Inside the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, currently with a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee, is intended to create new jobs, save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, reduce global warming and pollution, and wean the country off imported oil.

The bill is unlikely to be intact by the time it reaches President Barack Obama's desk. (If you forgot your junior-high civics lessons, watch "I'm Just a Bill," part of the Schoolhouse Rock! series, to see how a bill becomes a law.) But among its current provisions, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 would:

• Fund retrofits of existing residential buildings to improve energy efficiency.

• Improve the U.S. Department of Energy's process for setting energy-efficiency standards and provide financial incentives to retailers who sell high volumes of best-in-class appliances. Read "Energy Star Has Lost Some Luster" and our post on the Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009.

• Require U.S. electric and gas utilities to work with customers to demonstrate savings in electricity and natural gas.

• Set limits on emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and insulation, and black carbon, the product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or biomass.

• Require 25 percent of electricity generated for retail customers to come from renewable source by 2025 and reduce global-warming-causing pollution by 83 percent by 2050.

• Establish a market-based program for reducing global-warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources, and other industries.

• Extend programs for clean fuels, smart grids, and carbon sequestration. Federal and California clean-air and fuel-economy standards and EPA rules would be reconciled.

• Boost aid to states for clean energy and energy-efficiency projects.

• Award grants to universities and colleges to develop curriculum and training programs that prepare students for green-collar careers in renewable energy, and climate change mitigation.—Gian Trotta | e-mail | Twitter

Essential information: "Save Energy, Save Money" details how investing in energy-efficient appliances and heating systems can save you more than $2,000 per year.

Comments

[eric]

Everytime I see this phrase, "global-warming-causing pollution" I know that ONLY politics is driving this bill. So I can not, scientifically, hold out hope that anything of benefit will come from this. I do know that the cost of energy in this country will go up drastically, that it's availability could be reduced b/c of this, and that as many jobs might be created, as many or more will probably be lost.

[David Keppel]

In 2004 a Pentagon study found: Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude.

The Clean Energy and Security Act is long overdue. I hope the strongest version of it passes. We can't afford to let it be diluted by business-as-usual compromises.

Congressman Henry Waxman's bill is a strong start -- but it needs to be strengthened in some important ways:
o Make polluters pay for the transition to a clean energy economy with a “100% auction” system
o Include strong standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency
o Halt construction of new coal plants unless and until they can meet a very high standard of carbon capture and sequestration, with such technology installed from their opening. Before any such construction goes forward, there must be more evidence that CCS is safe and effective over the long term and that full accounting is done in assessing its economic viability. Given remaining problems, it is clear at least that “clean coal” cannot provide the early reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to prevent a climate catastrophe.
o Recognizing that a 100% auction system will be economically challenging in the Midwest and elsewhere, devote a share of the auction proceeds to tax rebates for low and middle income residents of vulnerable regions. This is much better than giving the energy producers free carbon credits, because it maintains a powerful economic incentive to switch to clean energy.

David Keppel
Bloomington, Indiana

[Joshua]

Mr. Keppel overlooks that there is a rapidly increasing number of scientists who have gone beyond saying that man-made global warming is a hoax to the point of signing a petition stating such. That is a bold statement in the world of academia and should give us pause. The global warming hysteria amounts to economic terrorism against the US and this bill is the epitome of that egregious activity which threatens the sovereignty of the US and leaves the world's worst polluters free to make money off dirty power. Who, you ask? Those polluters are commonly known as China and India, and China in particular is producing unfiltered coal-fired power plants in like manner to how Detroit produces automobiles. Any evironmental regulations we pass will not make a drop in the bucket's change in world pollution output, and I assure you that they will NOT motivate those polluting nations to change their ways, because China and India do not and will not care about pollution when it makes so much money for them. They are very much in favor of our regulating ourselves to death because they are the rising economic powers and will benefit greatly when our regulations yank us away as a world power. Passing these senseless regulations only serves to play into the hands of our nations enemies and make the fat cats in Washington even fatter.

[Rod cqu]

Mr. Keppel: I would suggest that you take the 3hrs and 45mins. it takes to drive the 225 miles from Bloomington to Springfield, Illinois and visit their State museum there. They have a multimillion dollar natural history exhibit there that contains a section entitled "freeze and thaw" that should be able to convince anyone smart enough to tie their own shoes that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is pure garbage! It seems that we are 12000 years into the 31st global warming cycle of the fourth major ice age, which has been going on for about 1.8 million years so far. Two lessons: 1. global warming ain't new; and 2, humans have only been here about 100K years so who warmed the earth the other 30 times, aliens? The orbital and precessional dynamics of the earth can change the sun's radiance on the earth's surface up to 15%--that's what causes the place to freeze up down to Bloomington every 40000 years and thaw out again 40000 years later, not SUVs, coal power plants and flatulent cows.

[Linda]

I believe in the spirit of this bill, but I hope there are modifications.

For example, the idea of an "ENERGY STAR" rating on a house is repleat with the possibility of bias and manipulation, and might be wrong-minded. Houses are not appliances. They cannot be inter-changed. They are unique and they are not static. Even identical houses, built next to each other, will have slightly different energy needs. Micro climates, orientation, shadows, foliage, etc., create differences that change over time. Add "the inhabitants", and you may have night & day differences in energy use. A better idea would be to use an "appraisal" approach to evaluate the energy consumption at a home, such as with the H.E.R.S. systems (although H.E.R.S. is EXPENSIVE!). This would help the individual make energy efficient decisions, based on his/her individual use. Appraisals are only good for the day they are performed. House "Energy" ratings should be viewed the same way.

[Jesse]

I don't think that anyone is disputing whether or not
Milankovitch (orbital, precession, etc..) cycles cause the planet to heat or cool. But it is important now to recognize that new scientific models are combining greenhouse gas feedback cycles with Milankovitch cycles to more accurately explain past heating & cooling trends.

[Chris]

To all of you who support this bill:

If you think this bill will cause a decrease in anthropogenic carbon dioxide production, you may be right. When the economy grinds to a standstill due to skyrocketing costs coupled with an already shaky consumer market, naturally you have less production and therefore fewer emissions. However, when you force utility companies to purchase these "carbon-offset credits," you fail to address the true source for the production of this supposed "greenhouse gas." You are simply making a lot of money for some shrewd businessmen at the cost of the prosperity of millions of Americans.

First of all, the "feedback cycle" described by a previous commenter is not one of constant or exponential increase of global temperature as CO2 levels in the atmosphere climb. Instead, there is an exponential decrease in overall temperature increase as CO2 levels increase. Not to mention that CO2 is a far worse insulator of heat energy than methane and many other gases that are created by industrial and natural emitters. Just take the IPCC's estimates from 2007 and graph them versus the actual global average temperatures every day since. Take a look at the CO2 levels actually present in the atmosphere. The picture should begin to become clearer. And we're not even accounting for the effect of this bill on humanity.

The people that will feel the true cost of this bill will not be the "polluters," as President Obama and Henry Waxman, among others, would have you believe. They will be happy to pass this cost directly to the customers. Middle- and upper-class people will simply see this as an inconvenience, as with doubled food prices caused by distortion of the market through ethanol subsidies and artificial market shortages of various crops by American farmers. These increased energy costs for those already struggling to get by in this economy will put many who are less fortunate out in the cold and the dark. Thanks, environmental movement. You've already caused millions in poverty and in the third world to starve to death because now their food costs double what it did 3 years ago. Now you're going to increase energy prices on everyone in the U.S.? Sounds like sound policy to me.

Here's a link to a graph created from EPA estimates on the state-by-state costs of the bill. This doesn't even account for the "cap" portion of the bill, which basically limits the emissions of certain industries at any cost (including complete liquification of their assets).

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/WaxmanMap771.php

[Henk Daalder Windpark Wiki]

Opponents of this act, remain to think fossile formulas.
If this act increases the price of fossile energy, the market switches to cheaper sustainable energy.
The US has an abundant amount of free wind and solar energy.

Some states are tapping in this free source, and they are the first to benefit from it.

- You have to pay, to have your home insulated, but your energy bill will be lower.
- A Windpark Owner has to pay for the windturbines, but the produce energy for free.

Part of the securty of energy supply, is that the grids are extended to states that produce this free energy, to have it sold with preference above energy from poluting fossile sources

[fujimo]

I love how all you armchair scientist, who can only see past your next paycheck are so concerned about the future of the planet and what your children will have to do to clean up the mess that industry has caused in our lifetimes. But then again, the ones who are railing against "global warming" here probably believe that it doesn't matter. It is all part of Jaweh's plan (that would be the Judeo-Christian god). Anyways global warming and cooling have indeed been around a long time before man. There are however a few things missing here in this discourse: 1. Global warming is indeed proven...your bogus righty scientist are just spreading bogus info to protect their oil/energie/agriculture/pharmaceutical interests. Of course they don't want to have to shovel out millions to improve their ancient technology. If global warming isn't really occuring then they can go on dumping and exhausting without having to do anything. Great! and 2. Even if it is a "natural" thing...I think I would like it to stop for the sake of my children and/or grandchildren who must live here. I don't really care "why" the climate change is taking place. 3. Global warming isn't the big issue here...but that is an age old trick in rhetoric to focus on one small part that you think is faulty and then declare the bigger subject on the whole faulty. BS! Most people obviously want industry (regardless of which one) to stop polluting and reduce their energy consumption enough that we voted for Obama. You refuse to accept it and see the fact that he was elected as some sort of trick. Nope. We want that change that he is touting and ASAP. But don't worry you have until 2012 to sabotage anything you can so that you can say "Look it didn't work. Now put us back in power so we can continue ruining the planet and the lower and middle class so that we can live high on the hog by taking payola from the Saudis/Oil & Energie companies/Pharmaceutical companies/Insurance Companies etc....
I for one want to preserve what little nature we have, get off of the oil dependance, make jobs in the green sector for FUTURE generations, and have health insurance for all (whether the insurance companies make a profit anymore is NOT important to me)...did I miss anything? Oh, I also think that since Obama is a man of mixed ethnic origin he is the first president in a long time who can tell the many ethnicities of America without "white guilt" that Affirmative Action isn't the way and that they have got to pull themselves out of the slump with everyone else. No special privileges. I really just think you Nay-Sayers are trying to get your foot back in the door...take a step back and look at what you are destroying for your personal gain though. Really.

[Paul Schechter]

The idea that this bill is pointless because China and India will keep on polluting is ludicrous. Do you think there is any better chance for them to stop polluting if we defeat a climate change bill in the US? If anything, it will send the message that it is okay to pollute because America is doing it. We are the only economic superpower in the world and we must lead by example. If we passed this bill, and joined the other 184 countries that have ratified similar legislation, we would be in a much better position to convince China and India to curb their emissions during the Copenhagen Summit in December of ’09. If we do nothing, they will almost assuredly do nothing as well.

With regards to anthropogenic climate change, you cannot tell me that our species, whose numbers are approaching 7 billion, and whose members have invested every corner of this planet, are not having an effect on our environment. We are taking millions of years worth of stored carbon and releasing it into our atmosphere, in a fraction of a second in planetary terms. This is having serious ecological consequences thorough the globe. The most serious, in my opinion, is ocean acidification—a direct result of increased CO2. This phenomenon is destroying phyto-plankton, the fundamental food source of the largest eco-system on the planet.

We live on a solitary planet yet we continue to consume its resources at an exponentially increasing rate, as if they will remain abundant forever. We need to wake up and smell the roses folks! We must to do something about this and do it now! The transition will not be easy, but it is vitally important for our continued existence that we take the hard steps now.

[Kris]

Does it really matter whether or not the continued use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of Global Warming or not?

Isn't it enough that the toxins released into the air, water, and ecosystems from burning these fuels as our primary means of generating power should be cause enough to change that behavior?

Should we fail to do the right thing just because China and India will not?

Will our country be safer in the long run if we can reduce or eventually eliminate our dependency upon foreign oil and gas?

If we're going to invest dollars in some fashion as a means of stimulating our economy anyway, doesn't it make more sense to focus that investment on something that leads to a better future rather than just more of the same?

Does it make sense for us to create new jobs producing and distributing clean energy sources even if it means losing jobs associated with dirty energy?

The oil and gas industries are making record profits and if they choose to not invest those profits in more effective forms of energy production then they deserve to die a horrible death.

Wake up people, this is not about a political scare tactic - this is about recognizing that it's time to change our approach to energy sooner rather than later. The longer we continue to depend upon oil and gas, the longer we will be subject to the demands of countries that are rich in those resources.

Is this a steep price to pay? Yes.

Is it worth the investment? Yes.

[Brian]

The idea that you can reduce carbon emission without reducing the energy used is ludicrous. We have to drastically reduce our energy consumption. If this is the goal we need to move into smaller homes, move back to the cities, stop commuting. Americans are not going to do this. This bill has no hope of accomplishing its goals. This is also counterproductive to efforts to get everyone to drive electric cars.
The problem with the idea that this will create lots of jobs is that all the energy intensive industries will just go to Mexico, China, India, or some other country. You can't have every person in the country working to make electricity. Someone has to be using it.
The idea that china is going to follow our lead is also naive. China's constitutional number 1 priority above all else is economic growth. Above human rights, above the environment, no other issue is higher on the agenda. So you’re telling me by handicapping ourselves with this new tax that limits our manufacturing and energy sector it is somehow going to convince China to do the same. That is idiotic. We spent 30 years getting here and it is going to take more than one half measure to get us out. Also, China does not view us as friends, we are the competition. We are their goal. We have no leverage with China anymore since they are our banker and supply all our crap.
Everyone has been talking about global warming except congress who now calls it climate change. We can't control the climate changing anymore than I can control if the sun comes up in the morning. We have been in a cooling trend since 1999. The same climatologist that is telling you that we are going to have catastrophic warming is the same guy that will tell you we are in an interglacial and no matter what we do NOW the earth WILL go into another ice age.

[Dan P]

To all you naysayers regarding climate change out there...you are all ignorant if you believe that humans cannot have possibly changed the climate. Do you know anything about how the present makeup of the atmosphere came about? Why is our atmosphere so full of oxygen and nitrogen? Did the earth form that way? The answer to that question is...course not!

Over millions of years...hundreds of trillions of bacteria took in the raw materials that then existed. They produced CO2...the CO2 was consumed by the plants that came about. Those plants released the nitrogen and oxygen that you currently breathe. Much of the carbon then became trapped in the bodies of living things and was buried under setiment.

The point is...if over several hundred million years, hundreds of trillions of cells that released oxygen and nitrogen as a waste product could change our atmosphere...why do you find it so unfeasible that mankind can change our atmosphere in a few hundred years via the burning of fossil fuels?

Taken another way...does the cancer cell, the HIV virus, the TB bacterium, etc. believe that anything so insignificant as itself can kill the organism it is inhabiting? I am not saying that we are like that to the planet; we can have the conscience and the consciousness to change. Those other things I mentioned...cannot. The point is...that relatively small things (the pathogenic cells to the body, or our behavior towards the planet) can have an awfully big effect.

But beyond all of this...there are a number of reasons we need to switch to alternatives. And this bill is a beginning to that end.
1) The poor health effects that go into the mining and burning of coal. The miners killed during cave-ins (how much would coal really cost and therefore energy if we had to pay the cost of support of dead coal miners families' pensions, or for the brown lung disease, or for the environmental damage caused via stripmining, etc.)?
2) Foreign wars like that in Iraq to secure oil routes and friendly regimes in the oil-producing countries. (I know some of you still insist we did not go to war for oil...but then tell me why we did if Saddam had no weapons or connection to 9-11. Tell me how we did it to make ourselves more secure and the Iraqis more secure if 5 million Iraqis had to flee their homes after Saddam fell...leaving some of those refugees more vulnerable to Al Queda or other terrorist organizations. Until you can provide me with a reason other than oil for going in there...I will stick to the oil motive....)
3) The oil and coal companies have all the power and money. They can crush whomever they choose with their lobbying power. They can also collude and set prices and rates at whatever they so choose.
4) Incidents of cancers, asthma, autism, etc. are on the rise as we dump more and more pollution into the air. Odds are...there is a connection.

And while all this is going on...we waste so much energy on windy and sunny days when we don't tap those to resources.

We have also a high potential for tidal energy with our two giant coastlines.

And we have a tremendous potential for geothermal. Yellowstone is nothing more than a giant volcano, for God's sake. And there are new techniques that allow geothermal drilling at more than just the typical geologic hotspots.

The choice isn't between having a pollution intensive economic recovery and no economic recovery. That is a false choice. The choice is between having an economic recovery with the far less-polluting energy technology and being vulnerable the next time a Chavez or the next Saddam decides to make trouble. Meanwhile, thousands more will die or have their lives effected by pollution-causing afflictions. Stop making people choose between bad (a pollution-ridden economic recovery) and worse (no economic recovery). Give people the third choice that this bill will allow us to move towards....

[Dan P]

I also have a comment regarding China...
China is not as easy to figure out as regards climate change policy as some might think. Does anybody remember FutereGen, the plan to build a huge coal-burning, carbon-sequestering plant in Matoon Illinois? Well, it was scrapped. But one of the partners in that project...was to be none other than the Chinese government. I am not saying that the Chinese are going to follow our lead if this bill passes. They may; they may not. They will do whatever lies in their economic interests....
Let me repeat that again...THEY WILL DO WHATEVER LIES IN THEIR ECONOMIC INTERSTS.
What does that mean? That means that, as western consumers of things made in China...we as those consumers can make it in their best interests to do right by the environment. Set up a system in which China can pollute all it wants but will suffer by western consumers boycotting. If they allow environmental groups to inspect their factories and power plants and those groups give China a clean bill of health...then the boycott ends. There are ways around China's totalitarianism. God...the way some of you people are so quick to give up makes me wonder...how did our species ever come to dominate this planet?

[JRT]

A simple question: How will the ACES reduce "oil" (petroleum) imports? This is not just a rhetorical question, I would like someone to explain it to me.

Note for those that do not know, the US uses a negligible amount of petroleum to generate electricity. So, how are solar and wind generation of electricity going to reduce our petroleum imports?

Most of our petroleum imports are used for transportation fuels. So, to reduce these imports, we need a substitute method to power out transportation. Despite what the Greens say, electric vehicles are not yet practical and even if they became practical tomorrow, how long would it take for them to be significant part of our current transportation fleet? 10, 15 years -- no, more like 20 years. It they depend on Lithium batteries, will we be able to obtain enough Lithium?

If the objective is to reduce petroleum imports in the short run, there is only one answer: synthetic fuel. To support a synthetic fuel industry, we need a tariff (+/- $20 per barell) on petroleum imports (NAFTA and other Central and South American countries with free trade agreements would be exempt) to maintain the price of imported petroleum at a high enough price so that synthetic fuel will be economically viable ($60 to $80 per barrel). Cap and trade will not accomplish this since the price of petroleum will still be dependent on the market.

I have read that the ACES will encourage synthetic fuel, but it certainly isn't clear exactly how and to what extent. It would certainly be better if it was more explicit about this rather than supporting so-called alternative energy that is popular with the Greens.

[DanP]

The argument that some of you keep making about how China and India will keep pouring ghg emissions into the atmosphere is nothing more than a copout. I am reminded of what my parents all said to me while I was growing up.
"If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"
It seems to me that some on this blog would. There is a way that we, as American consumers, can push China and India to decrease ghg emissions. STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS UNTIL THEY CLEAN UP THEIR ACT, and the environment in the process. Consumerism is a power; and it has the power to change attitudes and to change behaviors.
Dan P

[Calvin Wills]

Oh wow! Just another killer bill!
I live in Kentucky and our electric bills have already gone through the roof! if this passes we will be slapped with another increase!
Taxing is no the sollution! Asking companies and utilities to change overnight is crazy
Yes we need to prepare for the future..of course we have had decades to do this but this country is slow..first of all you need to address the problem..create factories that will produce solar wind and turbines to harness our resoursces..this will create thousands of jobs! help people,,( yes HELP people) get their homes with these new products
for wxisting pollution prblems like carbon wmmissions esp from coal
Filter it underground!
There are many ways to ease our problems..but like congress they jump on taxes!
God didnt we win our independence from a country that taxed us to death??

[DanP]

JRT...
To answer your question about how ACES can lower our dependence on foreign oil...I provide two examples.
1) As the cost of electricity will eventually fall because more alternative means of creating electrity will begin to come on the market, the cost to fuel EVs will begin to come down. This will happen just shortly after we see EVs come to market to be sold. When some of the automakers first released their lines of EVs in the early part of this decade, they only released them to be leased, not bought. Then, they refused to allow them to be re-leased. When I talk about how it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I am looking long term, and it includes the purchase of electric vehicles.
2) There is a provision in the bill regarding the raising of CAFE standards. This, with the "Cash for CLunkers" part of the bill will allow people to "trade in" automobiles with less fuel efficiency for automobiles with greater efficiency.
In order to look into your lithium problem, I looked for some articles. I found this one which, if you read into it long enough, you will see that they suggest sodium nickel chloride, or the "ZEBRA battery". They also talk about zinc.

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1182&first=8528&end=8527
http://www.solartaxi.com/technology/zebra-battery/

Aside from that, they will, probably someday, create a method for recycling lithium ion batteries...if that becomes necessary. They may also be able to harvest more lithium from the ocean where there is a lot more supply than terrestrial sources. That lithium is currently untappable. Only if we do not decide to go down the "ZEBRA" road will it become economical to do the research that would be required to discover the means to recycle old, used-up lithium batteries or harvest lithium from the ocean.

Calvin:
There already are those factories. Though there may not be enough of them. There is the Ovshinsky factory in Michigan. And the wind turbines that were supposed to be used in T. Boone Pickens' venture in Texas had to come from somewhere. The big problem is siting and building the transmission lines that are needed where the wind and solar farms will be built.

[Daniel Pajak]

I hear some of you complaining about the new "taxes" imposed by this bill. I do not see it as a question of new "taxes". The fossil fuel industry receives all kinds of what might be called "subsidies" that we as consumers of those fuels, and corporations as creators of those fuels never pay for. But, we as a society, most certainly do pay for them. I know that I have stated all of them before, from oil wars; to pollution-related diseases; to climate change. But this should not be a conversation soley about new "taxes"; it should be a conversation about how reliance on fossil fuels costs us a society...and how much less reliance on renewables would cost us.
If carbon taxes are the only way of beginning to accurately place at least a portion of the real cost of relying on those fuels on those fuels themselves, then I see no other choice for me, but to support those taxes. Even those will never go far enough; but it is a necessary beginning. The average American will never really know how costly reliance on fossil fuels is, until some of that cost is passed on to them at the actual price they pay for consumption of those fuels. I would not mind also seeing a large portion of the military's budget come from taxes raised on consumption of many products, especially when it comes to that of fossil fuels, as opposed to coming from our income taxes. The oil lobby will never let that happen; in fact, those sympathetic to the oil lobby will never admit how much of a subsidy they receive from the American taxpayer via the military. So, carbon taxes are all I can hope for today.

[Daniel Pajak]

There are many ways of creating electric vehicular batteries besides lithium ion. There are what are known as "ZEBRA", made from the much more common sodium, chloride, and aluminum. Then, there is the Ovshinsky, or the Nickely Metal Hydride or NiMH battery. Texaco currently holds the pattent for it; they bought it from General Motors whom Ovshinsky had sold it to. Texaco is currently only letting that battery be used in hybrids. The point is that there is a lot more ways of powering an EV than the rare lithium. Beyond all this, we may discover a way to recycle lithium some day. And, at least we would actually have some oil left if we ever needed to go back to oil again. But if we continue to use oil at the rate we have been; if China continues its rise toward puting ever more automobiles on the road...how long can we really avoid going to war with other large oil consuming nations?
And here, I have said nothing of climate change in this post. That is because, as I have stated before; I see climate change as one of many reasons to move away from fossil fuels. But I still believe climate change to be a serious issue. I think that, the other reasons only serve to reinforce the point that it would be beyond foolish to remain dependent on fossil fuels. If the catastrophes that climate change has the potential to bring about are not enough to make you believe we need to change; then you should probably seek help, though I will not condemn you for it. If all the other reasons do not even phase you, either; I think that you are certifiable!

[Eric Isakson - Portage, IN]

Once again this administration is forcing socialism down our throats. Why can't the idiots in Washington figure out that this same plan has driven Europe into a recession?

A better idea would be to sign an executive order that says by 2012, old technology cannot be sold. This would give everyone ample time to get ready to either fix what they have or get ready to update when i fails. Look at what happened with freon for A/C 15 years ago. It worked, same would hold true if tank water heaters, old light bulbs, applances, etc. Lets let America and the private sector work on getting this done ALOT more effectively than government mandates. Also some major tax breaks, subsidy's, or guarenteed equity loans tied to a piece of property for alternative engery. Think about it, If I bought a 15 year old house with a 30 year mortgage. Had a $50,000 solar put on with a 20 year equity tie to the property, then when the utility savings are realized the payment can be made. Oh and don't let Freddy and Fannie get these loans and screw up our country anymore. Lets let a few of the banks that didn't have to take TARP money be rewared for being stable.

[DanielP]

Eric...Europe went into recession because they were tied into our housing and mortgage market, and because our housing and mortgage market collapsed...NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS. I say again, this bill is NOT about socialism. There are certain costs which are levied on society due to having an energy infrastructure so reliant on fossil fuels. These costs are never associated with use of fossil fuels because the cost is never paid directly in association with these fuels. One example is our use of the military, paid with income tax dollars; but never fuel tax dollars; to ensure oil supply lines and friendly regimes in oil producing states. We will never probably have the true cost of having the military carry out these missions incorporated into the price at the pumps. So, carbon tax is the only alternative at this point; we should run with carbon taxes as a result.

Eric, maybe you would like to tell my Republican Congressman, a U.S. military veteran, that he is supporting "socialism" when he voted in favor of ACES. His name is Mark Kirk. Go on; call this veteran a "socialist". While you are at it, Eric, go and call the CEO of Duke Energy a "socialist" while you are at it...because he is in favor of ACES as well.

[Barbara Trulby]

This blog leaves out the details on the regulations that will be imposed not only on big businesses but all of us. It also doesn't address how this will be paid for. The tax payers have spent billions of dollars funding a government agency, the Department of Energy. This agency was created after the 1970's energy crisis in order to reduce are dependency on foreign oil and address other energy issues. Since it's creation it has done nothing to reduce our dependency on oil or any other significant energy programs or initiatives. Why should we think another government controlled program which tax payers will fund with higher taxes is going to do what the Dept.of Energy has failed to do? I'm all for protecting this earth. It is our duty to do so. But government programs have never been the efficient and cost-effective way to solve any problem this nation has. We don't have the money to throw away on another government-funded program.