Talk:American Clean Energy and Security Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superfluous content?[edit]

Untitled[edit]

I strongly suggest the bit about the speed reader be taken out or edited. Neither source says republicans "sought to delay" the bill by having it read, they only say there were rumors the republicans *MIGHT* use that tactic. This is a far cry from actually employing it. Indeed, one of the sources says the Republicans could have used the tactic at their prerogative. If they had in fact "sought" to use the tactic, they just would have and the Democrats would have no choice but to comply. This is a very misleading portion of this article. BoomBox05 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the discussion of the cash for clunkers in the Reception section, now superfluous? I'm fairly certain the cash for clunkers program ended up being passed through congress as a rider on a different bill. Maybe someone should move the text to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_clunkers#United_States http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2Tech/idUS216228605420090619 notes that the program has already been passed through Congress as a rider on a spending bill. Irish Wolfhound (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Greenpeace opposes this bill -- "in its present form" -- (as not going nearly far enough)[edit]

Source Grundle2600 (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "United States Carbon Cap and Trade Program"?[edit]

The article to which I refer above seems to be a generalized discussion of the Act described by this article. Should we merge that article with this one? (Adams kevin (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I support the merge. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support also Bigturtle (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the merge. I think the Cap and Trade Program article's discussion of the existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Western Climate Initiative, Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord would provide valuable context in the discussion of the debate regarding ACES in the ACES article. Also, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55P6KF20090627 discusses those three programs while discussing the passage of ACES in the House. It could serve as a bridge when merging. Irish Wolfhound (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until this particular bill is passed and then definitely merge. As it is, it's not law yet and it's still possible another variation will emerge.--The lorax (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are both notable enough to warrant their own articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Defense Fund "excited about" ... this "sweeping legislation, crafted with broad support from the business and environmental communities"[edit]

Naturally, we at EDF are most excited about the declining cap on greenhouse gases ... This sweeping legislation, crafted with broad support from the business and environmental communities, puts the United States on a path toward capping its carbon pollution. And that is the first big step to preventing catastrophic climate change. —

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=9854

Key Features of the American Clean Energy and Security Act

Posted: 21-May-2009; Updated: 26-Jun-2009

The bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, 2009, and passed by the House on June 26, 2009. The bill:

  • Sets a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050
  • Establishes a cap-and-trade program to spur investment in clean energy technologies and new manufacturing jobs
  • Promotes clean energy by requiring that 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, certain types of biofuels, and energy efficiency by 2020
  • Protects the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries (like steel and concrete) by giving them free permits, or allowances, to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the early years; this helps solve the problem of international competition from uncapped countries
  • Keeps utility rates low for consumers by giving 30% of allowances to local electricity and natural gas companies, and requiring the utilities to pass the benefits on to their customers
  • Protects low- and moderate-income households by allocating 15% of allowances to minimize impacts on these households
  • Provides an incentive for other countries without a cap on carbon to limit their emissions, by allowing the president to impose fees on carbon-intensive imports from nations that haven’t adopted their own greenhouse gas cap (starting in 2025)

More About What the Bill Will Do

Naturally, we at EDF are most excited about the declining cap on greenhouse gases. And we'll get to that—not to worry. But there's a lot more. Here are the highlights of the 946-page bill: Requires utilities to use more renewable energy

Many states require that utilities get a certain share of their energy from renewable sources, like wind or solar. Waxman-Markey would take this idea nationwide: it would require big electric utilities to rely on renewable sources for 6% of their energy in 2012, rising to 20% in 2020.

What counts as renewable? Quite a few things: wind, solar, geothermal, some hydropower projects, ocean energy, certain types of biogas and biofuels, landfill gas, coal mine methane, and certain waste-to-energy facilities. Not nuclear, though: including nuclear power would swallow up the whole program and lead to no new renewable sources.

This part of the bill also creates programs that will support research into storing carbon pollution from power plants deep underground. This technology, called carbon capture and sequestration, could make it possible to continue to rely on our abundant supplies of coal while vastly reducing the pollution they create. Encourages energy efficiency

Up to two-fifths of the 20% renewable energy requirement can be met through improving energy efficiency. The bill would create a wide range of programs to encourage just that.

For example, it would get the Department of Energy involved in pushing states and cities to adopt greener building codes. And it would promote the manufacture and sale of highly efficient refrigerators, light fixtures, air conditioners and other appliances.


Sets a declining cap on carbon pollution

At last.

The bill would put a national economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions by large sources—coal-fired power plants, large factories, natural gas suppliers, and fuels. The cap will be phased in over the next few years—on electricity and home heating oil in 2012, for example, and on natural gas in 2016.

Here are the targets for covered sources:

  • 3% by 2012
  • 17% by 2020
  • 42% by 2030
  • 83% by 2050

The bill's 2020 pollution cuts would be equal to taking 500 million cars off the road. Those reductions would double by 2030.

Companies covered under the bill will need to have a permit—called an "allowance"—to emit greenhouse gases. Every year, the number of allowances for the covered sectors will shrink. And companies can trade allowances with each other, so whoever can reduce emissions most cheaply can profit by selling their excess allowances. Learn more about how the cap works and creates jobs while cutting pollution.

Cap and trade is a proven tool: the U.S. acid rain program dramatically cut sulfur dioxide pollution in the 1990s at 30% of the projected cost.

To minimize consumer impacts, and to help energy-intensive businesses compete with companies in nations that have not capped their carbon pollution, the bill gives away some allowances for free in the early years.

All told, consumers will get more than 60% of the value of the allowances. Over 30% will go to households: 15% directly in the form of tax credits and other payments; 1.5% for home heating oil use; and roughly 15% indirectly through benefits that utilities are required to pass on to end-users.

Confirming this point, a new analysis by Point Carbon, a market analysis firm, says that under Waxman-Markey, consumers would receive around $750 billion in direct and indirect payments through 2030 to offset higher energy costs and pay for energy efficiency upgrades.

In addition, about 15% of the allowances will, in the early years, be given away for free to U.S. industries—like steel, cement and glass—that use large amounts of energy and are exposed to imports from countries that don't yet have carbon caps.

Roughly 5% of the allowances will be used to secure additional emissions cuts from reduced deforestation, including preservation of tropical rainforests. Where other allowances are going

  • 2% for adaptation programs in the U.S., and another 2% for such programs internationally (including clean technology transfer) (both programs ramp up substantially in later years)
  • 3% to the auto industry to encourage production of advanced technology vehicles (ramps down to 1% in 2018, phases out by 2026)
  • 7% for state efficiency and renewable energy programs and improved building codes
  • 2% to create incentives for deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), rising to 5% starting in 2018
  • 5% for universities to conduct energy R&D

This sweeping legislation, crafted with broad support from the business and environmental communities, puts the United States on a path toward capping its carbon pollution. And that is the first big step to preventing catastrophic climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.128 (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In reply to the EDF comment from 66.167.95.128: Thank you for your interest in the article. The EDF is currently listed as one of the organizations in support of the bill, in the Reception section, with sources verifying such. However, I added the link you provided as a source for the EDF's support, in said section. I would imagine unless there is some noteworthy action they have taken, beyond those of the other supporting organizations listed, that the current listing is sufficient. Too much content relating to one organization or point of view --unless particularly noteworthy-- might jeopardize the article's neutrality. Also please sign comments Irish Wolfhound (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It says, "What counts as renewable? Quite a few things: wind, solar, geothermal, some hydropower projects, ocean energy, certain types of biogas and biofuels, landfill gas, coal mine methane, and certain waste-to-energy facilities. Not nuclear, though: including nuclear power would swallow up the whole program and lead to no new renewable sources."

That may be what the bill says, but it's not scientifically accurate. Nuclear power is just as renewable as solar power and wind power. All three will last until the sun blows up in five billion years.

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Passed without reading?[edit]

Is it relevant that several members of the House who voted for the act admit they haven't read it, and that some news stories say there wasn't even a complete copy of the bill available to be read at the time it passed? Or is it just taken for granted that happens with almost all legislation? Sunshinesquad (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that does happen with most legislation - but that doesn't mean it's not notable. If you have a reliable source, I suggest you add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the internet.--The lorax (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was put on the internet doesn't mean that house members had time to read it. The 300+ page H.RES.587 was posted on the internet on the 26th. The SAME day the bill passed through congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.166.68 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Markey refute that the bill was available BEFORE being submitted to the house? The link lorax provides refutes Limbaugh's assertion that it wasn't available on the day of the vote. I updated the statement to specifically state when it was available. Limbaugh was wrong, the bill was available, but only since the wee hours in the morning. The refutation should be removed or explained a little better. It refutes something, but nothing in the statement before it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjedgar (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Question about the details[edit]

Hey.

I have A question about the detials of the proposal. So, of course, there are reduced targets each year. How exactly is this implemented. I can think of two ways that it might be, I have no idea which one it is:

  • The permits are only good for one year, and new ones are auctioned each year, and the total number auctioned decreases.
  • A permit owned in a previous year automatically converts into a permit for this year, but at a reduced amount; If I own a 100 ton 2010 permit, that converts into a 99 ton 2011 permit (or whatever the number is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.44.122 (talk)09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to Car Allowance Rebate System?[edit]

Someone redirected "Cash for clunkers" there and removed the content that had been under Scrappage program, which was the former redirect target. Now I'm wondering if that should have been done.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to sequence / content additions[edit]

I've moved up to the front a summary section that captures the overview of the bill from the House Summary plus the content formerly in the "details of the bill" section. I've split the criticism into pro and con to provide a framework for adding text. I created a section specifically for CBO data, as this is the authoritative non-partisan analysis of the bill (despite conservative criticism to the contrary). I also moved the sausage-making details to the bottom. I hope you find these edits agreeable. We've done something similar with the healthcare bills and it seems to work. This article will get a lot of attention also once the healthcare debate is over.Farcaster (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great The New Yorker article[edit]

On October 11, 2010, The New Yorker did a feature on the rise and fall of this bill, called "As the World Burns": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merged United States Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program into this article[edit]

Followed thru on the merger proposal. I found nothing in United States Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program which was not already in this article. This is a far superior article. --Greenmaven (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Clean Energy and Security Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Clean Energy and Security Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act&oldid=1204798295"