H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009

To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. view all titles (12)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. as introduced.
  • Short: American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Safe Climate Act as introduced.
  • Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Safe Climate Act as passed house.
  • Short: Safe Climate Act as reported to house.
  • Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: GREEN Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: National Climate Service Act of 2009 as passed house.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 724 total comments.

  • slimgpd 05/18/2009 10:04am
    Link Reply
    + 12

    This bill will increase our cost for power 3 times over.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2438.cfm

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    bradtumer 06/12/2009 8:07am
    Link Reply
    + 14

    Creating jobs is pointless unless those jobs create goods and services demanded by consumers in a free market. Otherwise you’re just creating busy work that’s just a drain on the economy.

  • Comm_reply
    jackvfb 11/11/2009 4:54pm
    Link Reply
    + 12

    Energy is in very high demand. It is consumed by all Americans.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Napzilla 07/12/2010 3:16am

    If your free market is driven by demand, then why is it that I see 20 different brands of the SAME toothbrush for the same price every time I’m in the grocery store, but if I want to get TO the store, I either have to buy a car that runs on petroleum or rob a bank and buy a bus? And if this market of yours works so well, then why do I need to keep subsidizing it? Between the $4.73 trillion bank bailout, the $35 billion in oil subsidies, another $35 billion in coal subsidies, the $50 billion in nuclear subsidies, and the $75 billion subsidies to the automotive industry, this free market of yours is costing my fellow taxpayers and I a heck of a lot of money for products that we don’t want. Finally, if your market only produces what’s in demand, then why does it need to spend $1 trillion convincing people to “demand” junk they really don’t need? The only “freedom” I see in your market is the money liberated from my wallet flowing freely into the accounts of some obscenely rich CEOs.

  • Comm_reply
    Greenlander 08/24/2010 2:58pm

    YES!

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    mpaone 06/25/2009 7:15pm

    The Heritage Foundation? Seriously? You mean the same Heritage Foundation that denies the existence of hunger in America?

  • Comm_reply
    mwgriffin 05/23/2010 4:35pm

    Yeah seriously! No credibility. They should look at the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the bill and not some completely bogus “report.”

  • Comm_reply
    missrachelkate 08/25/2009 1:15pm

    Costs for power/fuel always go up: gasoline. Some people deny that humans cause climate change; I refuse to even dignify that with a response. What this bill aims to do is take THE 1st STEP toward environmental responsibility. Who cares about the economy if we can’t go outside without gas masks, or no longer have access to clean drinking water? Ever thought about how much money and resources are used just to CLEAN UP waste and byproducts already being created by our current industrial, and residential, processes? It may cost a lot of money UPFRONT to do the right thing, but a rational person can’t deny that we have to start somewhere, making eco-friendly decisions (or not) does have a global impact, and what this bill proposes will not always have a high cost if we start NOW. Obviously just asking people to make environmentally responsible decisions and companies to create less harmful products doesn’t work, or we wouldn’t be faced with so many environmental travesties today.

  • Comm_reply
    spiritof1836 09/13/2009 11:45pm

    Oh gee, another “first step.” Just like the DOE, the ECA ’92, the EPA, and a hundred other “first steps toward environmental responsibility.”

    It’s cute how you pretend this will be the first time the government has tried, rather than just the next in a long line first steps that never go anywhere.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    jackvfb 11/11/2009 4:59pm
    Link Reply
    + 12

    Renewable energy is the best thing our government and citizens can invest in. It is a much better investment than GM.

  • Comm_reply
    Defend1 09/04/2009 12:24pm

    Wow, it amazes me how afraid people are of change. The terrible things predicted to happen due to the introduction of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 are going to happen anyway. Taxes will rise, jobs will be lost and stupid people will remain in the dark. The average cost to the typical household will be 20 cents a day to start investing in responsible, renewable energy that needs to be in place before we run out of fossil fuels. I believe in sound business ideas and working toward a better future for all people so 20 cents a day and a chance to get an environmentally friendly job sound like a good idea to me. Support a Bill that serves a purpose and actually read the whatever it is you have already formed a strong opinion of, instead of taking mine or anybody else’s word for it.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    ClaudeLemieux 10/06/2009 5:44am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    Take away the subsidies and handouts that the Coal, gas, oil and Nuclear receive and add their externalities and your looking at true burden that the American people cannot carry. It’s not like these Industries are creating jobs which renewable energy will they’re losing them! Over the past quarter century the Coal Industry has axed 20 percent of thir workforce and increased productivity by 50%! They don’t need people! Meanwhile the manufacture of renewable energy plants and the workforce needed to run them will create millions of jobs for our economy. If you don’t change you stagnate, and that is exactly what has happened to our economy.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    ClaudeLemieux 10/06/2009 5:54am

    Climate Change has never existed as it does now in the history of our planet earth; Never has the rate of change occurred so fast, and never has man caused such change, until now. This is not a normal process, this is an abnormal catastrophe caused by the amount of greenhouse gas we produced. But we CAN curb the change, by cutting our greenhouse gas emissions!
    In Tennessee it is expected to get much hotter and as a result of climate change, and the people of Tennessee are expected to suffer massive heat waves, like the ones that killed thousands in Europe several years ago. Tennessee is also expected to have increased flooding like that wich we have seen recently in several midwestern states. Fisheries, and Forests are expected to suffer as well when temperatures rise, replacing hardwoods with pines and scrubs.

  • Comm_reply
    jrista 10/30/2009 10:10am

    Of all “greenhouse” gasses, Carbon Dioxide is the weakest by orders of magnitude. The only truly significant “greenhouse gas” is water vapor, providing over 95% of the net effect. Carbon dioxide has about 0.12% effect overall, with other atmospheric aerosols such as Methane and other black-bodies combining to cover the other 5%. Global temperatures are primarily driven by energy input from the sun, and the only thing that has any significant effect on that input energy is the albedo (reflectance) of the earth. (Of which there is tremendous evidence…do a couple web searches.) The highest temperatures on record since 1945 were in 1997, and global temperatures according to aggregated data since then have been on a DECLINE, not an increase. Also note that the “predictions” of global warming conformists are orders of magnitude off from actual data.

  • Comm_reply
    tompaine 12/05/2009 7:32am

    Let us first look at our definitions. Stagnation means “to stop developing, growing, progressing, or advancing”. Stabilization means “to keep from fluctuating; fix the level of”. Do you see the differences? Let us not play on words as that’s a practice made popular for the naive. What we are seeing in our country is a decline in development, growth and progress. The companies that use fossil fuels recognize its profit, regardless of how dirty it is (no, coal is not 99.7% clean, it’s a dirty fuel). The process of cleaning coal before it’s burned costs more money than it’s worth to use the end-product. It’s a waste of money, time, and technology. If that’s not stagnation (no matter from where the cause came from), then I don’t know what is and neither does the English language. How much have you actually researched renewable energy sources jrista? In my observation of your post, it seems to me that you haven’t at all.

  • Comm_reply
    tompaine 12/05/2009 7:32am

    If you’ve done your research you’d be able to say with confidence: The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a ZetaJule a year. In 2006 an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 ZJ of power are currently available in the earth with the possibility of 2,000 ZJ being easily tapable with improved technology. That is around 4,000 years of planetary power that could be harnessed in geothermal alone. If you were to add solar, wind, tidal, and water currents as other sources of energy, it’s easy to see that we won’t ever have to worry about energy ever again. With statistics like this, from our world’s brightest scientific communities, how can you say that investing in renewable energy sources brings about a “demonstrably LOW return”? (By the way, here’s an article that touches on that MIT report for those of you who’d think I was lying to you: http://www.physorg.com/news88683362.html)

  • Comm_reply
    tompaine 12/05/2009 7:33am

    I honestly don’t see the logic in your argument, or any other argument by anyone else as a matter of fact, that goes against transitioning to renewable energies (mainly solar, wind, tidal, geothermal). I wholeheartedly believe that those of you who haven’t done your research are left in the dark, not educated in the science and logic of using renewable energy, and are the people who are holding back the progress of our country and the world. Shame to you all.

  • Comm_reply
    rcmyer 12/23/2009 6:40pm

    In response to Tompaine 12/5/2009 - Stop preaching to people about doing their own research here or any other site you may be polluting with your presence. Why don’t you try entering your own comments instead of cutting and pasting from other websites without citing your source. Here is the original blog that you plagiarized:

    http://www.gateoneventures.com/en/green_care.htm

    Most of your rant is copied word for word from this site and you didn’t even correct the misspelling of ZettaJoule (not ZetaJule). Even the morons who wrote that piece don’t know the correct spelling of Joule. Do you even know what a Joule is? You’re a typical enviro-Nazi trying to convince everyone of your deep scientific understanding. Next you’ll be ranting on the global warmist’s “lock on the science” through the peerreviewedlitchurchur (check the spelling). Please go away!

  • Comm_reply
    bbkenn92 09/15/2009 7:52pm

    I agree with you, but the same people who don’t want to pass the debt to there children or grandchildren, are quite happy to pass a deteriorating planet with poor air quality, and a diminishing ozone layer, melting arctic ice, and a rise in ocean temperatures leading to an increase of hurricanes to say the least. Interesting right?

  • MatadorBID 05/18/2009 4:42pm
    Link Reply
    + 15

    “Climate change” is a scam. Lets concern ourselves with real conservation and energy efficiency and stop trying to come up with new ways to tax our citizens.

  • Comm_reply
    Elizabethjudy 05/24/2009 11:48am
    Link Reply
    + 11

    Totally Agree…Climate change is a Tax Scheme.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    zhowland 06/24/2009 6:57am

    There is 0 credible evidence that man has caused any form of climate change (which is why they’ve stopped calling it “global warming” and started calling it “climate change” … since it is hard to say we are “warming” something when it has gotten cooler over the last 5 years). There is tons of credible evidence that the climate goes through natural cycles that we both have nothing to do with, and are incapable of influencing.


Vote on This Bill

19% Users Support Bill

1150 in favor / 4828 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments