Sorry, not really. 100% of the money will NOT go towards figuring out more efficient ways of producing energy. Even if it did, how long would that take? And how does one arbitrarily define "too much" pollution? Most people do not go around thinking "Ah, how can I destroy the earth MORE this year?" It is not always a cost-viable solution to invest ridiculous amounts of money to "green up," and businesses who take that hit will like as not raise the price of their energy to cover the difference, which for example means that homeowners who use natural gas or coal energy over shiny clean wind get hit harder.

Furthermore, there's supposedly a section in that 1200-page bill that would forbid homes from being sold without being given an energy audit, after which they must be brought up to current energy-efficient code. That is a ridiculous (and expensive) expectation for a lot of older homes, and that alone would be enough for me to want the bill voted down.

I respect initiatives for less pollution, but punishing existing habits is not the way to go about them. This bill talks like a magical fix for all of the environment's problems, but most of it's wishful thinking, even if it managed to deliver the ideal it promises.