What YOU should know about the American Clean Energy and Security Act
Today, June 26th, House Representatives are expected to vote on ACESA, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2998 (formerly H.R. 2454)
Background: ACESA is a comprehensive national climate and energy legislation that climas to establish an economy-wide, greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system and critical complementary measures to address climate change and build a clean energy economy. The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 33-25 to approve the ACES Act on May 21. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), chairman of a key subcommittee, introduced the bill on May 15, after floating a discussion draft in March.
ARTICLES of reference ABOUT the failed ACESA policy
GEORGE MONBIOT: Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change? The Waxman-Markey climate bill is the best we will get from America until the corruption of public life is addressed
It would be laughable anywhere else. But, so everyone says, the Waxman-Markey bill which is likely to be passed in Congress today or tomorrow, is the best we can expect – from America. (continue reading)
KEN WARD: 9 damned good reasons why some U.S. environmentalists should heartily oppose Waxman-Markey
Waxman-Markey just plain sucks and we would be fools to not fight about that fact within our own ranks. I’ve no intention of trying to add to the volumes of data and policy being tossed around on the finer points of the bill. The bottom line is clear enough from any cursory summary: 450 ppm isn’t good, the U.S. ought to be calling for 300-350 ppm; the bill as presently written doesn’t even have a hope of getting us to 450 ppm if it becomes the model for the world (all those offsets, way too late implementation, dropping GFC’s and so on); and—please stretch a bit here—let’s not forget that cap-and-trade was the worst of a bad lot that everyone now touting it used to oppose, for excellent reasons. If we are intellectually honest, then there are more than enough reasons to disagree with the majority opinion here. (continue reading)
Institute for Policy Studies:Good News, There’s a Climate Bill — Bad News, It Stinks
Right out of the starting gate, the bill provides a ridiculous number of giveaways to industry — something President Barack Obama campaigned against as unfair to consumers: Upwards of 85 percent of pollution allowances are being given away for free to the electricity sector, with many of these free permits not phasing out until 2030. This means little to none of the revenues coming into the public coffers from this “cap and trade” scheme will be used to protect low and moderate households from energy price increases, as envisioned by Obama. (continued reading article)
What YOU should know about the American Clean Energy and Security Act
Today, June 26th, House Representatives are expected to vote on ACESA, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2998 (formerly H.R. 2454)
Background: ACESA is a comprehensive national climate and energy legislation that climas to establish an economy-wide, greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system and critical complementary measures to address climate change and build a clean energy economy. The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 33-25 to approve the ACES Act on May 21. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), chairman of a key subcommittee, introduced the bill on May 15, after floating a discussion draft in March.
ARTICLES of reference ABOUT the failed ACESA policy
GEORGE MONBIOT: Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change? The Waxman-Markey climate bill is the best we will get from America until the corruption of public life is addressed
It would be laughable anywhere else. But, so everyone says, the Waxman-Markey bill which is likely to be passed in Congress today or tomorrow, is the best we can expect – from America. (continue reading)
KEN WARD: 9 damned good reasons why some U.S. environmentalists should heartily oppose Waxman-Markey
Waxman-Markey just plain sucks and we would be fools to not fight about that fact within our own ranks. I’ve no intention of trying to add to the volumes of data and policy being tossed around on the finer points of the bill. The bottom line is clear enough from any cursory summary: 450 ppm isn’t good, the U.S. ought to be calling for 300-350 ppm; the bill as presently written doesn’t even have a hope of getting us to 450 ppm if it becomes the model for the world (all those offsets, way too late implementation, dropping GFC’s and so on); and—please stretch a bit here—let’s not forget that cap-and-trade was the worst of a bad lot that everyone now touting it used to oppose, for excellent reasons. If we are intellectually honest, then there are more than enough reasons to disagree with the majority opinion here. (continue reading)
Institute for Policy Studies: Good News, There’s a Climate Bill — Bad News, It Stinks
Right out of the starting gate, the bill provides a ridiculous number of giveaways to industry — something President Barack Obama campaigned against as unfair to consumers: Upwards of 85 percent of pollution allowances are being given away for free to the electricity sector, with many of these free permits not phasing out until 2030. This means little to none of the revenues coming into the public coffers from this “cap and trade” scheme will be used to protect low and moderate households from energy price increases, as envisioned by Obama. (continue reading article)
There is little hope of shifting to a low-carbon economy without a clear, transparent price on carbon emissions. While ACESA’s proponents claim that its cap-and-trade provisions “