Andrew Kerr And Chris White Contributor
February 05, 2020 8:07 PM ET
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren collectively spent $59,138 in carbon offsets in 2019 to counteract the carbon they produced campaigning for president, FEC records show.
- That’s enough to offset 3,815 tons of CO2, according to an online calculator from NativeEnergy, the carbon offset firm Sanders and Warren used.
- The two candidates spent a combined $2.4 million on private jets in 2019, FEC records show.
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren purchased carbon offsets meant to counteract the equivalent of 2,102 tons of coal while traveling the country campaigning for president, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation estimate derived from their carbon offset payments.
Both Sanders and Warren devoted a considerable amount of cash to private jets travel in 2019. Sanders led the Democratic field in private airfare spending in 2019, dishing out $1.6 million to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service,” according to Federal Election Commission records.
Warren’s campaign, meanwhile, spent $871,000 on private jets through Advanced Aviation, FEC records show.
In March, Sanders, Vermont’s senior senator, became the first Democratic presidential candidate to promise to purchase offsets to effectively wipe out his campaign’s carbon production from travel. A Warren aide told The Hill in October that her campaign also purchases offsets for carbon emissions.
The two senators used the Vermont-based NativeEnergy for their carbon offset needs. Sanders purchased $32,230 in offsets from the firm in 2019, while Warren spent $26,908, Federal Election Commission records show.
That’s enough for the two campaigns to offset a combined 3,815 tons of carbon emissions, according to a NativeEnergy online calculator that places the offset value of a ton of carbon at $15.50.
3,815 tons of carbon emissions is the equivalent of burning 2,102 tons of coal, or consuming 429,000 gallons of gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The precise amount of carbon the campaigns paid to offset is not clear. NativeEnergy spokeswoman Betsy Dall told the DCNF that the firm’s pricing decreases as the volume of offsets increases, which suggests that the campaigns could have offset more than a combined 3,815 tons of carbon, but she didn’t provide the exact rate they paid when asked.
Neither of the campaigns responded to multiple requests for comment about their carbon offset payments. (RELATED: Bernie To Charter A Private Jet To Campaign In Iowa During Impeachment Trial)
Sanders, a prominent environmentalist and supporter of the Green New Deal (GND), confirmed his decision to use a private jet during a Jan.10 episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The GND calls for shifting the U.S. away from traditional fossil fuels and toward green energy fuel sources. Warren, who represents Massachusetts, rolled out her own version of a GND in June 2019 that would create one million green jobs at the cost of $2 trillion over a decade.
Democratic 2020 candidate Bernie Sanders walks to his vehicle after he landed on Feb. 04, in New Hampshire. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Warren’s campaign netted a big endorsement in December from Rhiana Gunn-Wright, whose Twitter profile suggests she crafted policy for the GND, a piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat. The bill was ultimately defeated in March 2019, but has become a rallying cry for young climate activists and Democrats alike.
Many of the country’s most prominent climate activists and Democratic politicians are being tight-lipped about Sanders and Warren’s private jet travel. The DCNF reached out to GND sponsors Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey but neither has responded to repeated requests for comments.
The DCNF also reached out to Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, but none of them responded to multiple requests for a reaction to Sanders’ jet travel. They are all part of the same group of freshman lawmakers who have been nicknamed “The Squad.”
The Sunrise Movement, which kickstarted the GND push, has also not responded to requests for comment.
The GND resolution, among other things, called for “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals aimed at fighting global warming. A separate fact sheet claims the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.” It sought to nix oil production outright.
Reports suggest the GND could cost tens of trillions of dollars. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February 2019.
That comes to an estimated cost of $36,100 to $65,300 per household every year to meet the GND’s goals, AAF reported at the time. Such goals include “net-zero” emissions, widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care, and creating infrastructure for other social justice measures.
Halleluja (from Messiah Händel), Alle Menschen werden Brüder (Beethoven 9th). High speed rail and universal healthcare are cool though.
The SEVEN Commandments revised to EIGHT Commandments
Proposed
8. No animal may travel in an airplane.
Revised for the pigs
8. No animal may travel in an airplane without carbon offsets.
Apologies – George Orwell ANIMAL FARM
Nothing is a sacrifice unless it costs you something. If you have lots of money. financial sacrifice is impossible as long as you have money left over after you have bought everything you need or want. If you can just pay somebody money every time you commit a sin, and the sin is then forgiven, the rich can buy moral innocence in the same way that they buy expensive consumer goods or safe, beautiful neighbourhoods. I’m on a budget, and I have to maintain my moral innocence by not sinning.
I fully agree, with one exception. I feel an urge to sin against against the 5th commandment. There will come a time when a lot of people feel the same.
A vivid testimony to the fact that in future only the wealthy can travel in airplanes.
Which has been the goal all along. It also helps to ensure that the good vacation spots aren’t being over run by the deplorables.
“create one million green jobs at the cost of $2 trillion over a decade.”
So 200 billion a year so each job costs 200,000 dollars a year….they’d better be able to do their job and sing across 5 octaves and juggle for that kind of moolah…
Well, the “jobs” will only pay $30,000 a year. The rest of the cost is for government “administration.”
I’m selling offsets at half their cost! They should have called me.
Is there any money back if they’re faulty? What is warranty period?
What this means is if you can afford to pay Carbon Offset ‘Indulgences’ you are sin free. If you are poor and cannot afford ‘indulgences’ then you are a sinner. Therefore the ‘Bishops’ of the ‘Church Without Carbon’ can wear fine clothes, stay if fine hotels, eat fine food, and travel first class anywhere so as to have meetings about new ways of frightening children about what sinners we all are.
“net-zero” emissions = zero jobs, as South Australia is discovering. Once, it had an auto industry.
Seems this is backwards. Someone should pay them NOT to fly!
This would:
a) Not produce CO2 – which is the goal.
b) Raise money for the campaign – which is also the goal.
From the article: “The two senators used the Vermont-based NativeEnergy for their carbon offset needs. Sanders purchased $32,230 in offsets from the firm in 2019, while Warren spent $26,908, Federal Election Commission records show.”
I would have sold them carbon [dioxide] offsets for half that much! 🙂
See how easy it is, Greta. Get George Soros to buy you some carbon [dioxide] offsets and then you can fly instead of sitting in a cramped sailboat for weeks on end.
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had suits made to look poor and unfitted to display to the people that he lived as they lived. The only difference is he lived in luxury while they stood in line for hours to by food from stores that had little food to sell.
Sanders, Warren and that actor would do the same. Not one supporter would, in the real world, want what these two offer if they lived under the consequences.
A tiny virus is out-doing them at carbon offset and population control.
“It sought to nix oil production outright.”
They have no clue do they?
Do they even know how many products are made from oil other than fuels.
Liz Warren pays +$2,000/hr for a private jet to fly to her next political speech. When she gets off the plane and sees she is ‘on camera’, she hides behind an assistant as she walks to the terminal. During her speech, she then tells us she wants to ‘get money out of politics’ and ‘save the environment’. Arrogant chutzpah, high irony, and overt deceit on open display….. a socialist’s ‘triple play’.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/05/elizabeth-warren-appears-to-hide-behind-staffer-after-stepping-off-private-jet/
This business of carbon offset is just another squishy morass. This began with offsets for habitat destruction for listed species. If you are going to destroy an acre of habitat for human development, you must pay for several acres of habitat preservation elsewhere. But wait, is the habitat actually occupied by the species? Can’t you claim land already set aside for another species, if it works for your species? In the end this does not add any habitat or even keep things equal. An acre of habitat is still lost.
Now for carbon offsets. Can this really be done? It seems like it depends. Let’s suppose your offsets are paying for wind or solar. The expected life of these technologies is only 20 years. How much carbon is saved? How much carbon is used producing wind and solar? The mining, metallurgy and manufacturing. How much carbon is used to replace it after 20 years? Let’s say you plant trees. Trees respire. They produce O2 during the day and breathe it back to produce CO2 at night when there is no sunlight. Granted in the interim there is an increase in woody mass. Until the tree burns or dies. At which time carbon is returned to the atmosphere. Carbon offset is an illusion. They have burned carbon-based fuel. There is no “un-burning” it. There should however be no apologies as aircraft travel is generally the most fuel efficient. Flying at altitude, wind resistance is low. There is no rolling resistance as with cars and trucks. Chances are they have used much less fuel than traveling by tour bus or motorcade. Fuel efficiency of aircraft appears to be low because the gross amount burned is high. But you must divide it by number of passengers to get passenger-miles. After all, an average jet gets 0.5 miles per gallon. But if it happens to be transporting 200 people, it is getting 100 passenger miles per gallon. Compare that to a typical car getting 25 miles per gallon while transporting only the driver. I’d like to see the hypocrisy and sanctimony ended. Aircraft travel is the most fuel-efficient. No guilt. Real offsets mean real reductions in carbon use. That means nuclear and/or geothermal power for generation of electricity in lieu of natural gas and coal. That is meaningful reduction.
Wait. So you are allowed to produce as much co2 as you like so long as you have the money to pay for an offset? Doesn’t sound very socialist-like to me.
How coincidental Native Energy is based in Vermont… I wonder how much stock, or ownership Sanders or Warren has in the company. …. When Al Gore produced An Inconvenient Truth, he bragged about buying carbon credits to offset the footprint of making the movie… In reality, he bought stock in Generation Investment Management, a company he owned.
Carbon credits is just shuffling money into different pockets.
It’s 100% pure BS designed as a pander for votes gambit–many ignorant “sickophants” buy it!!!!!