An Interview With Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Bernie Sanders

Supporters of aggressive controls on greenhouse gases have no stronger advocate in the U.S. Senate than Vermont's Bernie Sanders (I-VT), an unabashed liberal independent who caucuses with the Democrats. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sanders has pushed for years for aggressive greenhouse gas emissions targets and controls, and insiders say that his work on the committee helped strengthen the bill that the panel passed in June.

In an interview with Eli Kintisch of ScienceInsider, Sanders claims he has "leverage" to strengthen the bill. Although he acknowledges that attracting 60 votes might well require making the bill "weak," he's confident that the United States can deploy existing technology on a grand scale to transform its energy system. "We can do it," he says.

Q: Are you more or less optimistic about passing meaningful climate legislation than you were 6 months ago?

B.S.: Well, I think the key word in your question is "meaningful." As you know, the House [of Representatives] passed legislation, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed legislation. That's pretty good. That's better than we've ever done before. The problem here in the Senate is that we need 60 votes to do anything meaningful. The Republicans have played an obstructionist role all year long. I think that the bill that came out of the Senate environment committee--a vote that was boycotted by Republicans--was meaningful. It calls for a greenhouse gas reduction of 80% by the year 2050. It moves this country towards energy independence, into energy efficiency and sustainability, in a fairly strong way. So to answer your question, whether or not we can pass something "meaningful" with 60 votes remains to be seen and will probably end up in the eye of the beholder.

Here's the problem that we have: Most peer-reviewed science we have tells us that this planet is facing an extraordinary crisis and we need bold action. What I worry about is that we may pass something which is watered down, which is weak, which may not be bold enough to address the crisis that we face.

Q: But if you see a weak bill coming, would you refuse to support it?

B.S.: Well, I won't tell you what I would do because I don't have the bill in front of me. I mean, what is a weak bill? The [problem] if I do that is, what happens? Then there is no bill. What we are dealing with, the problem we have here, is that we have a very conservative Senate. It depends on the nature of legislation, how weak it is. But I fear very much one of two things happening. We pass nothing, which means the most powerful nation on Earth has abdicated its responsibility to deal with a planetary crisis. Or, perhaps we pass something that is weak, which does not address the crisis.

Q: Well, one thing you could say is that the Environmental Protection Agency [which is moving to set up greenhouse gas emissions controls] is going to back me up; they're going to regulate carbon dioxide if you walk out.

B.S.: Well, that's good, if the Obama Administration is prepared to do that, that's absolutely an option.

Q: The counterargument to that, of course, is that they're going to be so tied up in lawsuits it will never get passed and the next Administration may be unwilling to pick up the ball. How real is that EPA threat, given that there are already people who have said they're going to sue to stop it?

B.S.: Well, you need to talk to the Administration about that, I'm not going to speculate.

The pity of the whole thing is that, in point of fact, we know how to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, we know how to move towards energy independence, we know how to move towards energy efficiency, we have the tools now and technology, we have the tools for sustainable energy. So this is not like a great mystery. We know what we have to do. The problem we have is that we are being opposed by a very powerful special interest: coal, oil, right-wing politics, Rush Limbaugh, etc. I think we can handle the economic transformation of our energy system. There are people with legitimate economic concerns. They'll say, "I come from a state where the electricity comes from coal and the price of electricity will go up [if greenhouse gases are regulated]." That's a legitimate concern. We can address that concern. People are saying some people may lose their jobs. That's a reasonable concern, and I think we can and should address those concerns. I think the most important thing is that between solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, we now know how to produce amounts of energy [that would] transform our public transportation system.

In the same sense, when the United States faced a very daunting problem in late 1941, with Pearl Harbor, they had to transform the whole economy into an armaments economy. People didn't think they could do it. But within a year they were producing the planes and the tanks and guns that we needed to win the war. We can do it.

Q: You're considered a champion of the poor in the Senate. Senator Cantwell's approach for giving out any revenue from selling the emissions allowances is to give three-quarters of the money right back to the taxpayers. What do you think of that approach?

B.S.: I can't get into the specifics right now, but obviously you'd want to make sure that low-income people are protected, absolutely.

Q: And do you think that the Senate bill that the committee passed does that?

B.S.: Yeah, I think that it takes it a long way.

Q: Are there any major changes you would like to see in that bill?

B.S.: I'd like to make it stronger, in every respect. I have concerns about the amount of money going in coal. A substantial amount of money is going to coal.

Q: [The money is aimed] at trying to help the industry capture its emissions.

B.S.: Well, it's going into coal. For a start, there are some serious debates about the future of so-called clean coal and [carbon] sequestration. And I'm willing to put money into trying to address that. But my concern is that we know right now we can provide 10 million rooftops in this country with photovoltaics. Right now, the Army is starting to move substantial scale solar projects. [Interior Secretary] Ken Salazar remarked a few months ago that 29% of electricity used in homes could come from solar thermal, which is another technology. We know the potential of wind, which is growing rather significantly. There are people who think that geothermal, in various parts of this country, has huge potential. In my state of Vermont, we are now consuming less electricity than we did because we have been reasonably aggressive in terms of energy efficiency. We can do better. So what I'm suggesting is that the technologies exist. But whether or not coal sequestration will work, I don't know.

Q: What do you think about the idea of border tariffs, if you were [trading] with a country that does not have controls on greenhouse gas emissions?

B.S.: I think it makes sense. I think that it's unfair to penalize a country where it costs more to produce a product where you are transforming our energy system and using more expensive energy than a country where it's not. I think that does make a lot of sense.

Q: Did President Obama make a mistake by going to Copenhagen and talking about real numbers before the Senate has acted?

B.S.: No. I think what President Obama is trying to do is to tell the world that, after 8 years when the United States has abdicated its responsibility, in which the whole world was awed in its disbelief because we had a president at that point who did not even acknowledge the reality of global warming, what President Obama is saying is, 'Look, we've turned the page, this Administration understands the severity of the problem.'

Q: Do you think what comes out of Copenhagen or subsequent meetings next year will help you convince people on the fence?

B.S.: No. I don't think it's relevant. I think people on the fence here aren't particularly worried about Copenhagen. They have their own indebtedness to the coal industry or the oil companies or their campaign contributors. I don't think Copenhagen is terribly relevant to them.

Q: People talk about 60 votes, but no one talks about 67, the number of votes needed for the Senate to ratify a treaty. If it's so hard to get to 60, how on Earth would you ratify a treaty that the United States signs next year?

B.S.: That's a very good question. At the end of the day, the politics is about saying we understand that global warming is a very huge crisis today, and it will only get worse in years to come. The Congress must work with countries around the world, the United States must work with countries around the world, to transform our energy system and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. And we are going to support those elected officials who are prepared to do that and not support those who are not.