Rush Limbaugh and the Dittoheads are urging their supporters to flood Capitol Hill with calls attacking those who voted yes on the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act. We need your help to fight back.

First, find out if your Rep voted yes on the bill: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-waxman-markey-bill-vote-count/

Then, call the Capitol Hill switchboard — (202) 224-3121. Ask to be patched through to your Rep.

Finally, tell the office staff that you strongly support the landmark climate bill and applaud the Rep. for voting to pass it.

This was a tough vote for a lot of members of Congress. But, thanks to the courage of 219 of them, we now have a chance to move America forward and create the clean energy economy we'll need to compete in the 21st century. This bill will break our addiction to foreign oil, put millions of Americans to work, and, along with cuts from other countries, will help avert the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Please call your Rep now to applaud his/her vote on the landmark climate bill.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is the most important environmental and energy legislation in our nation's history. Today's vote is a huge achievement for the country and the climate, and we applaud Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, and all members of the House who helped craft this landmark legislation and get it passed.

The bill that emerged from the House has the fundamental structure we need to significantly reduce carbon pollution while growing the economy. It puts a strong cap on emissions and reorients our energy market to make low-carbon power the goal. It ensures that utility rates will stay affordable and a competitive playing field for U.S. companies.

Today's vote opens the door for President Obama to sign comprehensive climate legislation into law this year. The extensive negotiations leading up to the vote helped form extraordinarily broad support for the bill as it moves to the Senate. Chairmen Waxmen and Markey bridged the traditional sectoral and regional divides of energy politics to produce legislation that has support from labor unions and businesses across the economy, to rural interests, environmental advocates, and agriculture groups.

The bill puts the U.S. on the path to significant emissions reductions, a stronger economy, and a new position of leadership in the global effort to protect the climate. We look forward to working with the Senate leadership to meet Majority Leader Reid's September target for finishing committee work on the bill.

Claim:

"[The American Clean Energy and Security Act] will come down hardest on the poor."

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 6/26/09

Truth:

Actually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says low-income Americans will benefit the MOST from this bill. The CBO calculations show that low-income Americans will actually see a net cash gain from this bill, as the value of emission allowances is rebated back to consumers.

In contrast, it's the cost of doing nothing that would fall most heavily on the poor: from greater health-care costs because of expanding disease vectors to the destruction of homes from catastrophic weather events , it's the poor who will disproportionately suffer.

Instead of disingenuously trying to hide behind the least fortunate among us, Mr. Cantor should step up and support this legislation — legislation that would create job opportunities across the economic spectrum. Most importantly, jobs that would provide pathways out of poverty for Americans who need them most.

Claim:

"This bill is a blueprint for unilateral economic disarmament of the U.S."

– Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), 6/26/09

Truth:

The American Clean Energy Clean Energy and Security Act will boost our economy by creating manufacturing jobs and investing in clean energy.

www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org is an interactive website that analyzes the manufacturing jobs that are being created, and the many more that will be created under the ACES Act.

The ACES Act will also protect our families' wallets and electricity bills.

Claim:

“This will bring us back to hunting and gathering.”

– Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), 6/26/09

Truth:

Really? We'll go back to hunters and gatherers? Yikes!

Since the survivalist skills we'll need have fallen into disuse, perhaps we should all take a trip to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum to learn about hunting and gathering before the collapse of civilization. Americans will need to familiarize ourselves with edible plants — big printings of the Peterson Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants should commence right away.

This kind of absurd hyperbole does nothing to advance arguments against this bill. Contrary to what Rep. McCotter may think, America's future under this bill is clean and prosperous, not apocalyptic.

Claim:

"By most reasonable estimates we will lose jobs .. Look at Spain (for every job they gained, they lost over 2)"

– Nathan Deal (R, GA), 6/26/09

Truth:

The so-called "study" that Congressman Deal refers to has been widely debunked. Even that crazy lefty rag, the Wall Street Journal, did a story outlining the numerous ways in which it was flawed.

No big surprise there, though. Turns out the author of the study comes from a group funded by ExxonMobil.

The preponderance of economic impact studies point, instead, to the great potential for economic growth and job creation by shifting to a clean energy economy. That's why this bill is widely supported by both labor and business groups. They know that if all you ever do is all you've ever done, all you'll ever get is all you ever got.

Claim:

"There hasn't been any global warming .. they're melting on Mars too."

– Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA), 6/26/09

Truth:

Ummm … we've heard of Governor Moonbeam. Is this the new Rep. Marvin the Martian?

Who exactly is melting on Mars? Are they Rep. Rohrabacker's constituents?

If so, maybe he should suggest they move to a planet that's more hospitable, one that actually HAS a climate — like Earth, for now, but maybe not for long if we don't stop destroying ours.

Claim:

"This will impose a Pelosi global warming tax… almost $3000 per family"

– Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), 6/26/09

"[The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a] Transfer of wealth bill .. [Americans will see] $1300 and $3100 in bills .. The taxpayer is the big loser"

– Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-TN), 6/26/09

Truth:

OH FOR PETE'S SAKE.

How many times do we have to correct this falsehood? The claim that ACES will cost families "$3,100" was first made in a March press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The NRCC said its number was based on an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation. But John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, wrote a letter to the NRCC telling them their math was incorrect.

Reilly's comments on the $3100 claim: "It's just wrong. It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." And yet, people keep using it.

Here are the accurate figures: an EPA analysis puts the cost of a carbon cap on at $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person. The Congressional Budget Office did a separate analysis and got similar results. Both studies show we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family.

As the House debate proceeds, members of Congress are making some startling and downright incorrect claims on the floor. Our Truth Squad blog is lobbing back the truth. Visit for gems of responses, including:

• Did Rep. Lucas even read the bill?
• Climate action's opponents just can't do math
• Well, at least they have their talking points down…

With the House set to vote today on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the misinformation from the bill's opponents is flying fast. Our staff economists have been working furiously to circulate the facts:

• Grade: F. Dr. Nat Keohane pulled out his professor pen again to mark up a Heritage Foundation fact sheet.
• It only takes a dime a day. Opponents of action have been trying to scare voters with inflated and misleading accounts of how this bill will affect consumers' daily expenses. However, the two most independent and credible analyses project much lower costs.
• Draconian assumptions. One tactic opponents use to get such inflated cost estimates is to make assumptions that ignore policy provisions and impose artificial constraints. This paper breaks it down.

When floor debate starts later today, the policy and economics specialists here at EDF will be hard at work correcting misstatements. Stay tuned here to see the facts.