THE United States House of Representatives was recently commended by several pro-environment organizations and agencies for its passage of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, otherwise known as House Resolution 2454. This new bill, when ratified, is expected to “steer America towards a clean and renewable energy future” and “will be the stimulus for billions of investments, millions of jobs, and critically needed sustainable energy technologies.” Amidst the global recession that continues to severely affect the economies of many nations, are H.R. 2454 and its costs really relevant?

United States President Obama was quoted saying: “…the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century’s global economy. Now, more than ever, we must make crucial decisions and take meaningful steps to achieve long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, improve our energy security and transition to a new generation of low-emission power generation resources, including new nuclear power.…” The Coalition for the Green Bank, a group composed of resource developers, investors and manufacturers, for example, estimates that carbon emissions from the generation of electricity will be reduced by 18% from its present figures and will be replaced with cleaner renewable energy sources when the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 becomes a law. Supporters of HR 2454 strongly urge the United States Senate to speed up the ratification of the bill and begin the shift into more sustainable sources of energy.

However, the costs of shifting to renewable energy resources seem to be an altogether different issue. The development, for example of wind turbines or hydroelectric power installations entails significant costs as well as policy changes on the part of the government. Estimates show that an additional $5.5 billion worth of investment is needed to move into more renewable energy sources. Considering the economic downturn felt worldwide, investments are just not as easy to find.

While the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is indeed parallel with the goals of reducing the impacts of global warming, a second look into the bill will probably raise questions about the costs of establishing facilities and infrastructures that will make environment-friendly production of energy possible. There is absolutely no contention with regard to the passage of H.R. 2454. However, the United States government should also consider the outlay entailed by the necessary investments on research, equipment and process development vis-à-vis the global economic recession today. President Obama, as we have quoted above, envisions America to set the tide for the creation of cleaner technologies for energy production. Thus, it should consider well not just the benefits but as well as the costs, and how other countries of the world, also aiming for sustainable development, may follow suit. (E-mail address: myrfnt@yahoo.com)