OnTheIssuesLogo

Kirsten Gillibrand on Energy & Oil

Democratic Senator (NY)

 


Put a price on carbon: supports Green New Deal

I'm for the Green New Deal and it's also why I'm for putting a price on carbon. The Green New Deal is actually three basic ideas that are already bipartisan. It's infrastructure investments. It's green jobs. And third, clean air and water.

The only idea that's new is net zero carbon emissions within 10 years. When John F. Kennedy said, "I want to put a man on the moon in 10 years," he didn't know if he could do it. Why not do the same here? Why not say, "let's get to net zero carbon emissions in 10 years not because it's easy, but because it's hard, because it will be a measure of our excellence and innovation," and it's a mission we are unwilling to postpone.

Source: CNN Town Hall: 2020 presidential hopefuls , Apr 9, 2019

Perfect score on "350 Action's 2020 Climate Test"

The environmental group 350 Action released a candidate scorecard known as the 2020 Climate Test to assess presidential hopefuls on three major metrics: support for a Green New Deal, opposition to new fossil fuel development and refusal to accept money from energy companies.

Three candidates have made firm climate-forward commitments, issuing their support for the Green New Deal, vowing to keep fossil fuels in the ground and banning donations from Big Oil.

Four candidates have supported two of 350 Action's three benchmarks.Three candidates have failed all three of 350 Action's tests, attacking the Green New Deal or making no firm pledges to work against fossil fuel companies.
Source: Mother Jones, "On Climate," on 2020 Presidential Hopefuls , Mar 27, 2019

Limit then cap-and-trade carbon emissions

Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls , Jan 16, 2019

Fracking must avoid chemicals that harm drinking water

The two candidates argued over whether to allow the development of upstate New York's shale gas formations by hydraulic fracturing--or "hydro-fracking"--which is now being considered by the Cuomo administration.

Gillibrand said natural gas exploration could be an economic boon, but first it has to be determined if the chemicals used in the process threaten drinking water.

Long was full-throated in support of development. "All these concerns that you cite are just phony concerns," Long said.

Source: New York Newsday on 2012 N. Y. Senate debate , Oct 17, 2012

Raise CAFE; plus alternative energy R&D

Source: 2006 Senate campaign website, gillibrand2006.com, �Issues� , Nov 7, 2006

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous oxide
  5. Sulfur hexafluoride
  6. Hydrofluorocarbons
  7. Perfluorocarbons
  8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill Am183 to S.49 ; vote number 11-SV054 on Apr 6, 2011

Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.