Energy
Floor Speech
ENERGY -- (Senate - June 13, 2007)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership efforts in addressing one of the major crises facing our country. I thank Senator Domenici as well.
As Senator Bingaman just indicated, I would go further than he is going in his proposal. I think he has made an important step forward, but I think given the gravity of the situation we face, it is imperative for the future not only of our country but for the future of our planet that we seize this moment and we be bold and we be aggressive because if we are not, what the scientific community is telling us is that the results could be catastrophic.
When thousands of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tell us with 100 percent certainty that global warming is real, and with 90 percent certainty that it is manmade, we should listen. When these scientists tell us that today, in terms of the melting of glaciers and permafrost, in terms of the increase in drought around the world, the increase of forest fires we are seeing in the United States, in terms of the loss of drinking water and farmland all over the world today, it would be absolutely irresponsible not only for us but for future generations if we did not stand up and say we are going to do everything we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming.
I have introduced legislation--which the Presiding Officer is one of the cosponsors of and was introduced with Senator Boxer--which, in fact, would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent less than where they were in 1990. I think that is the type of aggressive effort that we need. If Senator Kerry offers his amendment to make sure 20 percent of the electricity we produce in this country comes from renewables, I will strongly support that legislation. Fifteen percent, as Senator Bingaman has proposed, is a good step forward, but it does not go far enough.
The bad news is that as a nation, we are lagging far behind the rest of the world, or many countries in the world, in going forward in terms of energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The bad news is that today in America, in terms of transportation, we are driving vehicles which, if you can believe it, get worse mileage per gallon than was the case 20 years ago. Meanwhile, several weeks ago, I was in a car which was a retrofitted Toyota Prius which gets 150 miles per gallon. Yet, as a nation, on average we are driving vehicles which get worse mileage per gallon than we had 20 years ago.
All over our country, we are lacking in public transportation. In Europe, in Japan, in China, their rail systems are far more sophisticated and advanced than we are. Our roadways, from Vermont to California, are clogged with cars, many of them getting poor mileage per gallon. Yet we are not investing and creating jobs in mass transportation. But it is not only transportation that we are lacking in, studies have indicated that if we make our own homes more energy efficient, we can save substantial amounts of energy.
Some estimates are, if we do the right things, we could cut our energy expenditures by 40 percent--40 percent. Yet there are millions of homes in this country inhabited by lower income people who don't have the money to adequately insulate their homes, put in the kind of roofs they need, the kind of windows they need, and we are literally seeing energy go right out of the doors and the windows because we are not adequately funding weatherization. But it is not just lower income people. Many middle-class families are also in homes that are inadequately weatherized, inadequately insulated.
One of the things I have long believed as I have studied this issue of global warming is that not only do we have the moral imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly so that we can reverse global warming, but in that process we can seize this crisis, respond to this crisis, and create some very golden opportunities in terms of creating good-paying jobs. If you look at those areas in the world where they have moved most effectively in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as Germany, many countries in Europe, and our own State of California, the result has been, yes, there has been economic dislocation, but at the end of the day, they have created a lot more jobs than they have lost.
I have worked with groups such as the Apollo Project, which is a group that brings together labor organizations as well as environmentalists, that say: How do we move toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions and creating good-paying jobs? The opportunities are sitting right in front of us.
Detroit has lost billions and billions of dollars year after year by building cars that many Americans no longer want. Maybe if we move toward energy-efficient cars, people might start buying those cars, and instead of laying off workers, maybe we can create more jobs. Think of the jobs we can create as we build a rail system that we are proud of. As cities like Chicago and New York and other cities rebuild their antiquated subway systems, we can create jobs doing that.
We can create jobs all over this country in terms of energy efficiency. As we move toward biofuels, I can tell my colleagues that in my State of Vermont, our small family farmers are struggling very hard to stay on the land. There is a lot of evidence out there that we can create significant income for family-based agriculture as we move to biofuels, not only in Vermont but all over this country.
The good news is there is a lot of good, new technology out there. That means we have the opportunity right now to build the cars of the future. I was in an electric car last month which now has a range of 200 miles--200 miles in an electric car. That is far more than most people use in a day. There is potential there as well.
If we look at what is going on in the world right now, the fastest growing source of new energy is wind. There is huge potential in terms of the growth of wind technology. One of the reasons I am supporting the strongest possible energy portfolio is that I want to see the wind technology exploding and growing all over this world. The more that is produced, the cheaper it will become. When I talk about wind, we are not just talking about large wind farms, as important as that is, as part of the energy mix. We are talking about small wind turbines which we believe in 5 or 6 years will be available for $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 that on average can provide half of the electric needs a rural house might need.
Look at what is going on in California right now. I think we owe a lot to our largest State for leading us in a direction that the rest of our country might want to emulate. In California now what they are saying is that in 10 years they want, and have funded, the need for 1 million photovoltaic units on rooftops throughout California--1 million. In California, what they are saying is they can provide significant incentives to those people who want to install photovoltaics. There is huge potential in this country moving toward solar energy. One of the issues that concerns me and saddens me is that the technology for solar energy, which was originally developed in the United States, has now moved abroad.
Think of all of the jobs we can create if we as a nation had the goal of saying, in 10 years we will have 10 million rooftops in America using solar energy. Think how many jobs we can create by people installing those units. Think of the jobs we can create as American factories start producing those photovoltaic units--not in China, not in Japan, not in Germany, but producing them right here in the United States of America. But to do that, we are going to need the policies such as net metering, which says if I own a photovoltaic unit and I produce more than I am consuming, it goes back into the grid and I get paid for that, as they are doing right now in Germany.
It means if I am a middle-income person who cannot afford the $30,000 I need to install that photovoltaic unit, I am going to need some help, and it may be a lot more than the type of tax credits we are now providing. I think we could learn from California, which is encouraging people in a much more generous way than we are doing.
It is quite similar for wind production as well; that is, the production tax credit should be significantly increased and the investor tax credit should be significantly increased as well.
Some people might say: Well, Senator Sanders, this will cost a lot of money. They are right. It will cost a lot of money. But I would remind my colleagues that not too long ago on the floor of this Senate a significant number of Senators voted to repeal the estate tax completely--repeal the estate tax completely--which would cost our Government $1 trillion over a 20-year period. All of those tax breaks are going to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population, the very wealthiest people in America.
Well, if some of my friends think we have the resources to provide $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent, I would argue that we have the resources to incentivize the American people to purchase automobiles and other vehicles that get good mileage per gallon, incentivize and help people to put photovoltaic units on their rooftops, and incentivize and help people in rural America to purchase small wind turbines which could provide a substantial amount of electricity for their homes.
So the good news is that today, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, what we can say in honesty is that the technologies now are available in terms of transportation and energy efficiency.
Last month I talked to a major manufacturer of electric lights. What he told me is that in 4 or 5 years, there will be lights on the market, LED lights, which will last for 20 years when plugged in and consume about one-tenth of the electricity that is currently being consumed. Those are the kinds of breakthroughs we are making right now.
What we have to do as a Senate right now is provide the incentives to the American people to go out and purchase the lightbulbs which today might cost, if it is even a compact fluorescent lightbulb, more than an incandescent lightbulb, but in the long run, you save money. But we have to help those who do not have the money to do that.
An argument could be made that if the Federal Government helped every American purchase compact fluorescent lightbulbs and pay for those lightbulbs, we probably will save money in the long run without needing to build new powerplants, and certainly we would be making a major investment in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
I conclude by saying that we would be absolutely irresponsible if we did not stand up to the big oil companies, the big coal companies, and all of those people who want us to continue to go along the same old path. We would be irresponsible because we would not be bringing about the changes we need to protect our kids and our grandchildren and, in fact, the very well-being of our planet.
I hope that as this debate continues for the rest of this week and into next week, that what we understand is that there is an absolute moral imperative that we act as boldly as we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions, that we act as boldly as we can to break our dependency on fossil fuels, that we be prepared to be a leader in the world in terms of moving toward energy efficiency, and that we embrace the new technologies that are out there in terms of solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and other energies.
The more we invest, the more we produce, the more breakthroughs we will see. There are extraordinary opportunities out there, and if we do the right things, if we get our act together, 30 years from today the kind of energy system that exists in this country will look very different than the one that exists now. Not only will we be able to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming, we are going to clean up the planet, which I think will go a long way to prevent many types of diseases that currently exist.
Now is the time for boldness, now is the time for the United States not to continue being a laggard behind other countries on this issue but becoming a leader around the world. It is not good enough to criticize China and India. What we need to do is become a leader and reach out and help those countries move forward in combating global warming.
This is the opportunity, and I think history will not look kindly upon us if we do not take advantage of this moment.
I yield the floor.
Source