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 61-90 of 724 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    mnvikefan 10/07/2009 11:45am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Amen brother! I am appalled at this legislation which is going to pass on an enormous cost to the tax payer with a huge bureaucracy and tons of red tape that will not accomplish anything.

  • Comm_reply
    Arizonian 06/28/2009 2:32pm

    “The carbon level in the atmosphere is at an all time high for a period in our planets history in which it was acutally capable of sustaining life…”

    Sure, if you don’t include anytime before the ice age….. which was caused by an asteroid/comet hitting the surface of the Earth, throwing it into this erratic cycles of warming and cooling.. You could say that we exist due to an imbalance of weather, not in spite of it. We are still cooling than the Cretaceous period, when life on Earth was drastically reduced by previously mention event.

  • Comm_reply
    AnAmericanRevolution1776 06/29/2009 9:50pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    wonderfully said

  • Comm_reply
    zhowland 06/29/2009 6:48am

    They started calling it “climate change” because “global warming” was hard to argue when you had consecutive years of cooling. Carbon Dioxide makes up less than 0.05% of the earths atmosphere. To put that into perspective, it would be like someone pouring a cup of hot water in the ocean and saying they caused the entire ocean to warm up.

    However, even if you buy into the bogus “science” that it is, this bill will do nothing to further your cause. Just take a look at the other countries that have already done the same thing and see their results.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    AnAmericanRevolution1776 06/29/2009 9:53pm

    I completely agree with your comment. If you take most peoples view on Darwin’s Theory, we will be killed off by the planet in order for it to survive. The strongest right ? Well, Mother Earth is the strongest. But yeah, I think God knew what he was doing as well. This planet is amazing when it comes to protecting it’s own “a**”

  • Comm_reply
    AnAmericanRevolution1776 06/29/2009 9:40pm

    Same way Pluto was a planet and they changed that. What we fail to realize is that we know nothing and everything we do know is most likely wrong

  • Comm_reply
    ArmyMason 07/07/2009 8:56pm

    That’s why scientists call it a theory. All they can do is guess, I wonder does that make fortune tellers scientists?

  • Comm_reply
    ingallsc 07/01/2009 6:30am

    Carbon levels are not at an all time high, they were highest in the 10th and 11th centuries. That aside, the ‘climate change’ debate is not settled. If our political leaders truly had our best at heart, instead of their selfish interests for power and money, then they would allow wisdom to dictate their actions. 1200 pages, ridiculous amount of government agency involvement, massive amounts of additional debt… the list could go on and on… all of it lacks wisdom and simple common sense and should cause the thoughtful person (regardless of which side you take in the debate) to question the motivations, actions, and goals of our representatives.

  • Comm_reply
    mouseissue 06/02/2010 10:49am

    This scam was originally called “GLOBAL WARMING” and was touted by many as a man-caused global catastophe. Watch the award winning film by Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Truth” for all the “scary” details. Keep in mind that Al Gore just bought a $9 million dollar beachfront home in Santa Barbara, CA.

    If these scammers actually could remove 83% of the planet’s CO2 (their stated goal), all plant life would die with all animal life (including humanity) right afterward!

    Hmmm?… So what’s a good scam propagandist to do?
    I know!!!… Let’s call it Climate Change! That way no matter what the climate does, our premise can’t be debunked!
    After all, isn’t it climate’s primary nature to change? Otherwise, what would you call it?

    If you believe the scam, you should watch for a future scam called “Tidal Change”. Everyone will be called to their local beaches with buckets to fight it! You “Climate Change” believer’s look just as ignorant.

    Purposely remaining ignorant is called stupidity!

  • Comm_reply
    cerebralscrub44 01/11/2010 5:27pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Take the easy way out. Reject that we and our nation’s wasteful habits must change – heaven forbid we spend a little money now to invest in our children and grandchildren’s future. It’s always been easier to resist change, to deny that something must be done, to try to maintain the status quo. The evidence is there: today, there is a measured and accelerating decrease in arctic permafrost layers and arctic sea ice. There is a measured increase in extreme weather events like droughts and floods. Finally, warming temperatures have reduced the combined production of wheat, corn, and barley by 40 million metric tons per year between 1981-2002, resulting in a net loss of 5 billion dollars and shaking the food security of nations with agricultural economies. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we have just left the hottest decade in the instrumental record, and probably in the last 2000-3000 years.

  • Comm_reply
    cerebralscrub44 01/11/2010 5:45pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    actually, according to the World Meteorological Organization, 2000-2009 was the hottest decade in the instrumental record. Using global average surface temperature, “The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850.”

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

    Of course there is “tons of credible evidence that the climate goes through natural cycles that we both have nothing to do with.” No one is disputing that the Earth’s climate is affected by changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and other naturally occurring events. But these changes cannot account for the recent increases in global temperatures.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    “the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level.”

  • Comm_reply
    elsa41 06/29/2009 8:12am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    As evidenced by the buried EPA report that has just come to light today. Also, the fact that they had to change its name so they could talk about it in the winter time when we are suffering record lows.

  • Comm_reply
    revolverBoy 06/29/2009 8:48pm

    Climate change is much more than a tax scheme. On the contrary, this bill is one more powerful weapon in the statist’s arsenol. The climate change and healthcare programs will do exactly what they were designed to do, and these political objectives have nothing to do with the climate or with healthcare.

  • Comm_reply
    ArmyMason 07/07/2009 8:59pm

    This bill will also raise the cost of food, their is a section where food manufactures will have to abide by new energy standards and that will be costly and that cost will be pushed onto the people. The Government will control how we buy food, gas, houses, cars, and just about every thing else.

  • Comm_reply
    cerebralscrub44 01/11/2010 5:33pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Hmmm…if climate change is a U.S. Tax Scheme, then why are the findings of the IPCC, that the evidence for global warming is unequivocal and much of the warming that has occurred over the past 30 years can be attributed to human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, endorsed by all of the national academies of science of all of the world’s industrialized nations?

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    arthas 06/25/2009 8:47am

    You’re partly right. Once many refineries are forced to shut down due to the stringent requirements and enormous competition from foreign countries without these unfair practices, pollution would decrease (a closed refinery does not pollute). Of course, thousands of people would also lose their jobs, but I’m sure the government will spend a few more billions creating programs to help create jobs.

  • Comm_reply
    snydes45 06/25/2009 8:51am

    You are right that the pollution from the closed refinery would be 0. However the refinery that replaced it (in some foreign country) would likey have little or no restrictions on it. Therefore the net pollution would be more.

  • Comm_reply
    elsa41 06/29/2009 8:20am

    cap and trade is just a way of saying “pay to pollute.” These “jobs” are not permanent and the people who desperately need jobs the most are not qualified to do them.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    ramanajan 06/17/2009 11:19pm
    Link Reply
    + 10

    Yes, climate change is real. It’s been happening for eons. I guess the last time we had global warming it was caused by humans right? Also, science is not interested in consensus. That is more a political idea. Science needs repeatable experimentation as evidence not consensus. But let’s say that it is a fact that there is anthropomorphic global warming, there is very little consensus as to the actual effects, be they negative or positive. Furthermore, given the fact that nuclear energy does not produce appreciable amounts of greenhouse gases I wonder why we are not really pushing this proven energy source? Perhaps there is another agenda at work here.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    snydes45 06/25/2009 8:56am

    What evidence are these scientists using? I mean we have fossils showing where glaciers used to be etc. However what are they using as their proof of what temperature is was at X million years ago. Further, what evidence are they using for how much carbon was in the atmosphere at the time. By the way, carbon dioxide only contributes to 26% of the total atmosphere’s heat absorbed. Water vapor contributes 60%. So maybe this whole carbon emissions thing is a little out of whack.

  • Comm_reply
    smileypete 06/26/2009 9:32am
    Link Reply
    + -3

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

    Funny, these same scientists are changing their minds now. Some are even admitting they agreed with this sham so they could get along.

  • Comm_reply
    KD5NRH 09/13/2009 1:16am

    They’re also seeing sunspot activity different from any recorded patterns. Are you going to blame that on industrialization too?

  • Comm_reply
    JMeadeRep 01/29/2010 7:58am

    Well said. While we cannot seek consensus in science (especially on future projections), we can act with a plan. Simply restricting use of fossil fuels without producing and endorsing an economically viable alternative will damage our economy. In the State of the Union, Obama suggested the alternative of nuclear power. Perhaps this is an avenue we will see Congress turn to soon!

  • Comm_reply
    lapizz 06/23/2009 12:47pm

    You people need to stop drinking the kool-aid the government keeps giving out. Global warming is the biggest tax scam in history. There is so much evidence to refute it that it’s ridiculous. Please go to www.//oism.org/pproject/ Over 31000 American scientists have signed this petition that says GW is bogus. On this site there are numerous scientific papers that prove the point. Wake up America before it is too late!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    zhowland 06/24/2009 7:00am

    “mostly caused by humans”

    Yep, which is why the warmest period of time we have on record was in the 1100’s. Look what all the combustion engines and carbon-producing machines back then … oh, wait, there were none.

    Try actually reading some credible studies instead of what the news reports on before you tell someone else to do more reading.

  • Comm_reply
    snydes45 06/25/2009 8:53am

    I remember reading about a time when scientists of the day were 95-99% sure that the universe revolved around the Earth. Thankfully someone decided to go against the grain and cause a change in scientific opinion.


Vote on This Bill

19% Users Support Bill

1150 in favor / 4827 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments