We come from Vermont. We know our small state cannot reverse global warming on our own, but we can provide a model for America which helps lead our nation and the world to a more sustainable and secure energy future.
We see three major imperatives.
First, we must act to reverse global warming. The scientific consensus is clear that global warming is real, that it is caused by human activities and that it will only get worse if we do not take bold efforts now. At a time when many members of Congress do not even acknowledge that global warming is happening, in Vermont we are taking action. Vermont has more than 100 grassroots citizen-led town energy committees that are working with state agencies to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and such clean sources of sustainable energy as solar, geothermal, biomass and wind.
Second, at a time when our nation is trying to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, we must seize the opportunity of creating millions of new jobs by making our homes, buildings and appliances more energy efficient. We must also invest heavily in public transportation and rebuilding our rail system. Further, there are enormous economic opportunities not only in the installation of wind and solar projects, but in building these products here in the United States, not China.
We are proud that according to a recent U.S. Labor Department estimate, Vermont leads the nation in green jobs per capita. That's one reason Vermont's unemployment rate is among the lowest in the nation. From the well drillers who now see the installation of geothermal heat pumps as a new opportunity to expand their businesses, to loggers in the woods who are helping to keep our schools and homes warm, to our innovative solar and wind companies that compete nationally and even internationally, our small state is home to a burgeoning network of new green businesses. This did not happen by accident. We have put in place policies that support clean-technology businesses in Vermont.
Finally, we must grasp opportunities to lower energy and fuel bills by moving away from foreign oil toward energy independence. We know this from first-hand experience. We live in a state where roughly half our homes are heated with oil. We live in a region of the country where electricity prices exceed the national average. Of the $1 billion spent every year to heat our homes and buildings in Vermont, 80 percent of that money goes out of state and in some cases to other nations that may not have our best interests in mind. By comparison, 80 percent of what we invest in energy efficiency stays in Vermont to purchase local goods and services and create jobs.
The challenge is to turn these principles into practice.
Up-front costs pose a steep barrier to home owners and businesses converting to cleaner sources of energy or weatherizing homes and workplaces to make them more energy efficient. For an average working family, it is hard to come up with the $5,000 or $10,000 that might be needed to cut fuel bills by 25 to 50 percent. That's why we brought together energy providers, investors and consumers at a first-of-its-kind Clean Energy Investment Summit. Vermont's efforts to move forward with innovative financing tools like on-bill financing and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) will provide more households and businesses access to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies.
We're already doing a lot of other things right. Our state is ranked No. 1 by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in terms of energy efficiency policies. Our electric utilities sell less kilowatt-hours or power than they did a few years ago, saving consumers tens of millions of dollars. We also have been a leader in weatherization for low-income families, with about 15,000 homes weatherized in the last decade. That saves energy and money; about $916 per year per household. If every state over the next 10 years matched what Vermont accomplished over the last decade, our nation would need 390 fewer coal-burning plants and American consumers would save $170 billion. Further, we will soon be the first state in the country with near-universal smart meter coverage -- opening the opportunity for more gains in energy efficiency.
And we are making progress on sustainable energy. Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie of the Vermont National Guard recently discussed, with considerable pride, the 1.45 megawatt solar photovoltaic system which the Guard recently installed. This project, one of the largest military solar installations in the nation, is not just good for the environment; it is saving the Guard an estimated $250,000 a year in energy costs. Further, in a state where so many buildings heat with oil, 47 Vermont schools are saving money and protecting the environment by heating with biomass harvested right here in New England.
For the nation, like Vermont, moving forward aggressively in energy efficiency and sustainable energy is a win, win, win proposition. We protect our environment by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We save homeowners and businesses money on their heating and cooling bills. And, in the middle of a recession, we create jobs here at home, not in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/senatorsanders
living in 1869.
He's a class warrior who fights for more regulationÂ, transparenÂcy, accountabiÂlity, green energy, and support for people who are struggling to survive in a trickle-up economy. He wants to raise taxes and increase the deficit so he can create more jobs for bureaucratÂs who will redistribuÂte the wealth.
He's a Jew from Brooklyn who moved to Vermont during the hippie migration. He ran and won his first CongressioÂnal race as a Socialist in 1972. He calls himself an IndependenÂt now, but he's still at socialist at heart and doesn't even try to hide it.
He thinks due process is an inviolable right and warrantlesÂs searches are a violation. Even though it's already the law of the land, he is still complaininÂg about detaining people indefiniteÂly on nothing more than the president'Âs signature. He agrees with Ben Franklin who said if we sacrifice our rights for security, we will lose both.
There's no dirt to use against him. Forty years in Congress, and there's nothing to suggest he has ever succumbed to putting self-interest, expedience, or lust ahead of serving the people.
He exerts his positions with intelligence, clarity, cohesion and consistency. He won't shut up and he won't go away.
Narrow-minded people know they are right and Bernie Sanders is wrong. That's all they need to know.
I rest my case.
2. Create millions of jobs
3. Lower energy and fuel bills through energy independence
None of these are consistent with Sanders/Shumlin's push to close Vermont Yankee.
Bernie, I wish people actually wanted to buy green products but the Government alone cannot create a market for these products when the consumers won't buy them:
First Solar Inc - $3.1 billion in federal money - 30% of their workforce laid off April 12
Solar Trust - $2.1 billion in federal money - Bankrupt April 12
Abound Solar - $400 million in federal money - 50% of their workforce laid off March 12
Ener1 - $118 million in federal money - Bankrupt January 12
Amonix Inc. - $9 million in federal money - 66% of their workforce laid off January 12
Solyndra - $535 million in federal money - Bankrupt August 11
Energy Conversion Devices - $25 million in federal money - Bankrupt February 12
SunPower - $1.2 billion in federal money - Verge of Bankruptcy January 12
Beacon Power Corp - $43 million in federal money - Bankrupt October 11
Ecotality - $115 million in federal money - SEC investigation, stock is down 84% since 5/11
A123 Systems $249 million in federal money - Down 55 percent this year, and has lost more than 90 percent of its value, class action lawsuit for deceiving investors
1 MILLION pounds of Food on 3 acres. 10,000 fish 500 yards compost
In the 2008 Scorecard, Vermont was tied for #1 BEST with Minnesota (MN now an "Above Average" state).
Wish Sen. Sanders would look at a run for the Presidency, or get his name out there more!
Should you not mention the costs, in addition to the savings? $8.5 million would be a payoff in savings after 35 years just to break even. But wait, if that money needs to be borrowed, the cost goes up. At 2% interest, a 35-year loan would mean instead of annual savings, you would have annual additional COSTS of $50,000 per year. (I'm not going to do the math, but obviously the break-even period gets much longer, especially with the certainty of higher interest rates.)
We desperately need more efficient energy infrastructure. But if we are going to pay for it (and everything else) on a credit card, we need to cut costs elsewhere. As soon as interest rates start rising (and they have to at some point) this is going to become very clear.
We can invest our way to prosperity, but we can't borrow our way to prosperity. Consider that any money taxed out of the private sector is money that can no longer be invested IN the domestic private sector. That means to have net economic growth, government must get a better return on its investment than the private sector would have. That is very rare these days.
there is a difference between being prosperous and living prosperously. To the extent we ARE prosperous, that is a result of production and wealth creation. If you borrow money to make money, it is the "making money" part that makes you prosperous, NOT the "borrowing money" part.
Say I borrow $1000 and use it to grow food. When the crops are harvested, and I sell them, I will have $1500. During the time the crops are growing, I have no money and live frugally, so am not living prosperously. But I have a degree of prosperity (assuming the weather holds) to look forward to. Repeat and prosper.
Now say I borrow $1000 and hit the Four Seasons. I am living prosperously, but I have no prosperity to look forward to. Only more borrowing. Repeat until you reach your credit limit, then look for a way to produce true prosperity or else suffer.
You can work/produce your way to prosperity, and you can borrow in order to do it, but you cannot simply borrow/consume your way to increasing and lasting prosperity. We are going to find that out the hard way.
Check out this link - kind of interesting (and scary), if true:
http://wallstreetpit.com/61005-did-the-year-2000-mark-the-debt-saturation-point
And you're probably pointing out the project that uses solar panels, but then arguing about energy efficient structures. My own personal experience? Installing a geothermal heat pump, even with interest as high as 10%, would pay off in about 5 to 7 years versus using propane at existing prices. Even versus cheaper natural gas, if the pump is installed in place of a conventional natural gas heater (for areas that have it) and air conditioner, it would have a similar pay back time based the difference in installing the two different types of equipment.
My main point is not that this is a bad investment, but that the typical progressive cost-benefit analysis makes a lot of noise about benefits while remaining silent on costs. If we are going to make feel-good decisions, let's put everything on the table for all to see, and THEN decide. How would solar in VT stack up against a clean wood-burning cogeneration plant?
(BTW, not to brag, but my purchase of an EPA-efficient wood stove for $1000 paid off in its first heating season.)
"Unfortunately for the taxpayers, it creates a growing problem of having to pay for guaranteed liabilities that only loom larger every day they are not adequately addressed. Three states show the scale of the problem: California, Illinois and Vermont."
http://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/listing_article.asp?section=451§ion2=451&CatID=5&ArticleSource=380
I would hate to be on a short list with CA and IL, but at least are sign they are getting better, not worse.