S.2191 - America's Climate Security Act of 2007

A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: America's Climate Security Act of 2007 as introduced.
  • Short: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 as reported to senate.
  • Official: A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Comments Feed

karinova 11/08/2008 5:53pm
in reply to Anonymous Jun 26, 2008 4:47pm

Wow. Very well said.
I like the cut of your jib, Steve.

Anonymous 09/11/2008 5:05pm

Dions done.

Anonymous 06/26/2008 4:47pm

Factually speaking, global warming is happening. I personally subscribe to the viewpoint that human actions are a causal factor. I’ll go as far as to say CO2 is a major portion of that human causal factor. Thus, I am in favor of reducing our CO2 output.

That said, this bill is a mistake. Instead of using existing market economics and governmental regulations to address the issue, it creates a new “market” from nothing. Worse, it creates a negative market by taking, without due cause or due process, an existing commodity on which the global economy is founded and suddenly nationalizes it. Image the government suddenly deciding to nationalize all our businesses – this bill may not go to that extreme, but it makes a bigger step towards it than ever before in the history of the US.

Next, the government – not you, not the market – gets to decide who has to play in the new game, how much it’ll cost, and who will benefit. Do you have enough confidence in our Congress (which has a 19% approval rating, even lower than Bush) to make such a monumental change in your life? Remember, the cost for this is projected at $1,700,000,000,000 (yes, $1.7 Trillion) over the first 7 years. That’s about $4600 for every man, woman, and child in the US (About $17,000 for every household). Can you afford that? I can’t. If this bill passes, I have no choice but to pay up. At least when the price of gas goes up, I can drive less.

Worse, the bill goes on to create an elaborate transfer of payments to “help” those hurt by the bill, or just favored by Congress (can you say special interests?). For those of you who like the help part, consider this – while it’ll cost the average household $2700 per year, the assistance will be about $800 a year, IF you qualify. And this transfer of payments won’t be simple. Do you like our tax code? Do you think it’s too complicated? Well, guess what, this bill is creating another monster just like it.

This bill might get the job done. BUT, it will do it like our government does most things – slowly, inefficiently, and poorly. Think taxes, think public schools, think medicare. This bill will give us another large does of that.

No matter how we tackle global warming, it will be painful. As an example, the 25% run up in gas prices this year has cut driving by 3%. Run it up another 25%, we might cut 6%. By $6/gal, I’d be riding my bike to work. That’d cut my carbon footprint by a third.

If we want to tackle CO2 emissions, do it at the source – a large, global increase in the costs of fossil fuels. This can happen by market forces (long time to happen), overt government intervention in the supply (through taxes or OPEC like production limits), or covert government intervention like this bill.

I don’t think the market will get us there fast enough. I favor supply management by governments, but doubt anyone will put up with $100+ per barrel taxes or OPEC cutting their output in half. It’s a tough situation that requires tough decisions. Unfortunately, instead we get bills like this that promise big change with no pain.

Cheers,
Steve

Anonymous 06/16/2008 9:18am

I really don’t pretend to understand what the fall out would be if this bill becomes law. I do know that proposals for more government involvment should be judged stringently. If the idea is to promote development of alternative sources of energy, then I suspect it can be done through private enterprise and not through government regulation.

Anonymous 06/12/2008 12:22pm

Air Force Geo spacial Intelligence Agency.

Anonymous 06/07/2008 2:50pm

To notesjones…

You’ve got one very big problem there, the media is trying to convince us global warming is real. So if you re-phrase your question, with your same points the answers would be “yes, no and yes”

The problem is, you need to ask yourself why hyper-industrialists like Rockefeller, B.P, Shell, Exxon, Ford, Dupont, Dow, Monsanto, American paper and every bank you can imagine gives millions to enviornmental groups (NGO) in order to lobby for these laws?

Why did B.P and Enron support Kyoto first?
Why did the Rockefeller family remove the head of Exxon for not going along with global warming initiatives?

THEY ARE WRITING THE LAWS!!

They have control of the next generation of energy solutions and they know with government imposed taxation on carbon, they stand to make alot of money not only through carbon trading firms but through new technology that will eventually be released at the crescendo of public support. Just look into the membership list of Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and the related Chicago Climate Exchange. That is who will benefit from environmental legislation. Why do you think these giant corporations are supporting carbon credit trading and cap and trade when they are the biggest offenders?

THEY RUN IT! THEY WRITE THEMSELVES IMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY FUND THE NGO’s THAT LOBBY FOR THE LEGISLATION AND RUN THE MECHANISMS OF ENFORCEMENT (aka taxation and trading through these various firms)

This is not a partisan talking point. There are thousands of scientist that do not support the corrupted, corporate IPCC (some members who actually run “carbon advisory firms”..no conflict of interest there) and there is no consensus on man-made global warming. And the hypocrites like Al Gore, Maurice Strong and David Suzuki are the last people to listen to when they say we need to curb our “carbon footprint”. (Which itself is a total abstraction willed into reality through brainless repetition.)

notesjones 06/05/2008 4:48am

It’s interesting to see all you right-wing nuts just repeating what Fox news tells you. Have you ever thought to yourself, “gee, if global warming is really not such a big deal, why is the media working so hard to convince me of that?” Ask yourself some questions: Could it be that there is money involved? Could it be that if we change energy sources a few very rich, very powerful corporations would crumble to the ground? Could it be those very corporations control the media? Let me break it down for you: Yes, yes, and yes. The plain truth is that a massive American investment in cleaner energy sources (wind, solar, nuclear) would do many good things for the economy: Stimulate new jobs in engineering and encourage innovation and technology investment, improve the quality of our air and water, protect the wild places that are our American heritage (such as ANWAR) as well as pull money out of the hands of tyrants such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. In case you were asleep the last four years, both of those countries have us on a short leash (oil). Bush had to practically beg the Saudi king to produce more oil for us. Didn’t work, either. WE MUST CHANGE ENERGY SOURCES NOW! No dicking around in Alaska, no invading other countries, no flushing billions of dollars down the toilet, no sacrificing our young people in backwards Middleastern countries, no partisan bickering: We can all come together and make alternative energy the defining cause of our generation. We can once again become the world leader we once were, not the addict we currently are. Face the truth people: We need to change. Whether you believe in global warming or not, that’s the plain truth.

prostareagle1 06/04/2008 4:34am
Link Reply
+ -2

I think this bill should be shot down; we need better proof this global warming is real. I believe that the government is using this to promote environmental communism. They can’t promote Marxism or Socialism any other way so now they use “global warming” to hold the country hostage.

davy83202 06/02/2008 7:03pm

This just go’s to show how stupid we all are if this is allowed. The more we allow the Government to do the less rights we posses. THIS BILL IS VERY SCARY and could kill our economy and our country. We cannot allow this bill to be passed.

Anonymous 06/01/2008 12:22am

The creators of this early stage effort to help freedom loving democracies globally serve there countrymen and the world had to put up with the merging of non democratic countries not wanting to help their countrymen and the world. The creators of this bill also created the Geospatial Intelligence Agency http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/ once they had completed study on global warming with other freedom loving countries in the arctic. This shows Congress’ planning for freedom loving Americans and other democratic countries while dealing with other countries who do not believe in liberating them with democracy.

Al Gore won the global Pulitzer award for his eminent work in the global warming and this was stated as deserved along with legislation and agency planning for long term addressing of these global problem by freedom loving democracies.

Open Congress is a global exchange of ideas and is much liked by many countries for their freedom loving democratic approach to democracy and addressing long term global problems. I don’t believe this wonder resource would delete this comment as it is from a very humble foreigner trying to participate in democracy with the great country of America and her freedom loving democratic people who liberate countries and show them what democracy is by example, such as the Open Congress resource. Democrats are perfect examples of liberation of countries by democratic example and Open Congress would naturally work with these very closely and it is understandable.

Free speech without deleting comments is what democrats and freedom loving Americans are for and it is understandable that mistakes can be made in the best interest of freedom loving peoples all over the world who are looking to Open Congress and democrats to show us by example how to humbly become liberated by democracy.

This humble comment is made by a foreigner who may appear informal is trying to understand grand democracy and if it is edited and deleted I am sure the freedom loving Americans who run democracy have very good reasons. Congress is very important beyond the Presidency and we have learned much by example of their greatness legislations to help freedom loving Americans and humble countries learning from their democrats, Americans and Open Congress.

This meek and modest foreigner, although low in rank quality and station, submits this comment to learn from the magnificent freedom loving Americans, democrats and Open Congress. Accept it for what it is and just a deferential and submissive foreigner learning from dignified and noble America.

Anonymous 05/17/2008 5:35am
Link Reply
+ -1

The scare tactics of “The Inconvenient Truth” are coming home to roost in Congress.
There is no proof that GHG is the main cause of variations in the earth’s climate.
In fact, most of the scientific community agrees that Natural Forces, not Human Activity
are responsible for any global warming!

To legislate that the EPA exercise dictatorial power over GHG without proof, Is ludicrous!
The economic and employment effects of S 2191 would be traumatic to this country!

Do not pass S 2191 !!

gman86428 04/22/2008 9:25am
Link Reply
+ -2

http://fromtheduke.blogspot.com/2008/04/natural-forces-not-man-causing-global.html Go to this article and you will see that Global Warming is a LIE. It is a complete hoax!

Anonymous 04/17/2008 3:47pm

Boiling the bill down to brass tax, it gives the EPA draconian powers to determine who and who doesn’t need to abide by the regulations in this bill. The language is so broad that the EPA can literally decide that any business or facility must abide by these rules and regulations at their discretion even if they fall outside the scope of a “covered facility”.

The EPA could even decide that homes with fireplaces could be considered an “affected facility” by the bill considering the amount of discretion they are given in determining what is considered to be an “affected facility”.

Whomever the EPA decides is affected by this bill must report all sorts of ridiculous information detailing their carbon footprint to the EPA on a quarterly basis. It gives the EPA extraordinary powers to enforce a carbon credit system and gives them the mandate to levy draconian fines on those in non-compliance with this legislation.

There is no exemption for humans or animals which naturally emit carbon dioxide so the EPA at some point could even include employees and farm animals as contributing to a facilities carbon footprint.

Anonymous 04/15/2008 11:32am

You’ve got to be kidding with these Bills! First, it assumes that man made GHG is actually the rootcause for global warming, second, it assumes that global warming is as bad as expected. There is plenty of scientific data which suggests that GHG is greatly overstated, but unfortunately is ignored because it is not PC.

That aside, lets say good ole America steps up to the plate and decides to reduce GHG. Now lets talk China who is building coal fired power plants with virtually NO emissions controls what so ever. We can’t shut our coal powered plants down fast enough to keep up with what they are putting on-line. We at least have the balance of emissions controls for NOx, SO2 and PM!

So whats the answer, how about some sensible legislation that allows for continued coal production with emphasis on renewable development and finding ways to mitigate CO2 release to keep the extremist environmental types content. Take a look at the economic cost to America for this knee jerk reaction to a biased Global Warming report.

Renewables are great if we can refine some technological issues, reducing CO2 emissions are also fine as long as we find a sound way of doing it. For a first start how about we do away with 5,000lbs+ cars/SUV’s (mobile homes)with only one person that people drive back and forth to work?

johnhart 03/31/2008 2:02pm

This bill would achieve a 70% reduction of CO2 and equivalent emissions by the year 2050. Whether or not this will be sufficient to slow warming and eventually halt it before unacceptable damage to life-support systems occurs is not known, but it looks like a reasonable place to start. The emphasis on cap and trade importantly allows market mechanisms maximum scope to operate in selecting the best technologies to achieve targets. Industries are clearly making plans and investments for some such program already.
More aggressive targets can always be set if newer research seems to justify them. In the meantime we need to join the growing international movement and commit to change. I believe China and India understand that they will need to get on board too once the US joins the other developed countries. This bill is not perfect but it’s a strong step in the right direction. If it gets to the floor without any major concessions to the increasingly isolated “profits first” crowd I believe it can pass this year, or next at the latest.

Anonymous 03/19/2008 3:33pm

I think this bill definately has a good chance. climate change is becoming more of a bipartisan issue. the american public wants to see action on climate change, reduction and near elimination of the use of fossil fuels, and the diversification of our energy to provide greater competition and ease prices. i am hoping all of these environmental bills, climate change bills, and renewable energy bills pass, because as a country we owe it to every american to diversify our energy sources and begin to create homegrown renewable energy and jobs. even if there are individuals who do not believe in climate change or gloabl warming we owe it to every nation and ourselves to develop renewable and alternative energy sources to stop sending so much of our hard earned money overseas to volatile regions and countries. overall there is much that can be done to reduce our impact on environment and nature and make life better for all americans while providing jobs and reducing fuel costs. i absolutely supports any bill that attempts to tackle some or all of that challenge.

skrap 01/21/2008 7:48pm
in reply to textdog Jan 21, 2008 1:17pm

I agree, as long as we don’t pass any dumb price fixing rules, or other “relief”.

textdog 01/21/2008 1:17pm

seems like market economics might get to solving this issue sooner

donnyshaw 01/21/2008 6:37am
in reply to donnyshaw Jan 17, 2008 12:02pm

OpenCongress Staff

Here’s a video of the whole conference:: http://video.energypolicytv.com/displaypage.php?vkey=9337587f6ab6397699af&channel=Natural%20Gas

Moderated Comment

donnyshaw 01/17/2008 12:02pm

OpenCongress Staff

This bill — or any climate change bill for that matter — probably won’t be approved during this session of Congress. It’ll almost certainly come up for a vote, but I don’t think the support is there to pass it. Nonetheless, it’s going to be a big factor in how the U.S. responds policy-wise to climate change in the future. Representatives form the oil, coal and gas industries met up for a conference yesterday and agreed that debate of this bill will set the marker for debates next year. And, since its emissions requirements are weaker than some other bills in Congress, that they should support it as the best proposal they are likely to get. Interesting. Bill Scher has more :: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/fossil-fuel-ceos-their-heels


Vote on This Bill

32% Users Support Bill

40 in favor / 84 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments