Long title | A bill to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. |
---|---|
Acronyms (colloquial) | ACES, Waxman-Markey Bill |
Legislative history | |
|
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress (H.R. 2454) that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212. With no prospect of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster, the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote. [1] [2] The House passage of the bill was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change." [3]
The bill was also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Waxman was at the time the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey was the chairman of that committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee.
The bill proposed a cap and trade system, under which the government would set a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. Companies then buy or sell (trade) permits to emit these gases, primarily carbon dioxide CO2. The cap is reduced incrementally over time to reduce total carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade program proposed by the legislation would reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions while generating revenue. A June 2009 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the program would be deficit-neutral and would cost households an average of $175 per year. [1] The legislation would set a cap on total emissions over the 2012–2050 period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to emit greenhouse gases. After allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them (the trade part of the program). Those entities that emit more gases face a higher cost, which provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Key elements of the bill include: [2]
Alternative compliance payments were $25/MWh in violation of the standard, adjusted for inflation beginning in 2010.
The bill's cap-and-trade program allocates 85% of allowances to industry for free, auctioning the remainder. [8] The revenue from these allowances will be used to finance conservation of tropical forests abroad and to support low-income households. [9] 30% of the allowances will be allocated directly to local distribution companies (LDCs) who are mandated to use them exclusively for the benefit of customers. 5% will go to merchant coal generators and others with long-term power purchase agreements.
A study in June 2009 by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that the bill would be roughly deficit-neutral for the government over the next decade: [10]
enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over the 2010–2019 period and would increase direct spending by $864 billion over that 10-year period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010–2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010–2019 period
The study also indicated that the tax burden on individual households would be limited: [11]
the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household ... households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households' after-tax income.
The analysis did not attempt to quantify the environmental benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The report also stated that the "net financial impact of the program on households in different income brackets would depend in large part on how many allowances were sold (versus given away), how the free allowances were allocated, and how any proceeds from selling allowances were used. That net impact would reflect both the added costs that households experienced because of higher prices and the share of the allowance value that they received in the form of benefit payments, rebates, tax decreases or credits, wages, and returns on their investments." In other words, while a cap and trade system imposes costs on high emitters, it can generate revenues for low emitters that sell permits to them. While the government sets the bar on emission levels, the market determines who gains and who loses.
The bill was supported by a number of environmental organizations including, the Defenders of Wildlife, [12] the Alliance for Climate Protection, [13] the Environmental Defense Fund, [14] [15] [16] the National Wildlife Federation, [17] The Nature Conservancy, [18] [19] the Audubon Society, [20] the Natural Resources Defense Council [21] and the Sierra Club. [22] The League of Conservation Voters threatened to withhold endorsements from any representative who votes against the bill. [23]
The Energy and Commerce Committee received letters of support from a broad range of organizations, including the United Auto Workers, Exelon, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and DuPont. [15] The New York Times noted that "industry officials were split, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposing the bill and some of the nation's biggest corporations, including Dow Chemical and Ford, backing it." [24]
The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), a national grassroots organization, issued a press release after the vote stating "House passage today of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a step in the right direction in the fight against dangerous climate change and for developing cleaner, more secure energy resources." [25] David Jenkins, REP vice president for government and political affairs, noted that "Doing nothing is not an option. The costs and risks of failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions are too high. We owe it to our country and to our country's future citizens to take action. Today, the House looked to the future and did the right thing for our economy, security, and environment." [25]
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated the discussion draft version of the bill to cost average households $98–$140 per year. According to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the overall economic impact of the cap-and-trade program on household consumption was projected to be modest. The EPA estimated that the program would reduce household consumption by 0.1% to 0.2% in 2020, which would translate to an average annual cost of approximately $80 to $111 per household. [26]
Economist Paul Krugman argued for the bill in September 2009, while attacking the bill's opponents: "It's important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate change denial. Saving the planet won't come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won't cost all that much either." [27] Economist Paul Krugman argued in favor of the cap-and-trade system, explaining that it creates a financial incentive for companies to reduce emissions by allowing them to sell excess permits. He noted, "Even when polluters get free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce their emissions, so that they can sell their excess permits to someone else." Krugman emphasized that cap-and-trade has been successful in other contexts, such as reducing sulfur dioxide emissions to combat acid rain. [28]
Criticism focused on ultimate costs and benefits of the plan. A report written for The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, on the discussion draft of the bill claimed that the economy would react to this cap-and-trade system like it would lead to an energy crisis. [30] This same report also claimed that the impact on global temperature by the end of the 21st century would amount to a reduction of no more than 0.2° Celsius. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis estimated that the cap-and-trade provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act would result in a net economy-wide cost of approximately $22 billion in 2020. This translates to an average annual cost of about $175 per household when considering both direct and indirect expenses. [31] Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projected that the implementation of the Act would lead to a 0.3% decrease in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030. This reflects the economic adjustments required to meet the emission reduction targets specified in the legislation. [32]
Economist Arnold Kling said the bill "maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction". [33] Other economists argued that the bill would create significant financial costs. Additionally, contributors to Yale Environment 360 expressed concerns that the compromises made in the legislation, while politically necessary, could undermine its effectiveness in addressing environmental justice issues. These compromises were seen as favoring large corporations and potentially leaving low-income households and small businesses at a disadvantage in adapting to the cap-and-trade system [34] . The Wall Street Journal accused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of significantly underestimating the bill's ultimate costs, pointing out supposed flaws in its calculations. The Wall Street Journal also suggested that the bill's costs would disproportionately affect lower-income households, for which the CBO estimates did not account. [35] The New York Times reported that the bill's provisions to levy tariffs on Chinese imports due to carbon emissions could provoke a trade war. [36] The Competitive Enterprise Institute argued that the bill was essentially the "largest tax hike in world history". [37] The American Petroleum Institute, representing the petroleum and natural gas industry, said the bill would place "disproportionate burden on all consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane and other petroleum products", and by 2035, it would cause gasoline prices in excess of $4.00 per gallon by today's standards. [38]
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) expressed concerns that the American Clean Energy and Security Act did not provide sufficient incentives for nuclear energy development, which they argued is essential for achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. [39] Nuclear power plants generate minimal greenhouse gases, yet one critic wrote that the bill did not sufficiently advocate this clean power source. In response to this criticism, House of Representatives staff members wrote that the electricity generated by nuclear power required the purchase of far fewer allowances than other forms of electricity generation; that the bill provided various types of financial support to build clean energy generating sources, including nuclear; and that an EPA study indicated that twice as many nuclear plants would be built if the law was passed versus the status quo. [40]
There was criticism that unless China and India adopted similar emissions standards, the impact on global climate would be insubstantial. This was largely an argument based on the leading role these two countries had obtained in carbon dioxide emissions which could reach 34% of the global total by 2030. [41] The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that unilateral action by the United States without corresponding commitments from major emitters like China and India could lead to "carbon leakage," where industries relocate to countries with less stringent emission controls, potentially undermining global emission reduction efforts. [42]
Critics also noted that the bill would create the largest market in carbon in the world. It would also "open up the so-called 'sub-prime carbon' market in carbon offsets, whereby industries can claim emissions reductions by investing in various projects around the world that theoretically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) claimed it was virtually impossible to verify whether carbon offsets represented real emissions reductions [43] . Critics noted that the bill would create the largest carbon market in the world, raising concerns about transparency and reliability. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that voluntary carbon markets often lack verification systems, making it difficult to confirm whether offsets genuinely reduce emissions. Additionally, the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago criticized lobbying efforts for shaping the market to favor industry interests, citing the over-allocation of emissions permits and insufficient safeguards against fraud. [44] [45]
On June 26, 2009, Reuters reported that "tates" that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles" [46] The article noted that representatives from members of the Eastern U.S. 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which joined six U.S. states with Canada's Manitoba, and the 11-state-and-four Canadian province Western Climate Initiative were supporting the legislation, even though the Eastern market member states, which had already been operating under a cap-and-trade system, "would lose a direct revenue stream of hundreds of millions of dollars if the federal plan were passed." [46] The three existing regional carbon cap and trade programs, which were in varying states of development, would likely be merged into the national plan, since "the federal 'cap-and-trade' plan pre-empts any similar state scheme from 2012 to 2017." [46] However, ACES left states the option of resuming trade of pollution credits after 2017 and "would allow holders of RGGI allowances to convert them into federal allowances, which means the states will likely hold auctions until the federal plan begins. [46] The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) expressed apprehension that the federal cap-and-trade program could preempt more stringent state-level initiatives, potentially hindering aggressive local efforts to combat climate change. [47]
Citizens Against Government Waste named both Reps. Waxman and Markey the May 2009 Porkers of the month for "adding and altering provisions to placate special interests and buy the votes of appropriately skeptical members of Congress". [48]
While the Environmental Defense Fund [16] and many other environmental organizations strongly supported the bill, other environmentalists sharply criticized the legislation as too weak and called urgently for it to be amended so as to include additional and more vigorous measures to protect climate and natural resources.
Some environmentalists criticized the fuel efficiency standards in the "cash for clunkers" provision of the bill, because new cars would only need to get 22 MPG to be considered fuel efficient. [49] [50] New SUVs and pickup trucks would only need to get 18 MPG to be considered fuel efficient. [51] Vehicles older than 25 years were not eligible for the program. CNN reported that "One of the biggest criticisms is that it's not very environmentally friendly." [52]
The New York Times noted that "while some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it." [53] Friends of the Earth, an international environmental organization, announced its opposition to ACES as they believed the bill was too weak. They cited support from Shell Oil Company and Duke Energy as evidence of the bill's shortcomings. They also objected to the removal of the EPA's existing authority to use the Clean Air Act to counter emissions of greenhouse gases. [54] Environmental organizations critical of the bill said the bill fell short by allowing for 85 percent or more of pollution permits to be given away free of cost to the electricity sector. A coalition of environmental groups released a statement saying that "to craft a bill that allows for 2 billion tons of offsets per year—roughly equivalent to 27 percent of 2007 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—is to allow for continued and dangerous delay in real action by our country at a time when the world is looking to the U.S. for leadership on climate change." [55] [ unreliable source? ] Critics of the bill were concerned about it not going far enough, and claimed that there were too many concessions made to special interests in rewriting the bill. [56] Thus, making the bill weak and potentially harmful to the economy and environment. [57] [ unreliable source? ]
Dr. James E. Hansen, one of the first to warn about the risks of climate change and an advocate of taking related action, also argued strongly against the bill: 1) It restricted the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants; 2) it set "meager" targets for emission reductions, with only a 13% reduction by 2020; 3) it lacked certain controls important to the trading of allowances to emit carbon; and 4) it failed to set predictable prices for carbon, making it harder for businesses and households to make investment decisions. Dr. Hansen advocated a carbon tax rather than a cap and trade system. [58] Alternatively, Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins introduced the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act. This bill proposed a cap and dividend approach in which 75% of the revenue is returned to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, and the rest is used to fund to development of renewable energy. [59]
News agencies Reuters and Agence France-Presse and United Kingdom newspaper The Guardian reported the narrow passage of the "historic" [60] [61] legislation in the House, regarding the vote to be a "major" [60] [62] and "hard-fought" [60] victory for President Obama, while an Associated Press article, carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, reported the vote to be "a triumph for [the] U.S. President." [63]
The New York Times commented that "the House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill's targets for emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened." [53] Business Week emphasized its perceived significance of the legislation and its passage in the House, declaring "June 26, 2009, will go down as an historic moment in world's efforts to tackle climate change. For the first time, a Congressional body passed legislation that would place mandatory limits on the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming." [64]
It was reported that the passage of ACES in Congress would increase the likelihood that a successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be adopted at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen. The Guardian US environment correspondent noted that ACES passing the US House of Representatives "delivers an important boost to the prospects of reaching an agreement for international action on climate change at Copenhagen this year." [61] The New York Times noted that "the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington on Friday to meet with Mr. Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases." [24] This endorsement underscored the urgency of U.S. leadership in global climate efforts, potentially galvanizing commitments from major emitting nations, such as China and India, to adopt stronger emissions reduction targets [65]
The bill was offered as a "discussion draft" in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on March 31, 2009. [66] A final version of the legislation was introduced on May 15, 2009, by the same title, assigned bill number H.R. 2454. [67]
On May 21, 2009, the bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 33–25, largely falling along political party lines. [68]
Republicans proposed over 400 amendments to the bill, the majority of which many think were proposed to delay passage. [69] Some of the more prominent from both parties are listed below:
By the end of May 20, 2009, 2 Republican and 24 Democratic amendments had been adopted. 15 Republican amendments had been defeated. No amendment sponsored by a Democrat had yet been defeated.
At 3:47 am on June 26, 2009, H.Res. 587 was reported to the house, [73] which amended H.R. 2454, adding to the bill. This resolution was passed in the house just hours later at 11:21 am. Republicans complained that neither the public nor the representatives were given adequate time to study the 310-page amendment. [74] Markey refuted Rush Limbaugh's assertion that the bill was not available at all, saying the bill was available to read on the Internet and at the reading clerk's desk since the 3:47 am reporting. [75] The resolution included provisions that outlined key adjustments to emissions caps and funding mechanisms for clean energy projects. This was seen as an attempt to address lingering concerns about the economic impacts of the bill while ensuring sufficient support for its passage in the House. [76]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled the vote for June 26, 2009. [77] The week leading up to the vote was marked by courting moderate Republicans and on-the-fence Democrats from rural and coal districts to support the legislation in what was expected to be a close vote. [78] On the day of the vote, Democrats were still working to ensure they had the votes needed to pass the bill. Republicans tried to pull back their proposed amendments, realizing they were giving the Democrats more time to corral votes, however, they were unable to pull their proposed amendments off the floor. [79] Shortly before the vote, John Boehner read aloud to the House from most of the 300 page Manager's amendment that was filed at 3:09 am on the day of the vote. [80] He voiced opposition to the practice of changing bills in the middle of the night before the vote, and concern that the manager's amendment made substantial changes to the bill. He did not want the House to vote on the bill before the members could learn what was in the amendment, so he read much of it aloud. Manager's amendments are supposed to be for clerical changes only, not substantive ones. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) returned from rehab to cast a 'Yes' vote, and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) delayed resigning the House to vote for the legislation as well. [80]
The bill was approved in the House by a vote of 219–212, with 8 Republicans supporting, and 44 Democrats voting against, and 3 members not voting. [81] All representatives present at the time of the vote had cast votes. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), and John Sullivan (R-OK) missed the vote due to "a family conflict", travel abroad in Albania, and "alcohol addiction treatment", respectively. [82]
Democratic votes against largely came from freshmen in Republican-leaning seats, conservative "blue dog" democrats, as well as Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity or areas with large numbers of manufacturing jobs. [53] [81] [83] However, some Democrats from liberal districts, like Pete Stark (CA) voted against the bill because he considered the bill "watered-down". [84] Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted against the bill because he considered the bill "too-weak" and opposed offsets, among other similar criticisms. [85]
Republicans supporting the bill were Army Secretary nominee John M. McHugh and moderate Republican Main Street Partnership caucus members Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Mike Castle (R-DE), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Chris Smith (R-NJ). [81] Kirk and Castle were members of the Republicans for Environmental Protection caucus.
With no prospect of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster, the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote.
The table below summarizes the required greenhouse gas emission reductions, with the benchmark of the 2005 emission levels. [86]
Year | Required annual percentage |
---|---|
2012 | 3.0 |
2020 | 17.0 |
2030 | 42.0 |
2050 | 83.0 |
Environmental finance is a field within finance that employs market-based environmental policy instruments to improve the ecological impact of investment strategies. The primary objective of environmental finance is to regress the negative impacts of climate change through pricing and trading schemes. The field of environmental finance was established in response to the poor management of economic crises by government bodies globally. Environmental finance aims to reallocate a businesses resources to improve the sustainability of investments whilst also retaining profit margins.
The Clear Skies Act of 2003 was a proposed federal law of the United States. The official title as introduced is "a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap-and-trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes."
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is a U.S. non-profit advocacy group representing major American coal producers, utility companies and railroads. The organization seeks to influence public opinion and legislation in favor of coal-generated electricity in the United States, placing emphasis on the development and deployment of clean coal technologies.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced "Reggie") is the first mandatory market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector. RGGI compliance obligations apply to fossil-fueled power plants 25 megawatts (MW) and larger within the 11-state region. Pennsylvania's participation in the RGGI cooperative was ruled unconstitutional on November 1, 2023, although that decision has been appealed. North Carolina's entrance into RGGI has been blocked by the enactment of the state's fiscal year 2023–25 budget.
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or Assembly Bill (AB) 32, is a California state law that fights global warming by establishing a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources throughout the state. AB32 was co-authored by Assemblymember Fran Pavley and Speaker of the California Assembly Fabian Nunez and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006.
The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme for anthropogenic greenhouse gases proposed by the Rudd government, as part of its climate change policy, which had been due to commence in Australia in 2010. It marked a major change in the energy policy of Australia. The policy began to be formulated in April 2007, when the federal Labor Party was in Opposition and the six Labor-controlled states commissioned an independent review on energy policy, the Garnaut Climate Change Review, which published a number of reports. After Labor won the 2007 federal election and formed government, it published a Green Paper on climate change for discussion and comment. The Federal Treasury then modelled some of the financial and economic impacts of the proposed CPRS scheme.
The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 (S. 309) was a bill proposed to amend the 1963 Clean Air Act, a bill that aimed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), introduced the resolution in the 110th United States Congress on January 16, 2007. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works but was not enacted into law.
The America's Climate Security Act of 2007 was a global warming bill that was considered by the United States Senate to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States. Also known as the Lieberman–Warner bill, bill number S. 2191, the legislation was introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) on October 18, 2007. The bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in December 2007, and was debated in the Senate during the week of June 2. The bill would create a national cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions, in which polluters would mostly be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit. The cap would get tighter over time, until by 2050, emissions would be reduced to 63% below 2005 levels. Several environmental groups expressed their encouragement at the progress in legislation on the global warming issue while at the same time expressing disappointment that the bill did not reduce emissions enough. On June 6, 2008, the bill was killed by Senate Republicans over worries that it would damage the economy.
Carbon emission trading (also called carbon market, emission trading scheme (ETS) or cap and trade) is a type of emissions trading scheme designed for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). A form of carbon pricing, its purpose is to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for emissions. Carbon emissions trading is a common method that countries use to attempt to meet their pledges under the Paris Agreement, with schemes operational in China, the European Union, and other countries.
The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. Framing of environmental issues often influences how policies are developed, especially when economic concerns or national security are used to either justify or contest actions. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Year's Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA the world's "environmental Magna Carta".
New Energy for America was a plan led by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden beginning in 2008 to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce reliance on foreign oil, address global warming issues, and create jobs for Americans. The main objective of the New Energy for America plan was to implement clean energy sources in the United States to switch from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources. The plan led by the Obama Administration aimed to implement short-term solutions to provide immediate relief from pain at the pump, and mid- to- long-term solutions to provide a New Energy for America plan. The goals of the clean energy plan hoped to: invest in renewable technologies that will boost domestic manufacturing and increase homegrown energy, invest in training for workers of clean technologies, strengthen the middle class, and help the economy.
A low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) is an emissions trading rule designed to reduce the average carbon intensity of transportation fuels in a given jurisdiction, as compared to conventional petroleum fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. The most common methods for reducing transportation carbon emissions are supplying electricity to electric vehicles, supplying hydrogen fuel to fuel cell vehicles and blending biofuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable natural gas into fossil fuels. The main purpose of a low-carbon fuel standard is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions associated with vehicles powered by various types of internal combustion engines while also considering the entire life cycle, in order to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation.
The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. Cumulatively, the United States has emitted over a trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases, more than any country in the world.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012.
Energy Tax Prevention Act, also known as H.R. 910, was a 2011 bill in the United States House of Representatives to prohibit the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases to address climate change. On April 7, 2011, the bill passed the House by a vote of 255 to 172. The bill died in January 2013 with the ending of the Congressional session.
The Clean Energy Act 2011 was an Act of the Australian Parliament, the main Act in a package of legislation that established an Australian emissions trading scheme (ETS), to be preceded by a three-year period of fixed carbon pricing in Australia designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as part of efforts to combat global warming.
The Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a bill that would repeal a pending rule published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 8, 2014. The proposed rule would establish uniform national limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new electricity-generating facilities that use coal or natural gas. The rule also sets new standards of performance for those power plants, including the requirement to install carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Barack Obama on August 3, 2015. Each state was assigned a target for reducing carbon emissions within its borders, which could be accomplished how the states saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if a state refused to submit a plan. If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation by 32 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2030, and would have reduced other harmful air pollution as well.
As the most populous state in the United States, California's climate policies influence both global climate change and federal climate policy. In line with the views of climate scientists, the state of California has progressively passed emission-reduction legislation.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)