To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
"At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change," says Sen. Bernie Sanders, "it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies' already enormous profits." (Photo: AP file)
A new investigation by the Guardian, highlighting the large campaign contributions given by fossil fuel corporations to lawmakers who then back public subsidies for those same companies, has led presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to describe the arrangement--especially in light of the dangers posed by runaway climate change--with one word: absurd.
In their examination of three specific fossil fuel projects run by Shell, ExxonMobil, and Marathon Petroleum--all of which received public funding--the Guardian reveals that, in each case, "the subsidies were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry."
According to the Guardian, the investigation found:
Though oil and gas companies receiving such public largess is nothing new, proponents of climate action say that--at a time when fossil fuel companies should be forced to strand available assets in the ground in order to curb the worst impacts of climate change--the fact that such subsidies continue for some of the most profitable companies on Earth has become particularly problematic.
"At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies' already enormous profits," Sen. Sanders, who announced on April 30 he is running for president, told the Guardian.
The scientific evidence continues to be overwhelming and the warnings from experts about the impacts of climate change are only becoming more and more dire. To cite just two examples over the last twenty-four hour period, one major study has found that climate change may drastically impact the annual yields of the world's wheat harvest while another study revealed how the rate of sea level rise has increased steadily over the last two decades.
Using public data made available on a "subsidy tracker tool" created by the group Good Jobs First, which monitors federal subsidies, the Guardian investigation highlighted what it considered some of the most highly subsidized fossil fuel projects across the United States. What it found-- in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Ohio--was a pattern of public support by key legislators who benefited financially from fossil fuel industry campaign support.
The Guardian reports:
Last month, along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Sanders introduced a bicameral bill in Congress that would effectively put an end to large-scale subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Called the End Polluter Welfare Act, the measure would end tax breaks for fossil-fuel industries, recoup taxpayer-owed royalties for fossil-fuel related practices on public lands and waters, and prioritize federally-supported research for clean energy projects. Further, the measures would also prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or deducting clean-up costs from their taxes.
Leaders from top environmental groups who spoke to the Guardian about subsidies, and the role that industry money plays in the U.S. political arena, all agreed that putting an end to taxpayer support for fossil fuel development is a no-brainer in terms of taking action on climate.
"Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are completely inappropriate in this day and age," said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. "Climate science is clear that the vast majority of existing reserves will have to stay in the ground," Kretzmann said. "Yet our government spends many tens of billions of our tax dollars-every year-making it more profitable for the fossil fuel industry to produce more."
And Ben Schreiber, at Friends of the Earth U.S., added: "There is a vibrant discussion about the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground-from carbon taxation to divestment-but ending state and federal corporate welfare for polluters is one of the easiest places to start."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
A new investigation by the Guardian, highlighting the large campaign contributions given by fossil fuel corporations to lawmakers who then back public subsidies for those same companies, has led presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to describe the arrangement--especially in light of the dangers posed by runaway climate change--with one word: absurd.
In their examination of three specific fossil fuel projects run by Shell, ExxonMobil, and Marathon Petroleum--all of which received public funding--the Guardian reveals that, in each case, "the subsidies were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry."
According to the Guardian, the investigation found:
Though oil and gas companies receiving such public largess is nothing new, proponents of climate action say that--at a time when fossil fuel companies should be forced to strand available assets in the ground in order to curb the worst impacts of climate change--the fact that such subsidies continue for some of the most profitable companies on Earth has become particularly problematic.
"At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies' already enormous profits," Sen. Sanders, who announced on April 30 he is running for president, told the Guardian.
The scientific evidence continues to be overwhelming and the warnings from experts about the impacts of climate change are only becoming more and more dire. To cite just two examples over the last twenty-four hour period, one major study has found that climate change may drastically impact the annual yields of the world's wheat harvest while another study revealed how the rate of sea level rise has increased steadily over the last two decades.
Using public data made available on a "subsidy tracker tool" created by the group Good Jobs First, which monitors federal subsidies, the Guardian investigation highlighted what it considered some of the most highly subsidized fossil fuel projects across the United States. What it found-- in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Ohio--was a pattern of public support by key legislators who benefited financially from fossil fuel industry campaign support.
The Guardian reports:
Last month, along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Sanders introduced a bicameral bill in Congress that would effectively put an end to large-scale subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Called the End Polluter Welfare Act, the measure would end tax breaks for fossil-fuel industries, recoup taxpayer-owed royalties for fossil-fuel related practices on public lands and waters, and prioritize federally-supported research for clean energy projects. Further, the measures would also prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or deducting clean-up costs from their taxes.
Leaders from top environmental groups who spoke to the Guardian about subsidies, and the role that industry money plays in the U.S. political arena, all agreed that putting an end to taxpayer support for fossil fuel development is a no-brainer in terms of taking action on climate.
"Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are completely inappropriate in this day and age," said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. "Climate science is clear that the vast majority of existing reserves will have to stay in the ground," Kretzmann said. "Yet our government spends many tens of billions of our tax dollars-every year-making it more profitable for the fossil fuel industry to produce more."
And Ben Schreiber, at Friends of the Earth U.S., added: "There is a vibrant discussion about the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground-from carbon taxation to divestment-but ending state and federal corporate welfare for polluters is one of the easiest places to start."
A new investigation by the Guardian, highlighting the large campaign contributions given by fossil fuel corporations to lawmakers who then back public subsidies for those same companies, has led presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to describe the arrangement--especially in light of the dangers posed by runaway climate change--with one word: absurd.
In their examination of three specific fossil fuel projects run by Shell, ExxonMobil, and Marathon Petroleum--all of which received public funding--the Guardian reveals that, in each case, "the subsidies were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry."
According to the Guardian, the investigation found:
Though oil and gas companies receiving such public largess is nothing new, proponents of climate action say that--at a time when fossil fuel companies should be forced to strand available assets in the ground in order to curb the worst impacts of climate change--the fact that such subsidies continue for some of the most profitable companies on Earth has become particularly problematic.
"At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies' already enormous profits," Sen. Sanders, who announced on April 30 he is running for president, told the Guardian.
The scientific evidence continues to be overwhelming and the warnings from experts about the impacts of climate change are only becoming more and more dire. To cite just two examples over the last twenty-four hour period, one major study has found that climate change may drastically impact the annual yields of the world's wheat harvest while another study revealed how the rate of sea level rise has increased steadily over the last two decades.
Using public data made available on a "subsidy tracker tool" created by the group Good Jobs First, which monitors federal subsidies, the Guardian investigation highlighted what it considered some of the most highly subsidized fossil fuel projects across the United States. What it found-- in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Ohio--was a pattern of public support by key legislators who benefited financially from fossil fuel industry campaign support.
The Guardian reports:
Last month, along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Sanders introduced a bicameral bill in Congress that would effectively put an end to large-scale subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Called the End Polluter Welfare Act, the measure would end tax breaks for fossil-fuel industries, recoup taxpayer-owed royalties for fossil-fuel related practices on public lands and waters, and prioritize federally-supported research for clean energy projects. Further, the measures would also prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or deducting clean-up costs from their taxes.
Leaders from top environmental groups who spoke to the Guardian about subsidies, and the role that industry money plays in the U.S. political arena, all agreed that putting an end to taxpayer support for fossil fuel development is a no-brainer in terms of taking action on climate.
"Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are completely inappropriate in this day and age," said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. "Climate science is clear that the vast majority of existing reserves will have to stay in the ground," Kretzmann said. "Yet our government spends many tens of billions of our tax dollars-every year-making it more profitable for the fossil fuel industry to produce more."
And Ben Schreiber, at Friends of the Earth U.S., added: "There is a vibrant discussion about the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground-from carbon taxation to divestment-but ending state and federal corporate welfare for polluters is one of the easiest places to start."
