A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "CARBON Act," seeks to amend the Clean Air Act. It specifically targets the definition of the term "air pollutant." The proposed change would exclude carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from that definition. This amendment would be applied to Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill significantly reduces regulatory oversight and costs for businesses involved in energy and manufacturing.
- Scored +3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
By limiting federal regulatory reach, the bill implicitly allows more leeway for state-level outcomes or industry freedom.
- Scored +2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Reduced regulation tends to benefit owners of large industrial and energy-producing assets.
The opposite· 3 of 14
- Scored -8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The exclusion of major pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane significantly weakens overall environmental protections under the Clean Air Act.
- Scored -7
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Removing greenhouse gases from the definition of air pollutants makes it harder to regulate their emission levels.
- Scored -5
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
By reducing regulation, this bill may indirectly encourage continued and easier fossil fuel production.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- The bill aims to curtail agency reach and bureaucracy overreach on net-zero issues by changing the definition of "air pollutant" in Section 2.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The bill would remove carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from the legal definition of an "air pollutant" under Section 2, which modifies Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The exclusion of major pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane significantly weakens overall environmental protections under the Clean Air Act. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Removing greenhouse gases from the definition of air pollutants makes it harder to regulate their emission levels. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — By reducing regulation, this bill may indirectly encourage continued and easier fossil fuel production. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Weakening carbon regulations may reduce the regulatory incentive for transitioning to renewable energy sources.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill significantly reduces regulatory oversight and costs for businesses involved in energy and manufacturing. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Reduced regulation tends to benefit owners of large industrial and energy-producing assets. Would farmers be better off under this? — Excluding methane and nitrous oxide may reduce regulatory costs for agricultural operations. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Reduced regulation tends to benefit owners of large industrial and energy-producing assets. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural areas with heavy agricultural or energy production may benefit from reduced regulatory oversight. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Reduced regulation tends to benefit owners of large industrial and energy-producing assets. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Reducing regulatory costs may provide slight benefits to higher-income demographics through broad economic activity. Would union members be better off under this? — Reduced regulatory burdens may support continued operations in traditional energy sectors. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Environmental changes and deregulation often pose significant risks to tribal lands and traditional ways of life. Would children be better off under this? — Reduced environmental regulation may negatively impact long-term ecological and health outcomes for future generations. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas often experience higher concentrations of pollutants that may not be addressed without these regulations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduced environmental regulation may negatively impact long-term ecological and health outcomes for future generations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Environmental deregulation often disproportionately impacts minority communities through increased pollution exposure. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Environmental deregulation often disproportionately impacts minority communities through increased pollution exposure. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Lower-income households often bear a higher burden of environmental pollution and climate change impacts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By limiting federal regulatory reach, the bill implicitly allows more leeway for state-level outcomes or industry freedom. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill aims to reduce federal agency power to regulate specific greenhouse gases.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Weakening climate-related regulations could potentially strain international relations and climate alliances.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reducing regulation on greenhouse gases may disproportionately affect marginalized communities through increased environmental risks.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing regulatory burdens on greenhouse gases may provide minor economic stimulus to energy-intensive sectors.
- 2/12/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House