U.S. Congress - H.R.2454 American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009
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
- Short: Safe Climate Act as passed house.
- Short: National Climate Service Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: GREEN Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: Safe Climate Act as reported to house.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as reported to house.
- Short: Safe Climate Act as introduced.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. as introduced.
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.
Bill's Views
- Today: 752
- Past Seven Days: 6,077
- All-Time: 211,075
15%
Users Support Bill
674 in favor / 3702 opposed
Write Your
Representative
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
Displaying 61-90 of 545 total comments.
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.
Filtered Comment [show]
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.
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.
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.
Filtered Comment [show]
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.
Filtered Comment [show]
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.
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.
They're also seeing sunspot activity different from any recorded patterns. Are you going to blame that on industrialization too?
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!!!!
"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.
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.
Filtered Comment [show]
You're classic. "Moran." How come it's "climate change" now? I thought it was global warming just a few years ago. I guess now humans are causing recent cooling, not the Sun. It's all very scientific isn't it. Anyway, everyone can see that it is being used to concentrate control in government and globalist hands.
right on - a Child can tell you these - it is a big scam all for big big big $$$$$$$$$$$!
Yep!! I'm no expert but I remember learning about the ICE AGE. And in the past several months I saw a opb special on the Steens Mountain range in southeastern Oregon. Scientists have concluded from studying the range that several times in history the poles have changed. HMMMM!!! Who is responsible for that? I believe we shouldn't be wreckless with the environment, but to believe we're responsible for global warming?? I wish we could all be around in a couple of hundred years to rub Gores face in it and see what he says...oh, he'll take responsibility for preventing further warming...lets VOTE THEM ALL OUT!! We deserve what we get for keeping them in office...
Even if "climate change" were real, how is taxing the crap out of us going to stop it?
IT'S A SCAM!
Amen
This bill will kill our already crippled economy, tax the consumer TO DEATH, and it will do nothing to help the environment. If the democrats pass this thing, they are going to get their butts handed to them in 2010.
Filtered Comment [show]
CO2 levels have no measurable effect on the Earth's temperature.
Updates to measurements and models now show a .7 degree rise over the last 100 years. That is less than the average over the last 300 years. CO2 levels are at or near some of their highest recorded levels over that same time span. If the amount of CO2 had anything to do with warming, we would be in the middle of a global heat wave by now. We are not. Some reliable predictions have us cooling over the course of the next 50 years or so. If the science were settled, then there wouldn't be so much decent from PHDs around the world.
Very well said, I am in total agreement.
Filtered Comment [show]
Filtered Comment [show]
Try this: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Here's someone who actually knows what there talking about for a change.
Filtered Comment [show]
CO2 has little effect. I don't think they said it has no effect. They said no measurable effect. that is when the Earth's temperature fluctuates over 300 years and the rise in the past few years is within the fluctuation amount. As for your statement on global cooling, in the 70s the creation of earth day was because they thought another ice age was coming. I guess now that this movement is contrary to your thoughts you oppose it.