Supporters of and arguments for the bill The bill was supported by a number of environmental organizations including, the
Defenders of Wildlife, the
Alliance for Climate Protection, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the
National Wildlife Federation,
The Nature Conservancy, the
Audubon Society, the
Natural Resources Defense Council and the
Sierra Club. The
League of Conservation Voters threatened to withhold endorsements from any representative who votes against the bill. 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. 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." 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." 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." 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. • Tia Nelson, Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on April 24, 2009, in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. She emphasized the importance of federal action on climate change, stating, "Federal legislation is essential to addressing the growing risks of climate change." Nelson highlighted Wisconsin's state-led initiatives in renewable energy and emissions reductions as a model for national policy, demonstrating that meaningful progress could be achieved through innovative policies and collaborative action.
Arguments against the bill 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. 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 °C. 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. 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.
Equity issues Economist
Arnold Kling said the bill "maximizes
rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction". 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.
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.
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. The
Competitive Enterprise Institute argued that the bill was essentially the "largest tax hike in world history". 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.
Nuclear power 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. 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.
Other high emitting nations 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. 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.
Doubts about a carbon market 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. 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.
Non federal jurisdictions On June 26, 2009,
Reuters reported that "states 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." 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."
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".
Debate among environmental organizations and scientists While the
Environmental Defense Fund New SUVs and pickup trucks would only need to get 18 MPG to be considered fuel efficient. 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."
The New York Times noted that "while some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including
Greenpeace and
Friends of the Earth, opposed it." 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. 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." 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. Thus, making the bill weak and potentially harmful to the economy and environment. 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. 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.
Media response News agencies
Reuters and
Agence France-Presse and
United Kingdom newspaper
The Guardian reported the narrow passage of the "historic" legislation in the House, regarding the vote to be a "major" and "hard-fought"
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." ==Impact on Copenhagen Climate Change Conference==