What People Think
 |
 |
6% For, 94% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
Discussion: H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (98 comments ↓ | 12 wiki edits)
No discussion on this article yet.
Cost per :
Learn More
Visitor Comments 
Gadsden Flag
May 27, 2009, 10:51am (report abuse)Folks, please do yourself a favor and read an independent scientific study in which 38,000 scientists have signed a petition against the NATO (IPCC) scientific reports:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
WTF???
June 9, 2009, 8:45am (report abuse)Never seen such a stupid and irresponsible bill being presented in congress. Never mind that the premise behind needing this bill is based upon non-proven scientific theory but even if global warming was really taking place this bill would still be completely ridiculous. The global warming crowd has shown their true colors that all this hooplah is about anti-capitalism, anti-industry, and redistribution of wealth. These people need to just leave the U.S. if they hate capitalism and take the marxist Mr. Obama with them. He can be their king, god, or whatever they would like.
CRT
June 9, 2009, 10:20am (report abuse)At a cost of $12,108.23 per average family we cannot afford this idiocy.
Don Foster
June 9, 2009, 12:22pm (report abuse)Its just another tax!Our air and water is cleaner than it has been in 30 years.This "feel good"legislation is totally useless,just a way for the socialist government to control you and industry in the ever increasing quest for power.
James
June 9, 2009, 12:33pm (report abuse)Can someone tell me the ideal conditions for the climate? What temperature are we supposed to be at? If you don't know what the conditions are supposed to be, how can you say there's a problem?
Dennis Bloom
June 9, 2009, 1:36pm (report abuse)Absolute BS. If this bill passes people have a choice; either surrender completely or march on Washington and bring plenty of tar and feathers. Seems a fitting fate for those attempting to tax us back to the middle ages, which by the way killed millions because of the cold.
Herbert Berkley
June 14, 2009, 9:34pm (report abuse)This is another box of nicely packaged non-sense that is going to break the backs of hard working Americans who currently struggle to make ends meet.. It's one thing to protect the environment but another thing to do it at the expense of this nation's progress..
Carolyn
June 15, 2009, 11:24am (report abuse)Washington wants us godless,poor, and dumb, while working for them...I'm so very sick of Liberals!!
gene
June 17, 2009, 5:33pm (report abuse)recognizing that CO2 global warming is non-existent, this is simply financial rape of the American Public
pk
June 18, 2009, 5:46pm (report abuse)To not enact this bill is to send future generations of Americans to a life of horrible consequences if we do not act now. The bill would also rejuvenate the economy with more local jobs, more training for higher paying jobs, and the payback would not be monetary but also with experience and a longer life. If we don't protect the environment then what kind of future do we expect to have, one that is unhealthy for ourselves and destructive towards future generations.
DAVEA0511
June 20, 2009, 6:40pm (report abuse)Yes it's a heck of a burden ... will saddle us for the next 2 generations.
Personally, I'm for it, while simultaneously being a total skeptic of global warming. The fact is that all the problems we're facing now is either directly or indirectly caused by our dependency on oil.
To tap our native oil reserves will cost each American no less than this bill will, and will ultimately be far more expensive than tapping an infinitely renewable resource. The idea that we have easily exploitable native oil reserves is beyond ludicrous. ANWR will give us maybe 2 years worth. After that we're left with tar sands and shale which will cost 50% more than drilled oil due to extraction and processing challenges.
In contrast, thermal solar, algae fields, and wind are all technologies that are ALREADY proven cost competitive with coal and far cheaper than oil-based energy.
Naysayers base all their data on old data. Renewable tech has changed drastically in the last 10 years.
Leah
(logged in user) June 25, 2009, 5:31pm (report abuse)Living on a ranch that is run totally by Solar panels I am for energy upgrading to help with the environment.
Do I think this will cost to much? Yes. When one looks at each setup above for a single person it cost each year $3,80.00 and for a family of four $15,800.00.
The more members you have in your family the more it cost to pay for this bill. Why?
I can see per adult person that pay taxes, but children? Does that make sense or am I reading this wrong?
Ngu
June 25, 2009, 11:12pm (report abuse)If this is enacted we will no longer be competitive in world trade. The cost of living will go up for all with not effect on global warming. Green jobs created will only replace the carbon jobs lost. Idiots, its only a way to fund more spending and bigger government.
Rich
June 26, 2009, 2:58pm (report abuse)I am all for protecting the environment, but the fact is global warming does not exist in the way they are presenting it. Industry has reduced emissions in areas over the past 30 years and will continue to do so. This bill is completely unnecessary and will create a financial burden we may never be able to recover from. Do you think the rest of the world will follow suite, I doubt it and we will no longer be competitive in global markets. What are they thinking!
Lisa Sage
June 26, 2009, 6:13pm (report abuse)I should probably explain that. I just finished reading HR 2647 which will cost the average family $6,283.61 plus this one which escalates per family member.
Why does the average person think it's a good thing when a politician starts talking about 'sharing the wealth'. Do you really think he means sharing fairly among all people? Has that EVER happened in all of history?
BMan
June 26, 2009, 6:15pm (report abuse)We need to through all of the progressives out of office!!! Especially the ones voting for this piece of dog DOO...
ginny aldrich
June 26, 2009, 7:30pm (report abuse)where do we find out who voted for the passage of this nightmare?
Nolan
June 26, 2009, 7:46pm (report abuse)I am a scientist that works in environmental medicine. Global Warming is CRAP!! The warming of the earth's surface has nothing to do with carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. The earth's surface temperature is directly related to solar activity. You can look up the graphs! And on another note carbon dioxide is needed to produce oxygen which we need to breathe. Just look at the equation for photosynthesis which is the process that plants use to make energy: carbon dioxide + water + light energy --> sugar + oxygen + water. This bill is created by politicians who don't know the first thing about science! The politicians use data cooked up by scientists that sold out who fudge the results to fit their agendas. I am all about having a cleaner environment, producing less waste, recycling, and using every form of renewable energy. However, this bill is going to hinder our progress and grind our economy to a halt making it impossible to make further gains!
LisaSage
(logged in user) June 27, 2009, 2:16am (report abuse)According to OpenCongress.org Henry Waxman (D, CA) and Edward Markey (D, MA) are sponsoring this bill with the help of 13 committees:
Committees
House Agriculture
House Energy and Commerce
House Ways and Means
House Science and Technology
House Transportation and Infrastructure
House Education and Labor
House Transportation and Infrastructure
House Natural Resources
House Transportation and Infrastructure
House Financial Services
House Foreign Affairs
House Transportation and Infrastructure
House Transportation and Infrastructure
House Transportation and Infrastructure
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
This bill isn't about the environment and they know it.
RonY
June 27, 2009, 10:32am (report abuse)I watched the vote on CSPAN last night as Min. Leader Rep John Boehner read a last minute amendment to the bill.
This will require home sellers to hire a bureaucrat to analyze the energy efficiency of their home before it can be sold.
The bill leads us out of socialism to fascism.
If the Democrats and Republicans that voted for this bill aren't voted out of office in 2010 it's good bye America.
RonY
June 27, 2009, 10:33am (report abuse)I watched the vote on CSPAN last night as Min. Leader Rep John Boehner read a last minute amendment to the bill.
This will require home sellers to hire a bureaucrat to analyze the energy efficiency of their home before it can be sold.
The bill leads us out of socialism to fascism.
If the Democrats and Republicans that voted for this bill aren't voted out of office in 2010 it's good bye America.
Ekim Holdron
June 27, 2009, 3:00pm (report abuse)It's disgusting that Waxman keeps saying this bill will only cost an average household $140/ yr, but there is a provision in the bill that gives an energy tax credit to low income families that equates to billions of dollars, and increases by 75% in 2019. Maybe because everybody in the country will be low income by 2019 if the progressives keep having their way.
LisaSage
(logged in user) June 28, 2009, 12:58am (report abuse)As of Friday night this piece of crap legislation has been voted in by the House. I for one will not be voting for any incumbents!! I encourage you to do the same. There's no sense wasting time and tracking the vote -they all need to go!!
LisaSage
(logged in user) June 28, 2009, 1:44am (report abuse)Here you'll find a complete listing of every representative responsible for passing this bill! It even charts the votes according the party most responsible:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
pk
June 28, 2009, 4:53pm (report abuse)What nobody here seems to accept is that global warming is real and the evidence is all around us and becoming more prevalent with each passing day. Yes carbon dioxide is needed, but in moderation and we are WAY past that point the past 900,000 years have had a steady fluctuation of CO2 peaking at under 300 parts per million, but within the past 140 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 has skyrocketed to nearly 386 parts per million. As for the cost, this bill will pay for itself over and over within the ensuing years to the extent where the economy will rise back out thanks to all the new jobs and to the money that will be transferred over time in the market thanks to this bill.
pk
June 28, 2009, 7:47pm (report abuse)One of the big things in the bill is the carbon cap and trade program. While people think it may not work it does and has been for some time except Japan and Canada use a carbon cap and trade and the US has been using one to control SO2 emissions when acid rain was posing a threat. This bill is necessary for a good future especially one in which money will flow back into the economy better than ever
Roy
June 29, 2009, 9:12am (report abuse)If the good people of America don't remove all of the idiots who are in favor of H.R. 2454, starting in 2010, this once great country will become no better than India, China, or Iran. Taking care of your own, in your family, is OK, but taking care of special interest in the White House is no better than having a dictator or tyrant in charge.
Matt
June 29, 2009, 10:12am (report abuse)I could do without the angry comments which are verbatim pundit-speak. Is it so hard to get some civil discourse?
Without labeling it, releasing Carbon Dioxide into the air as a result of burning fossil-fuels unbalances the CO2 content of the air.. this has a direct effect on the weather of our planet. It isn't about what the earth can handle, but about drastically altering the ability for millions of people to survive.
How do we begin to take action on this?
Danielle
June 29, 2009, 10:14am (report abuse)Thank you, Matt. This is a problem that has to be addressed.
pk
June 29, 2009, 10:28am (report abuse)The odd thing that some people also don't seem to understand when they say this will lower America's standards is that other countries like China have begun to attempt green movements and China says it wants 20% of its power to be renewable by 2020. To not pass this bill is to fall behind in the world on position on the obvious fact of global warming. Other countries will become better than the US as a result and I know nobody on the US wants that to happen, I certainly don't.
CosmicChuck
(logged in user) June 29, 2009, 10:35am (report abuse)Cap-and-Trade (C&T) is a good idea that should have been enacted a long time ago. Industrial production of greenhouse gases need to be reduced, which C&T will encourage. Moreover, energy consumption, per capita, needs to be reduced, which C&T will also help encourage if the business costs of C&T are passed on to the consumer, proportionally distributed based on percentage of energy consumption. The two things that really needs to be determined are what percentage of costs induced by C&T should be absorbed by business vs. passed on to the consumer. The 2nd issue would be a threshhold for energy consumption below which a consumer would not have to pay for C&T related costs, then a threshhold for consumption above which a consumer would pay for C&T costs at a higher percentage (energy hogs should be penalized). The apportioning of C&T costs to consumers needs to take into account the number of people consuming power at individual homes and businesses as well.
Kris
June 29, 2009, 1:05pm (report abuse)It's amazing to me that there are still people that believe there is an environmental "crisis". CO2 "skyrocketed" from 300mmp to 386ppm? Skyrocket? Give me a break..Neither of those numbers are a threat to life. The people advocating this legislation are either in favor of destroying capitalism, or not very bright. If you want a communist/fascist government, go start your own country! This one is based in freedom!
ConserveAmerica
(logged in user) June 29, 2009, 2:14pm (report abuse)I wonder what the cave man would have done in the face of the global warming he faced? Would he have eliminated the campfires once informed that the ice fields that covered major portions of North America were melting because of his carbon pollution? Global warming terrorists have convinced the unthinking ipod generation that voted for the Obamnator that MAN, and not the SUN is the major factor in climate change. These idiots cannot think for themselves and must be kept out of the voting booths for the sake of the country!
Dan Fox
June 29, 2009, 2:57pm (report abuse)A stupid bill with massive tax increase's. This suggests to me it's time to consider term limits. Congress is out of control.
pk
June 29, 2009, 3:18pm (report abuse)Considering that those 86 ppm of CO2 particulates increased over 140 years over what should have been about 25,000 years, yes that number has skyrocketed. Yes the sun does play a part but man is the primary factor and the caveman was not doing much of an impact to harm the environment since mother nature kept on chugging. Humanity today had enough ingenuity to get ourselves in this mess and we certainly have enough to get out of it. Oh and the cap and trade legislation will offset that tax enough that we shouldn't see much of a problem with possibly $645 billion in the first ten years of cap and trade.
Yvonne Crumpler
June 29, 2009, 3:19pm (report abuse)This is just another way to tax the people least able to pay more taxes. Only the poor will pay...as usual. Call your representatives in the U.S. Senate. Tell them to vote no. This is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
bonniebleau
June 29, 2009, 4:00pm (report abuse)Between this and the latest Clean water bill, we have an act of war declared upon the American people by Washington, the corporate greedy shisters and the corrupt banksters.
Bruce James
June 29, 2009, 4:04pm (report abuse)Don't you get it? 96% of the American people don't want it, they don't care.
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
James Church
June 29, 2009, 5:02pm (report abuse)For the very reason that this Bill puts its financial burdens directly on the backs of an already heavily taxed public, I am against it.
Dream On
June 29, 2009, 7:00pm (report abuse)This is nothing more than a "dressed up" tax bill to support the salaries and big-salaried retirements for all these stupid politicians. They want us sick, poor, and stupid; therefore let’s avoid healthcare, wages, and close down all the schools. I am totally against this “TAX BILL” as it will affect my-self, friends, and family.
pk
June 29, 2009, 7:50pm (report abuse)Big Business will actually take a hit in this bill namely all the coal, oil and fossil fuel based companies which is why the Republican representatives are so vehemently against this bill because the big coal, oil and fossil fuel industries are lobbying against this bill since it will reduce their intake of money. More money will flow back to the people through this bill and a better environment will soon follow. To not enact this bill will surely make the US fall behind globally and invite disaster on a global scale to the extent like which we have never seen before. I want to stay away from the bad side and focus on the upside which is that this bill can turn around the economy, with carbon cap and trade, and the planet, with the new investment in existing and future renewable technologies.
Blaine Nay
June 30, 2009, 3:50am (report abuse)HR2454 is dangerous to the liberty and prosperity of Americans and to free-enterprise. Once again, Speaker Pelosi pushed a bad bill through before it was read or understood. Taxes imposed by this bill will increase the cost of goods and services by over $12,160 for every American family to solve a non-existent problem ("man-caused" global warming). It imposes restrictions which Congress has no authority to impose such as the inspection of homes for plug-ins for electric cars. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Thus, I was profoundly disappointed that my congressman failed to fight this legislation with any significant energy or courage. Failure to aggressively fight bad legislation such as this is tantamount to approving it. Compromises, amendments, or alternative legislation that mitigates the damage of such dangerous bills are likewise unacceptable. Legislation that is less bad is bad nonetheless and must never be passed.
jes
June 30, 2009, 12:46pm (report abuse)Consider Steve Forbes Flat Tax. When the Federal Revenue is increasing, then and only then can we deal with environment issues. Not when so many are hurting economically. I agree, those who vote for this bill should be removed from office.
pk
June 30, 2009, 12:49pm (report abuse)So far nobody in opposition of the bill has given a good reason for why it should not pass as the only reasons they've supplied are "that it will make us poor and stupid." Which is stupid in of itself since this bill will help the United States and if anyone mentions the "it's gonna cost me and my family $12,160" again, seriously, $12,160 is nothing compared to the money that will come as a result of the developments of clean renewable energy and the Cap and Trade program. Also last time I checked the environment is priceless and we need to protect it if we want to be able to continue to live on this planet.
AH
June 30, 2009, 7:22pm (report abuse)Currently federal/state governments will subsidize 60% of the costs to install solar/wind projects for businesses. Additionally, when that power is put back on the grid, utility companies will pay back for each kW-hr. Even with all that, wind takes about 8 years to pay out, solar 12 years to pay for installation costs. What changes with this bill to make alternative energy sources available?
Carbon sequestration is not sustainable... taking carbon dioxide out of the earth's cycle is no different than dumping garbage in a land-fill. How about replacing some of the trees lost to deforestation (which convert CO2 to O2). Businesses all across the US have been investing in environmental stewardship for years... why? It is good for business. This is an unnecessary bill that serves only to generate more income for Al Gore and an irresponsible government that has gone rogue by passing legislation that they haven't even read.
pk
June 30, 2009, 9:28pm (report abuse)No one said it had to be pushed into the ground there are new discoveries in trials for storage, permanently, as carbonate deposits on peridotite rocks which if heated and when co2 infused water passes over them co2 turns into a carbonate in a solid unreleasable state. Another method is to pass the co2 through saltwater which combines with magnesium and calcium to produce a synthetic limestone which can be used in cement. As for the payoff rates, prices will drop computers in their infancy were incredibly expensive now a desktop is less than $1,000. Renewable sources will travel the same route. Cap and trade harnesses the power of capitalism by forcing the market to compete with itself and therefore the market will boom.
AH
June 30, 2009, 9:57pm (report abuse)The landfill was an example. The point is that it doesn't matter how it is sequestered. The fact that it is being taken out of the planet's natural cycle is cause for concern, especially considering that there is no proof that CO2 is the cause of the changes in the global climate and there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that what is proposed in this bill will affect global climate.
Nice try with the computer analogy, however, while the first computers were expensive, they didn't become affordable because of government intervention/regulation.
The amount of energy from wind and solar is extremely limited and won't even come close to supplying the US energy needs (15% would be generous... and the technologies are not without their limitations).
Putting the issues above aside, its being sold to us as creating jobs, investing in the future, etc. Unfortunately, we already have HR1 which hasn't done anything to stimulate the economy and our future is debt. What reason do we have to add more?
cmnsense
July 1, 2009, 7:28am (report abuse)PK do you know how much co2 a volcano releases?Sounds like you have money to burn and thats good hope it keeps you warm, by the way how much co2 does $12000 produced when burned.and do you really believe that Russia,China,and India are onthe the Heal the enviroment band wagon com on get real!Thats where our jobs will going.I wonder how much co2 will be released when China smelters the steel they'll use to forge the wind turbines for your generator that you'll spend no telling how much to stick in your backyard.Yes this Bill is just as phony as the idiots that sponsored and vote for it.I just wonder what stocks they own in their portfolio.Get some common sense you can't buy it but must start thinking for yourself.
pk
July 1, 2009, 11:04am (report abuse)Both of you are nuts!!! Yes a volcano does release co2 and other greenhouse gasses but not nearly as much as humanity. China has promoted an interest in the greening of their economy by stating they want 20% of their energy to be renewable by 2020. As for the people who own specific stocks I would say that the opposition of this bill own a lot of oil and coal stocks. I'm not a big fan of carbon sequestration, but its just an example, and hope much of our energy will be renewable in the future. For the job thing much of the jobs that would be created would stay in the US since it takes a lot of people to manufacture all 8,000 parts of a wind turbine then ship it, build it, and manage it. The technologies to fuel the planet for the future are growing and becoming greener and, just as an example not to posed as reality, covering 11% of New Mexico in solar technology, whether it be thermal or photovoltaic cold power the entire US.
pk
July 1, 2009, 11:08am (report abuse)If the US does not pass this bill then say bye bye to the planet, because the Congress probably wont let an environment bill hit the floor until its too late. If the Green house gas emissions of the United States are not limited soon then we can expect a rough ride. The sad part is is that the world has the capacity to reverse Global Warming but when the politicians have anything to say it doesn't happen and big business, mainly oil and coal, wont have a thing to do with going green.
Dee
July 1, 2009, 5:00pm (report abuse)I can't believe how ill informed people are. Read the cap and trade bill. It's 1200 + pages of "programs" designed to force conservation and it is not very well thought out. It will also NOT reduce C02 more than a few ppm in 100 years because they had to give many concessions to get people to vote for it. It also tries to force innovation. Inventions are created through American ingenuity NOT government hand outs. Clean Coal DOES NOT EXIST, yet they are paying hundreds of billions for it in this bill. Carbon Capture is in its infancy and more billions will be poured into it. They are legislating for a smart grid to be able to control how much electricity YOUR HOUSE can receive. This thing regulates everything. what kind of car you drive, where you PLUG IT IN, your household appliances, right down to your light bulbs. Independant analysis has estimated it will cost 12000 per family per year. Whether you believe C02 is a problem or not, THIS bill is NOT THE ANSWER. READ IT.
AH
July 1, 2009, 7:02pm (report abuse)As stated before, it has not been proven that CO2 is the cause of global warming/climate change. In fact, it is coming under question whether it is a factor at all:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CE... />
PK - The oil and coal companies you refer to, employ a lot of people... and despite what is fed to you by the President and the media, they operate on slim profit margins... The country cannot afford more jobs losses, the government has already proven that they are incapable of creating jobs.
AH
July 1, 2009, 7:03pm (report abuse)ht tp://www.washingtonexaminer. com/opinion/blogs /beltway-confidential/CEI-releases -global-warming-study-censored -by-Obamas-EPA--49181632. html
(Cut and paste then remove spaces.
pk
July 1, 2009, 7:53pm (report abuse)I agree with dee that it isn't truly effective but it is a foot in the door and if the bill doesn't pass then all climate negotiations will be off the table for years. Yes CO2 is an underlying cause as evident by the fact that scientists around the globe, including the EPA, NASA, The National Science Foundation, and the IPCC have all agreed that it is a cause. For the jobs, 100 million dollars given to the oil industry generates 900 thousand jobs, for the renewable energy industries it generates 1.9 million jobs. In 2006 alone renewable energy and energy efficiency created 8 million jobs, $970 billion in revenue, and $100 billion in industry profits. That article doesn't say much to the extent why CO2 isn't the source and the EPA doesn't just rely on the UN they rely on their own research and many other sources.
AH
July 1, 2009, 9:18pm (report abuse)In 2006 alone renewable energy and energy efficiency created 8 million jobs, $970 billion in revenue, and $100 billion in industry profits.
Sources?
AH
July 1, 2009, 9:29pm (report abuse)Additionally, if it isn't "truly effective" why are you pushing for it so hard? A foot-in-the-door at the expense of the American economy is not enough justification.
pk
July 1, 2009, 10:18pm (report abuse)Here's your source, the numbers are just a little different but actually greater than what I posted.
http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29&Ite...
Again as for the "foot in the door analogy" the environment is priceless and if the bill doesn't pass all those opposed to it will deem it a victory and a climate protection bill will never see the congress floor until a really dire situation is present at which time it will be too late.
pk
July 1, 2009, 10:19pm (report abuse)let me try that again
http://www.ases.org
/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=29&Itemid=16
Reverend Josh Taylor
July 2, 2009, 5:47pm (report abuse)This bill (aka Cap and Trade) is going to make us all go homeless.
This is Communism.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
AH
July 2, 2009, 7:17pm (report abuse)It appears as if the Renewable Energy industry is doing well for itself, completely on their own (capitalism). The biggest challenge for the solar/wind industries is getting their costs down, especially on panels.
As much as the government claims it is an environmental protection bill, if you explore it further, it only serves to identify activities that government deems "protection" the environment and how they get their cut off of those activities.
It is pure irresponsibility that this bill was passed in the House. There is no way all members who voted "Aye" for this bill have read, comprehended and explored the consequences and implications of all 1200 pages based on theories and assumptions.
The "all or none" attitudes are a disservice to this country... People who don't have jobs really don't give crap about the environment, they care about feeding their family and having a place to live.
The economy needs to be fundamentally strong before HR2454 is considered.
AH
July 2, 2009, 7:32pm (report abuse)FYI - EPA, NASA, The National Science Foundation: All are funded by taxpayer dollars controlled by the Government. There are plenty of other disputing global warming due to man-made CO2 emissions:
ht tp://www.oism.org/pproject/
ht tp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html
ht tp://www.intermountain-rea.com/Science%20shows%20fallacy%20of%20global%20wa... />
Bottom line is that there isn't enough evidence to justify passage of this bill.
Leon
July 2, 2009, 8:49pm (report abuse)Who wrote the bill anyway? It's obvious that it didn't originate with a congressman, since none of them knew anything about it. Who wrote the 300 page amendment that got submitted at 3 AM Friday, 12 hours before the vote? If they only could vote on bills that a Congressman personally wrote, as the Founding Fathers did, no bills would ever get written, none would get passed, and Voila! That'd be the end of government expansion.
Carlos
July 2, 2009, 9:15pm (report abuse)This bill is about transferring the wealth of those average people who are working to those (1) who don't work and want a free ride and (2) Those who have planned for this Cap & Trade scheme for years. Just google "cap and trade" and either Al Gore's or Bill Clinton's businesses that have been set up to capture the "Cap & Trade" opportunities that this bill has to offer. This bill is not about saving the planet, its about getting into your and my pocket.
pk
July 2, 2009, 10:50pm (report abuse)I bet that the naysayers only got 5 pages in before seeing that their lobbyist corporations would hate it and press them to vote against it. Cap and trade is outlined in the bill to provide money like $15 billion to clean energy development and $60 billion to low to middle income families for tax cuts. There's more to this than just money its about the future of this planet and whether or not the generations who will live on this planet in the future will have a good life or if the planet will be unable to harbor life. Personally I don't want to live on a planet that's been screwed up by others who are too ignorant to face the OBVIOUS music that the planet is changing and in a bad way. There is a better, healthier life possible for all those who live and will live on this planet and it begins with making a stance on global warming which is what this bill is trying to achieve. The bill is not finalized by any standard, it merely only lays the foundation to build off of.
Leon
July 2, 2009, 11:16pm (report abuse)re: "$60 billion to low to middle income families for tax cuts." Isn't that 'spreading the wealth around' aka 'from each according to his ability and to each according to his need'?
re: "The bill is not finalized by any standard, it merely only lays the foundation to build off of."
aka 'we will bury you' (with government).
pk
July 3, 2009, 9:33am (report abuse)The bill isn't entirely socialist as their is a bit of capitalism in it, in fact that is what is the main driving factor behind Cap and trade. The idea is to set and standard and then let the market figure it out. By letting companies compete for money to be the greenest by lowering their CO2 content, cap and trade, even though it is watered down in the bill, has effectively harnessed the power of capitalism, and people will still make money, on their own. If you don't think cap and trade will work, it has been in effect in Japan for years and SO2, the stuff that causes acid rain, has had a cap and trade system in the US for and number of years now and it has worked and energy prices did not go up as a result.
AbbyMacD
July 3, 2009, 3:21pm (report abuse)If they want to pass legislation that helps make us less dependent on foreign oil...fine. We should always be looking for new technology that makes us more efficient or lowers costs. But to use the global warming scare tactic is wrong. Global warming is not caused by man. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE PROOF. All the AGW crowd has is the faulty IPCC model...which has been thoroughly debunked. CO2 levels have risen the past 10 years...but temperatures have gone down. If the model can't predict the first 10 years...why would anyone think it is valid 50 or 100 years out. That's idiotic. Where are all of the category 5 hurricanes they warned us about? Where's that rising sea level? Man is not the cause of weather changes..nature is. The real culprits....solar activity and ocean patterns...neither of which we control.
pk
July 3, 2009, 6:06pm (report abuse)Global warming is occurring
There has been a 38% reduction in sea ice per decade since 1979, sea level is up 50 mm since 1992, global temperature has risen 1.3 C since 1892, and 11 of the last 12 years are the warmest on record since 1850. Before saying that this is natural, it isn't, stuff like this hasn't happened for thousands if not millions of years and therefore cannot not be a natural cycle. Co2 levels are one attribute to this as there have been 7 cycles of glacial advance and retreat in accordance with Co2 levels for the past 650,000 years. Also which model are you talking about because there are many, many models that point to a dark future for earth unless we, as humans, act soon?
mjy123
(logged in user) July 3, 2009, 10:12pm (report abuse)It's interesting reading the comments from people who don't believe that global warming is real and caused by human activity. To them, I suggest reading the words of the scientists directly from the scientific literature. I have posted several recent scientific papers on our website at www.greenmontclair.org/greenmontclair/The_Science/The_Science.html. Take a few minutes, read the papers, view the videos and then see how you think about the issue after that.
AH
July 5, 2009, 10:07am (report abuse)From scientists who disagree with the cause:
http://www.nipccreport.org/
It's a bad bill based on an unachievable Utopia.
pk
July 5, 2009, 3:48pm (report abuse)AH, I wish to point out something, all the organizations I list are world renowned and respected among the international community. Versus yours which are tiny fractional groups that I have never heard of or probably wont unless I went through numerous pages of a Google search. Do you really think that there is an international conspiracy by every scientist in the world who say that global warming is real so that they might scare the international community just for kicks? Also the bill is a foot in the door that will open up for better legislation, for if the bill doesn't go through we wont have any hope of getting another on the floor for years.
AH
July 5, 2009, 7:54pm (report abuse)Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the greenhouse effect by gases in the atmosphere are causing significant global warming.
If this bill is so critical to saving the planet due to greenhouse gases, why are they attempting to regulate and tax CO2? Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect.
To put things in perspective:
The Earth's atmosphere (or air) is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Why are they not taxing water vapor?
Pelosi pushed for this bill, there are lot of similarities to regs in her bankrupt state of CA.
Common sense is completely lost on Congress and on the White House.
AH
July 5, 2009, 7:57pm (report abuse)What everyone that deems themselves a Progressive, liberal, etc... seem to forget is that when you punish a particular behavior through excessive taxes/levies/bureacracy, the behavior either ceases or is done somplace else...
It will be a crushing blow to the economy of this nation that can't afford to lose any more jobs or revenue.
pk
July 6, 2009, 10:40am (report abuse)That's true, water vapor is very potent, but that is a natural release as part of the water cycle that has functioned for thousands if not millions of years. Versus the amount of CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere has significantly increased in the past 140 years. But water vapor also has a positive feedback mechanism, which says that if we heat the earth with more CO2 and other Greenhouse Gasses it will warm the planet and therefore make more Water Vapor and warm the planet further. So we can reduce the thing we've produced since we got along fine without producing it in major quantities.
pk
July 6, 2009, 10:52am (report abuse)Also, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that the bill is pretty bad, at least before they began watering it down after it was released to the house. The US is the biggest producer of CO2 in the world 2nd only to China in total but 1st in a per person rate. If the US doesn't curb its emissions and start reducing the emissions by 2020, then say goodbye planet, because what happens after that is going to get ugly. The US also should set a precedent as the leader for green technology in the world and other countries are currently surpassing the US. China has put a resolution forward about having 20% of their energy renewable by the year 2020 and I don't think anyone in the US wants to fall behind.
jongalt
July 8, 2009, 8:42am (report abuse)pk. the studies you allude to were done with computer models by someone with an agenda. they set out to prove a "theory" with a predetermined outcome. as most any high school student knows, if you have a outcome for a theory in mind and set out to prove it using data slanted in that direction, you will prove your theory. may i suggest that you reread, nay, study the studies which seem to prove the "global warming" theory and see where they got their info. reputable scientists can be bought off or threatened. keep that in mind as you check the sources for the studies. be skeptical when reading them, try not to let your own bias enter into the results. you might be amazed at what you find. also, follow the money. who will benefit the most from this bill, and the several like it. the people who are pushing this bill do not have your best interest at heart, just more power. check out www.communistpartyusa.org. there is timeline for all fo this there.
pk
July 8, 2009, 3:11pm (report abuse)Also you might know that these models need correct information to begin with so given the variables and values the models will spit out the information. These models have been given the correct information. I don't think that the thousands of scientists around the world falsify information just because they feel like it and not every one can be bought off and by whom since it seems the oil and coal companies seem to be buying off enough scientist to keep the anti global warming thing alive? It's just like when the cigarette companies bought off scientists to try and say that their cigarettes were safe and we all know that they all still cause lung cancer. Most of the people who do invest in green technology and the green market don't control these model predictions, they anticipate just like any stock broker or venture capitalist.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
Costing Out Cap-and-Trade
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill would establish not one, but two “cap-and-trade” programs designed to limit the release of undesir...WashingtonWatch.com Digest - June 8, 2009
This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of June 8, 2009. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the WashingtonWatch.com Blog “Cap-and-trade” proposals would forc...WashingtonWatch.com Digest - June 15, 2009
Here is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for June 15, 2009. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the WashingtonWatch.com Blog A bill introduced in the House last week would require the ...Not a Typo: Energy Bill Would Cost $12,000 per U.S. Family
As I was updating the WashingtonWatch.com Twitter feed just now, I felt obligated to point out a non-typo: H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act would cost about $12,000 per U.S. family. It’s being debated on the House floor right...WashingtonWatch.com Digest - June 29, 2009
This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of June 29, 2009. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the WashingtonWatch.com Blog Congress is well into the process of passing the tw...Favorite. Comment. Ever.
On H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. “WHY ARE MY MESSAGES NOT POSTING?“ SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "", url: "" });...Climategate!
The allegation that climate scientists sought to suppress research questioning some of their findings has sent shock waves around the world. Sort of. Well, that’s hyperbole, like the name “Climategate” is. But in case you hadn’t...