Return to ads
All categories
Community News
Other - Community News


Posted by
Posting ads for 48 years
In a very narrow 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives passed what many are calling the "climate change" bill.

HR2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES for short, is the first attempt by Congress to tackle the growing problem of climate change, though the bill is designed to touch many more areas as well.

It is meant to create jobs, reduce our dependency on oil (thereby increase national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil), decrease climate-changing levels of CO2, and help give us a step into the future of cleaner alternative energy sources, thus making our country a competitive leader in this field.

Yet for a bill which seems to help so many areas of our nation's woes, it is not only lacking support from Republicans, it also lacks support from some on the left.Republicans feel ACES would actually not create jobs, but would rather destroy them.

In addition, they also argue that its passage would cause oil prices to increase.

The truth of the matter is that this bill will create green jobs that will have value going into the future.

Without this bill oil prices will dramatically increase as demand continues to soar.

Furthermore, by not reducing our dependence on oil, this rise in oil costs most likely would stagnate our economic recovery and even reverse it.

In addition, the GOP argues that nuclear power is another alternative fuel source which we should further develop instead.

There is nothing wrong with having nuclear power plants as long as safety is continually increased.

However, until the waste disposal issue is resolved, we should abstain from build any additional plants, for even the most ardent supporters of nuclear power refuse to have nuclear waste sites located in their state.Although the Republican arguments carry little or no weight, the concerns raised by environmental groups have great merit.

The provisions placed in this bill in order to win support from Democratic representatives of heavy agricultural states "watered down" the bill considerably.

These provisions deal with USDA oversight of certain aspects of the program, as well as the lack of EPA oversight for the first five years on the destruction of forests in order to create bio-fuels.

Furthermore, this bill only deals with CO2; it does not address methane emissions, an issue suspected by many scientists to in the long run dwarf our CO2 problem by comparison.Still, ACES acclimates the public on the issue at hand in a manner that will be generally accepted at this time.

Any bill more drastic than this would have had little chance of passing in the House.

Furthermore, if we can stop or slow global warming we can keep the methane trapped under our oceans and contained within the permafrost at the Earth's upper latitudes from being released into the atmosphere.

This will at least give us more time in order to work towards a more lasting and complete solution.ACES, though it passed the House, very well may fail in the Senate or it may be further diluted.

While this bill is far from perfect and more will be needed if we are to combat climate change on a long term scale, we do need this bill to survive the Senate.

Someone once said that the enemy of "good is "great." We must for now accept a passable "good" bill that has an adequate start for addressing climate change issues rather than attempt an impassable "great" bill that most likely would not have passed in the House, and most assuredly would be defeated in the Senate.
Reply to this ad
Recently viewed ads
Saved ads
Please log in to browse your saved adverts or sign up if you don't have an account yet.
Popular Stuff