<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ecolonomic Life &#187; ACES</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ioeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;tag=aces" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ioeblog.org</link>
	<description>because ecology means business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:47:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>The Energy Bill &#8211; Part 3: The Debate</title>
		<link>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=75</link>
		<comments>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=75#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Whitney Dorband]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Laws and Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Clean Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[controversies energy bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Bill 2009]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://instituteofecolonomics.org/wordpress/?p=75</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) passed the House by a very slim margin. It was passed with 219 votes to 212. In my last blog I discussed everything that was found in the draft formulated by co-sponsors Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, both Democratic Representatives. Once the discussion draft made [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) passed the House by a very slim margin. It was passed with 219 votes to 212. In my last blog I discussed everything that was found in the draft formulated by co-sponsors Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, both Democratic Representatives. Once the discussion draft made into the House, amendments and changes came. The bill was expanded to about one thousand three hundred pages. There is no doubt that much controversy and debate came over this bill.<span id="more-75"></span></p>
<p>The two biggest debates were over money and the environment. Waxman and Markey let a lot of changes occur to their bill. It could be said that they were more worried about getting the bill passed than they were about keeping the plan that was originally drawn up. There were cold welcomes for the bill from many representatives from the Mid West and surrounding areas where coal and farming are the major industries. There were some amendments made to make these industries happy, like giving farmers a carbon offset credit by not tilling the ground which releases carbon into the atmosphere. If industries want more allowance for their carbon emissions they can just invest in some carbon offsetting project, like planting trees. This is a nice gesture, but there is no way of knowing how much carbon is offsetting from these projects. It should be the same amount that the company is getting in extra allowances, but it doesn’t seem the bill is taking that measure.</p>
<p>Money is a big problem among the Republicans. They see the bill as being something that will hurt the economy rather than build it up. Some feel there is not any concern for the public in this bill. They believe care is only for the environment and the large industries. It is estimated that each household will incur about $175 a year by 2020 because of this bill. Also, the allowances will cost $13 to start with and each year will get higher over time. Some believe that $175 maybe the amount that this bill will cost in taxes, but if industries will have to start paying for allowances it will mean that the cost of consumer goods will go up as well. We may have to pay more in taxes, but we will be paying for these companies allowances as well. The price of goods may not go up very much, but they will, most likely go up. Many Republicans tried to make amendments that would cancel the bill if the amount for electricity went up by certain amounts. All of these amendments were rejected. It seems like this bill has forgotten about the people who pay to keep the government going and will be helping to pay for this bill if it passes Senate.</p>
<p>On the complete other spectrum some environmental groups feel the bill is not doing enough to stop pollution and reduce the effect of climate change. There are some who feel that there were too many amendments that weakened the bill to suite those who started opposed to the bill. The bill is a grand step to reducing pollution and the effects of climate change, but many who have seen this bill feel that India and China are going to need to take up similar standards if we are ever to see major impacts on aiding the environment.</p>
<p>Because of these two very shaky reasons there is speculation as to whether this bill will pass the Senate because of how close the vote was in the House. There is no way to know exactly how this bill is going to cost the public. There also is no way to tell how it will affect the economy. One thing is certain though; if the bill does pass the Senate there is still much work to be done to figure out how to implement the laws. This will not happen overnight. The economy could be better by the time the bill is actually put into effect. Who knows? What are your thoughts on this? What input can you give about this bill? Are there other controversies that you know of and could brief us on? This bill could have a major impact on all of our lives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ioeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=75</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Energy Bill &#8211; Part 2: Summary in Laymen&#039;s Terms</title>
		<link>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=68</link>
		<comments>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=68#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Whitney Dorband]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Laws and Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Bill 2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy bill summary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://instituteofecolonomics.org/wordpress/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My focus for today’s blog is to clearly lay out the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I think, before we talk about the pros and cons of this act, any reader should understand what this bill is exactly. There are four titles (or sections) to the bill. I will address each one [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My focus for today’s blog is to clearly lay out the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I think, before we talk about the pros and cons of this act, any reader should understand what this bill is exactly.</p>
<p>There are four titles (or sections) to the bill. I will address each one individually. I will only be able to give you a brief summary because the bill is a thousand page document that I could go into great depth about. That will probably bore most readers, so I’m going to give you what you need to know and leave out all the rest.<span id="more-68"></span></p>
<p>Title 1 &#8211; Clean Energy</p>
<p>Renewable energy is the key here. The main focus of this title is to ensure that by 2012 six percent of the nation’s electricity is coming from renewable sources (like solar, wind or geothermal) and will rise to twenty five percent in 2025. There is an understanding that fossil fuels will still need to be used to produce some electricity, which leads to promotion of technologies that can capture carbon emissions and funnel them into the ground instead of into the air. This will help keep the coal industry alive. Along with these measures, the title also calls for the mass production of clean fuel vehicles and the government’s aid to any group who plans to implement this sort of production. This title calls for the development and use of smart grids (electricity will be supplied through digital technology which is supposed to be cheaper and cleaner). Finally, it provides federal refunds in order to expand clean energy.</p>
<p>Title 2 – Energy Efficiency</p>
<p>This title covers building, transportation, and industrial efficiency. It calls for all three of these areas to set new standards for their divisions. New buildings will have to meet qualifications set by green standards. I’m assuming it would be something like all new buildings would have to be LEED certified. There is also an option for anyone who lives in a mid seventies or older manufactured home to get a rebate for a new energy-star qualified manufactured home. The transportation sector must develop ways to make vehicles more efficient and make emission requirements stricter. Finally, industries have to find ways to become more energy efficient as well.</p>
<p>Title 3 – Reducing Climate Change Pollution</p>
<p>This is probably the most confusing section of this bill. This section calls for a market-based program that will curb the amount of pollution industries and companies produce. Each company that produces over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide gas (or any other greenhouse gas) will be required to obtain permits for each ton of gas produced a year. These permits can be looked at almost like money. The companies will be able to borrow against and/or save these allowances for later years. The idea is that each year the government will allow fewer and fewer permits to be distributed to companies. The hope is that this will help curb greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Title 4 – Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy</p>
<p>This is the section to ensure everyone we will be able to pull out of the recession with the implementation of this bill (whether or not we actually will is a different matter). It outlines the jobs that this bill will create and the ways the government will “rebate” US companies who are competing against overseas industries who make the same product with non-renewable energy and offer it at a smaller price.<br />
This is just an overview of the draft that was taken to the House of Representatives. I want to know your thoughts on this. Is this going to be good for the environment? What about the economy? What is this going to mean for individuals? Is this a good or bad thing? I would love to hear your thoughts. Next week I will give both sides of the main parties in government.</p>
<p>If you would like to get more information on the Energy Bill follow the links below.</p>
<p><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_summary.pdf" target="_blank">General Summary</a></p>
<p><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_sectionsummary.pdf" target="_blank">Title Summaries (more detailed)</a></p>
<p><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf" target="_blank">The whole draft</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ioeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=68</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Energy Bill &#8211; Part 1: An Introduction</title>
		<link>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=66</link>
		<comments>http://www.ioeblog.org/?p=66#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Whitney Dorband]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Laws and Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Clean Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Bill 2009]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://instituteofecolonomics.org/wordpress/?p=66</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America has entered a new era in history. For the past one hundred plus years you could say we were partaking in the Industrial Revolution. This was a time of great economic growth and urban development. For the past couple decades and coinciding with the Industrial Revolution was (and quite arguably still is) the Technology [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>America has entered a new era in history. For the past one hundred plus years you could say we were partaking in the Industrial Revolution. This was a time of great economic growth and urban development. For the past couple decades and coinciding with the Industrial Revolution was (and quite arguably still is) the Technology era. We have experienced the greatest advancements in technology all the way from transportation down to MP3 players and phones. Well, it seems we are now entering what could be considered the Green Revolution.</p>
<p>I guess it could be argued we have been in this revolution since the late 60’s early 70’s when hippies were all for saving the environment, but I believe the greatest turning point would be the amount of influence the government is now having on the environment. The House just passed a bill on June 26th called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) that is the first of its kind. It is the first lawful step that has ever been taken to stop greenhouse emissions.<span id="more-66"></span></p>
<p>The bill will put a price on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. This means that many sectors of American industry will have to develop alternative ways of producing their energy. This will include solar and wind power. It also calls to have 15 percent of the nation’s electricity be produced by alternative sources by 2020. This bill will affect just about everyone in the United States. It will force many to rethink technology and force some industries to design and implement completely new ideas. This would include the car industry needing to make more energy efficient vehicles and the housing industry to design LEED certified homes. These are just two examples as to what this bill will bring to America.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts on the bill? Do you see it as a good thing for our economy during the recession, or is this going to be a suppressor? In my next post I will detail the bill more and discuss what it means for Americans more specifically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ioeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=66</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
