cannot drill our way to energy independence or lower gas prices. The United States uses roughly 25 percent of the world’s oil, 7.5 billion barrels per year, but we have only 2 to 3 percent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves. Offshore drilling today provides roughly 10 percent of the oil we use in the United States.

That is why on Thursday I introduced legislation to reinstate a ban on new offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves and along Florida’s gulf coast and dramatically increase fuel efficiency for vehicles sold in America. Instead of saving 3-cents a gallon by 2030 by allowing wide open offshore drilling, we can save far more with stronger fuel economy standards. Just by raising our fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 miles per gallon for cars and trucks, as President Obama is doing, we will save consumers the equivalent of $1 per gallon of gas in 2030. If we enacted my legislation, we would reach 55 miles per gallon by 2030. That would save motorists the equivalent of $1.43 a gallon of gas. It also would eliminate the need for 3.9 million barrels of oil per day, more than double the amount we now import from Persian Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia.

We know we can get better fuel economy, because other nations are already doing it. The European Union currently gets 42 miles per gallon and is moving to 65 miles per gallon by 2020. China, Canada, Japan, and South Korea all have stronger fuel economy standards than the United States.

If we take bold action in energy efficiency, public transportation, advanced vehicle technologies, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, we can transform our energy system, clean up our environment, and create millions of new jobs in the process. This direction, and not more offshore drilling, is where we have got to go.

This post originally appeared on the Guardian.

What we are talking about is an energy revolution that leads us toward energy independence, the cessation of support for foreign dictatorships and the ability to avoid Mideast wars fought over oil. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable us to address the global warming crisis that threatens our planet with increases in floods, drought, extreme weather conditions, disease and wars fought over limited natural resources. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will result in cleaner air, water and food and make us a healthier nation.

And, as our nation struggles to recover from the worst economic times since the Great Depression, what we also are talking about is an energy revolution that has the capability of creating millions of good-paying green jobs.

These are jobs that will occur at every level of education and for every skill set. These are jobs for scientists, engineers, machinists, and electricians. These are jobs for workers who weatherize older homes and buildings and save consumers substantial sums on their fuel bills. These are jobs for factory workers who produce advanced insulation material, energy-efficient windows, improved roofing materials and LED light bulbs. These are jobs that build, distribute, install and maintain wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water systems, geothermal heating and cooling systems, and biomass heating systems. These are jobs on our farms and in our forests producing biofuels and converting farm waste to electricity.

I see a future where by 2025, we are producing a quarter or more of our electricity from clean, sustainable energy sources. I see a revitalized American manufacturing base where instead of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 46 percent of solar photovoltaic cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines used in the U.S., those product are made right here at home. I see a future where American companies lead the world in the production of hybrid-plug in cars and electric vehicles.

I see a future where instead of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil-fuel power plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute our air because the only fuel is endlessly renewed, no-cost sunlight. These plants, according to the Interior Department secretary, could provide up to 29 percent of the electrical needs of our country.

I see a future where by 2020 our nation follows the example of a state like Vermont, which, in the last two years, has seen electricity demand lowered because of energy efficiency efforts. Investing in energy efficiency is cost-effective; it saves 3 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the 14 cents it costs to generate the same amount of power.

I see a future where states compete with one another to see which can be the most efficient, and where businesses seek out efficient states in which to locate so they can reap the economic and environmental benefits for their businesses and employees.

I see a future where getting to work, or to school, or to the store does not have to cause pollution. I see a future where plug-in hybrid cars and electric vehicles are commonplace, producing a fraction of the emissions of conventional vehicles while providing the same mobility for drivers.

I see a future where we rebuild our mass transportation and rail systems. For every $1 billion we invest in public transportation, we create 30,000 jobs, save thousands of dollars a year for each commuter, and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The bad news is that if we do not act boldly to address the global warming crisis, the consequences for our planet and future generations will be dire. The good news is that we have the knowledge and technology today, which will only improve in the future, to address that crisis. Yes, we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emission. Yes, we can create an energy independent nation. Yes, we can create millions of good paying green jobs in the process. Let’s do it!

As a member of both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee it is my view that the time is long overdue for Congress to go beyond deal making and “politics as usual” in addressing the crisis of global warming. The droughts, floods and severe weather disturbances our planet is already experiencing will only get worse, potentially impacting billions of people, if we do not take bold and decisive action in the very near future.

While the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough in creating the policies that the scientific community says must be developed if we are to avert a planetary catastrophe. It is also lacking in paving the way for the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies. Here are some of my concerns with the Lieberman-Warner bill:

• First, virtually all of the scientific evidence tells us that, at the least, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 if we stand a chance to reverse global warming. Lieberman-Warner, under the very best projections, provides a 66 percent reduction.
• Second, this legislation allows major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases for free until 2036. In fact, old-fashioned dirty coal burning plants could still be built during this period. That’s wrong. The “right to pollute” should not be given away for up to 24 years. Further, in calculating emission reductions, the bill relies much too heavily on “offsets,” a process which is difficult to verify and which could significantly undermine the actual emissions caps.
• Third, this bill provides a massive amount of corporate welfare to industries which have been major emitters of greenhouse gasses while requiring minimal performance standards and accountability. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, the auction and allocation processes of the bill could generate up to $3.6 trillion dollars over a 38 year period. While a large fund exists in the bill for “low carbon technology,” there is no guaranteed allocation for such important technologies as wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydrogen or for energy efficiency. But, there is a guaranteed allotment of $324 billion for the coal industry through an “Advanced Coal and Sequestration program” and $232 billion for the auto industry for “Advanced Technology Vehicles.”

The time is late, and if Congress is serious about preventing irreversible damage to our planet because of global warming we need to get moving in a bold and focused manner. And we can do it.

In 1941, President Roosevelt began the process of rearming America to defeat Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. Within a few short years, tanks, bombs, planes and guns were rolling off assembly lines at such a scale that, within a few short years, our military had the resources to overwhelm our enemies. We did it.

In 1961, President Kennedy called upon our nation to undertake the seemingly impossible mission of sending a man to the moon. NASA was greatly expanded, the best scientists and engineers were assembled, billions were appropriated and, in 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon. We did it.

As a result of global warming, the challenge we face is no less daunting and no less consequential. Quite the contrary! Now, we are fighting for the future of the planet and the well-being of billions of people. And, once again, if we summon up the political courage I have absolutely no doubt that the United States can lead the world in resolving this crisis. We can do it.

In that context let me take a moment to suggest some of the ways that we can strengthen the Lieberman-Warner bill to aggressively reverse global warming. Most importantly, significant resources in this bill must be explicitly allocated for Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy, the areas where we can get the greatest and quickest bang for our buck.

In terms of energy efficiency, my home city of Burlington, Vermont, despite strong economic growth, consumes no more electricity today than it did 16 years ago because of a successful effort to make to make our homes, offices, schools and all kinds of buildings more energy efficient. In California, which has a growing economy, electric consumption per person has remained steady over the last 20 years because of the state’s commitment to energy efficiency.

Numerous studies tell us that by retrofitting older buildings and by establishing strong efficiency standards for new construction we can cut fuel and electric consumption by at least 40 percent. Those savings will increase with such new technologies as LED light bulbs, which we expect will consume one-tenth of the electricity of an incandescent bulb, while lasting 20 years.

In terms of saving energy in transportation it is beyond comprehension that we are driving cars today which get the same 25 miles per gallon as cars in this country got 20 years ago. If Europe and Japan can average over 44 miles per gallon, we can do at least as well. Simply raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon will save more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia. We should also be rebuilding and expanding our decaying rail and subway systems and making sure that energy efficient buses are available in rural America so that travelers have an alternative to the automobile.

In terms of sustainable energy, wind power is the fastest growing source of new energy in the world and in the United States – but we have barely begun to tap its potential. In Denmark, for example, 20 percent of their electricity is produced by wind. We should be supporting wind energy not only through the creation of large wind farms in the appropriate areas, but through the production of small, inexpensive wind turbines which can be used in homes and farms throughout rural America. These small turbines can produce up to half the electricity that an average home consumes and are now reasonably priced. Without tax credits or rebates, a 1.8 kilowatt turbine is now being sold for $12,000 including installation – with a payback of 5-6 years. That’s pretty cheap electricity.

The possibilities for solar energy are virtually unlimited. In Germany, a quarter of a million homes are now producing electricity through roof-top photovoltaic units and the price per kilowatt is rapidly declining. In California, the state is providing strong incentives so that one million homes will have solar units in the next ten years.

But the potential of solar energy goes far beyond roof-top photovoltaic units. Right now, in Nevada, a solar plant is generating 56 megawatts of electricity. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy; “Solar energy represents a huge domestic energy resource for the United States, particularly in the Southwest where the deserts have some of the best solar resource levels in the world. For example, an area approximately 12% the size of Nevada (15% of federal lands in Nevada) has the potential to supply all of the electric needs of the United States.”

More significantly, Pacific Gas and Electric, the largest electric utility in the country, has recently signed a contract with Solel, an Israeli company, to build a 535 megawatt plant in the Mohave dessert. This plant, which should be operating in about 4 years will have an output equivalent to a small nuclear power plant and will produce electricity for about 400,000 homes.

Most importantly, the price of the electricity generated by this plant is competitive with other fuels today and will likely be much cheaper than other fuels in the future. News reports indicate that the 25 year purchase agreement signed by Pacific Gas and Electric with Solel calls for electricity to be initially generated at about 10 cents a kilowatt with very minimal increases over the next 25 years. My guess is that electricity at, say, 15 cents a kilowatt in the year 2035 will be a very, very good deal.

The potential for solar plants in the southwest is very strong. While there will be no magical silver bullet in the production of new, non-polluting energy sources, experts tell us that we can build dozens of plants there and that this one non-CO2 emitting source could provide some 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States.

Geothermal energy is the heat from deep inside the earth. It is free, renewable, and can be used for electricity generation and direct heating. While geothermal is available at some depth everywhere, it is most accessible in western states where hydrothermal resources are at shallow depths. Currently the U.S. has approximately 2,900 megawatts of installed capacity, which is just 5% of the renewable electricity generation in the U.S. The installed geothermal capacity is already expected to double in the near term with projects that are under development, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

A recent report for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that geothermal could provide 100,000 megawatts of new carbon-free electricity at less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, comparable to costs for “clean coal.” Drilling technology from the petroleum industry is the key to unlocking this huge potential. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) tap energy from hot impermeable rocks that are between 2 and 6 miles below the earths crust.

An investment of one billion dollars, less than the price of one coal-fired power plant, could make this resource commercially viable within 15 years. The potential payoff is huge. It is estimated that electricity from geothermal sources could provide 10 percent of the U.S. base-load energy needs in 2050.

In terms of the future of our planet the bad news is that scientists tell us that they have under-estimated the speed and destructive aspects of global warming. There is less time than we previously thought before irreversible damage is done. The good news, however, is that we now know what we have to do to solve the problem. We know how to make our homes and transportation systems more energy efficient and we are making huge progress in driving down the costs of non-polluting sustainable energy technologies. What is lacking now is the political will to stand up to powerful special interests, and move our energy system in a very different direction.

I look forward to working with grass-roots America to make that happen.

This statement was originally delivered on the floor of the Senate on Nov. 13, 2007.