Clockwise from top left: Sens. John Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, and Bernie Sanders.

We cannot allow long-time opponents of renewable energy to focus the discussion only on Solyndra (whose higher-priced panels could not compete as solar costs came down) when we should be thinking about competing with China to win the next energy revolution. Why? Because the race is on to put the right policies in place so hundreds of thousands of new, well-paying renewable energy jobs will be created here, and not in China. With Bloomberg New Energy Finance reporting that for the first time ever, global investments in renewable electricity have exceeded investments in fossil fuel power plants, the question is not whether renewable energy is creating jobs; it is which country is going to lead the clean energy jobs revolution. We want it to be America.

The truth is we can win this race. The American solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry more broadly. Just look at the facts: We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 2009, and today more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at more than 5,000 companies in every single state. These include manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.

Last year, we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar power in the United States, more than double the amount installed in 2009. With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is one of America’s fastest growing industries, and is creating jobs all across the country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over just the last two years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of solar.

As solar becomes more cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuels, everyone from Walmart to the United States Marine Corps is looking to go solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 130 stores in California, and says, “Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million dollars through our solar program.” The military is using solar energy with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in Afghanistan, and Marine Col. Bob Charette says for the Marines renewable energy is “about saving lives” by reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for resupply.

The wind industry is also growing rapidly. Texas alone has more than 10,000 MW of wind energy installed, which is equivalent in capacity to 10 nuclear reactors. Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs in America today, and more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 states. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. At the same time, we are increasing American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 25 percent in 2005.

In these tough economic times, the story of renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news story. Renewable energy is helping to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, is making our nation more energy independent, and is cutting pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions.

As with every energy technology in the past, federal policies play an important role in supporting renewable energy in America. Key among those policies is a provision known as the Treasury Grant Program (or 1603) which turns an existing wind and solar tax credit into a grant. This provides better financing options for American renewable energy developers and has helped to attract nearly $23 billion in private sector investments in renewable energy, supporting 22,000 projects. Unfortunately this program is set to expire at the end of this year, unless Congress acts to extend it. What is at stake in this fight? If this program expires, one study shows that financing for renewable energy projects would be cut in half, just at the time when renewable energy is experiencing explosive growth.

Although Solyndra is the major headline right now, the real challenge is that Congress is debating whether we can even extend the Treasury Grant Program and other important renewable energy incentives for another year.

Meanwhile, China outpaces the United States by a 2-to-1 margin in clean energy investments, according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. America needs to out-compete China on solar and wind, not surrender to China. At a time of nagging unemployment, with the middle class squeezed, and greenhouse-gas emissions rising, it is imperative that our nation take the lead in creating clean energy jobs right here in America.

It is time to put in place stable, long-term policies to support these critical industries. Rather than fight to turn one energy company’s demise into partisan points, it is time to point the way towards our energy future — so that all Americans win.

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the most serious environmental problem that we face is not global warming or the pollution of our air, water, land and food. It is whether or not our country moves forward in developing public policy based on science or whether we make decisions based on politics and fear mongering.

When Americans walk into a doctor’s office to get treated, they usually don’t worry whether the physician’s politics is progressive or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They want to know that the doctor they are seeing has been well trained in a scientifically accredited institution. They want to know that their treatment is based on the latest and most effective peer-reviewed methodology.

When our highly-trained NASA scientists and engineers work on the exploration of Mars, nobody I know in Congress challenges their credibility or honesty as they study and draw conclusions about that planet’s surface and origin. That is also true with the work of our scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other governmental research agencies.

Yet when it comes to global warming, the situation is very different. Here, radio and TV entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and a host of others in the right-wing echo chamber, with no scientific training in climate science, are spouting off to tens of millions of people every day about a subject they know little about.

Let’s set the record straight. There is no serious dispute within the scientific community and in peer-reviewed journals that global warming is real and that it is significantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Virtually the only people who disagree with this conclusion are representatives of the oil and coal companies, their apologists in the media, and those on Capitol Hill who are stubborn defenders of their big polluter patrons.

As Congress debates global warming, it reminds me of those congressional hearings where tobacco company executives swore under oath that the nicotine they put in cigarettes was not addictive. Some people in Congress believed them. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the wealthy and powerful tobacco lobby had many allies in Congress toeing the company line.

Like the evidence that tobacco kills, the science on global warming is overwhelming. NASA just reported that the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest on record. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing because we are burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests at a rate that is unsustainable. How do we know that carbon dioxide pollution causes global warming? Among the researchers who reached that conclusion are scientists at NASA, EPA, the National Science Foundation, and the departments of Energy, Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, Health, Transportation, and Agriculture. They say, through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, that “global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.” The CIA and many military leaders have warned that climate change threatens our national security and international stability.

If anything, we have underestimated the problem. Our own National Academies of Science released findings last year that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated” and “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.” U.S. average temperatures have already increased by 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years, and a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report found a very high probability that unless we act now temperatures could rise by 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. That would be catastrophic.

We already have seen sea levels rise by as much as nine inches in some areas. As ice sheets and glaciers continue to melt, rising sea levels will put coastal cities at risk of increased flooding and island nations in danger of being submerged. Our top U.S. scientists tell us that unchecked global warming also means increased risks of regional flooding and drought, increased risk to human health and more extreme weather events.

Despite the scientific evidence, some of my colleagues in Congress still tell the public that global warming is a “hoax.” They recently grasped onto a series of stolen emails from a few climate scientists, which they say undermines the science. Well, according to exhaustive reviews throughout the world, the emails do no such thing.

The truth is that there is a real global warming scandal, but it has nothing to do with the emails of a few scientists. The real scandal is that the oil companies and the coal industry and others with an economic stake in the status quo are using the tobacco-industry playbook to confuse the public and prevent Congress from taking strong action. ExxonMobil, for example, has spent more than $24 million since 1998 to fund organizations that are willing to dispute the consensus on global warming. Oil and gas companies spent $154 million lobbying Congress in 2009 alone trying to block legislation to move our county away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy.

As we celebrate this Earth Day, we can make this the year when we stop arguing about the science, and start doing something truly significant about global warming. That would make 2010 a year to celebrate for generations to come.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, is chairman on the Senate Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee. He is the only member of the Senate majority caucus to sit on both the energy and environment committees.

This country spends, in a typical year, $350 billion importing oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries. While this is no doubt good news for the Saudi royal family, one of the richest in the world, it is bad news for the average American.

The vast majority of the American people understand that now is the time to move to energy independence so that we are no longer subject to the greed of OPEC or Wall Street speculators, or need to fight “wars for oil” in the Middle East. Americans also know that if we are serious about addressing environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the imperative to create millions of good-paying jobs, we must move aggressively to energy efficiency and such sustainable technologies as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass.   

Thomas Edison, one of history’s greatest inventors said; “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” He was right then, in 1931, and he remains right today. The American people agree. Today, 92 percent of all Americans want our country to develop solar energy resources, and 77 percent believe the federal government should make solar power development a national priority.

That is why I was joined by 10 of my colleagues (Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Gillibrand, Merkley, Lautenberg, Leahy, Boxer, Menendez, Specter, and Harkin) in introducing the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act. The bill is all of 9 pages and is pretty straightforward. It calls for 10 million new solar rooftop systems and 200,000 new solar water heating systems over the next 10 years. When fully implemented, this legislation would lead to 30,000 megawatts of new photovoltaic energy, triple our total current U.S. solar energy capacity. It will increase by almost 20 times our current energy output from photovoltaic panels. The legislation will rapidly increase production of solar panels, driving down the price of photovoltaic systems. It also would mean the creation of over a million new jobs. The passage of this bill would dramatically reorient our energy priorities and would be a major step forward toward a clean energy future for the United States.

What the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act does is provide consumer rebates for the purchase and installation of solar systems. Here is how it works: Take the example of a homeowner who decides to install a 5 kilowatt solar system which, depending on location, would produce enough electricity to cover most, if not all, of an average electric bill (the solar panels would produce excess power during the day which can be sold back to the utility, covering some or all of the cost of electricity when the sun is not shining). That system today costs roughly $35,000 to purchase and install. The federal tax credit of 30 percent reduces the system cost to $24,500. Many states offer additional incentives. In Vermont, for example, a homeowner could get an additional rebate of $1.75 per watt, which would further reduce the system cost to $15,750. Our bill would provide an additional rebate of as much as $1.75 per watt, covering up to 50 percent of the remaining cost. The result: the consumer now pays $7,875 for the solar system.

This is a pretty good deal for a family that plans to stay in their home or wants to increase their home value, or a small business looking to stabilize its energy costs. It’s also a good deal for the nation because we save money by preventing the expensive construction of new power plants, we eliminate large health care and other costs associated with air and water pollution, and we take a big step to address global warming.

We know this concept works because it is already being implemented on a smaller scale in California. This legislation extends nationally the California Million Solar Roofs initiative, started by Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Now several years into the program, California is on track to meet its goal of installing 3,000 megawatts of new solar by 2016.

Interestingly, while solar has a great deal of public support, you might not know that from listening to energy debates in Congress. As a member of both the energy and environment committees, I am constantly astounded by how many of my colleagues prefer to focus on what the government can do for the nuclear or coal industries, rather than why the government should support clean and sustainable energy. In fact, many senators and congressmen are fighting for a “nuclear renaissance” and want the federal government to offer loan guarantees covering the cost to build 100 new nuclear plants.  This could place at risk up to $1 trillion in taxpayer money.

In my view, this is an absurd proposal. First, it is enormously expensive and financially risky. Second, if we don’t know how to safely dispose of the highly toxic nuclear waster we currently have, what are we going to do with the new waste generated by 100 additional plants?

You may not hear much discussion of this in Congress, but the construction of new nuclear power plants is the most costly approach to producing new energy. Each new plant costs $10 to $17 billion to construct, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the risk of default on taxpayer supported loan guarantees is more than 50 percent. The simple truth is that building new solar capacity is a lot cheaper than building new nuclear plants. The cost to produce electricity from new nuclear plants is estimated to be 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour. Compare this to the cost of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic panels at 13 to 19 cents per kilowatt hour. Also, importantly, the price of solar is coming down, whereas the price for new nuclear keeps going up. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure this one out.

The time is now to reorder our energy priorities. Between 2002 and 2008 we put $70 billion of federal tax dollars towards fossil fuels, and just $1.2 billion towards solar power. New nuclear plants get more than triple the government subsidy that new solar plants get (and this does not fully account for the huge subsidy nuclear plants get through the Price-Anderson Act, which caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic event at a nuclear plant). This is not right. 

If we are serious about moving toward energy independence in a cost-effective way, we should invest in solar energy.  If we are serious about cutting air and water pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we should invest in solar energy. If we are serious about creating a significant number of good paying jobs and making the United States a world leader in the production of sustainable energy, we should invest in solar energy. And, as we move forward in the solar revolution, a very good step forward would be the passage of the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act.