ACES strips the EPA's authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Why are we rolling back a key provision of one of the most successful pieces of environmental legislation in history?

Why are we abandoning something we know works, so quickly, for something that has so much uncertainty?

Why not keep the EPA's ability to regulate CO2?

The bill currently gives away a huge percentage of allocations through 2030, including substantial amounts to the worst polluters in the nation.

Should "Polluters Pay" be a basic, guiding principle for the legislation? If so, how do you proposed getting some fee placed onto 100% of the permits, even those 'given away' by allocation?

We will not hold any ground until we hold those who betrayed us accountable.

The IPCC says developed nations must have a program to go 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This bill aims for 3-4% below 1990 levels by 2020. The use of offsets means even these weak goals are unlikely to be met in the capped sector. How can you vote for something that invites locking in climate catastrophe and provides no basis for negotiation with the developing countries?

This is a groundbreaking, one-time opportunity to set a clean slate and start a new way forward on energy and environmental issues in our nation. Yet the legislation as it currently stands, after coal, oil, utility, and other lobbyists have hacked away at it, is only half-measures and quarter-measures.
Scientists have told us what we need to do to avoid the worst impacts of climate change; now it is policymakers' responsibility to effect those changes. Getting halfway there is not an option--this is an all-or-nothing effort.

The IPCC states that we should be 25-40 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2020. This bill is structured to a very weak target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, or less than half what scientists have called for. Do you think that this is a "science based" bill if it falls so short of what leading scientists say is the minimum target required?

End Mountaintop Removal
www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

We've now got a bill backed by Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and Wall Street. It's so weak that according to the EPA, it would result in LESS renewable energy generation by 2020 than we would otherwise produce under business as usual scenarios. Do House progressives have the backbone to stand up against this disaster?

Since nuclear is more expensive than solar, why are we battling it out about the dangers? It's irrelevant when solar is cheaper! Costs for nuclear have gone up, costs for solar have come down. Solar can also be stored 4 hours after sunset and they are working on 10 hour storage. Why not promote solar as cheaper than nuclear to increase public support?

Expanded offshore oil drilling isn't the answer. It doesn't reduce the price at the pump or get us energy independence. We have heard some amendments might allow drilling all along our coasts, shutting down the public input process and ignoring environmental impacts. That would be a bad thing.