SENATE BILL: Clean Carbon Communities Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

I'll assume sponsorship.

Thank you Senator.

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Napoleon]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if you are going to write an amendment, I do recommend that you consult with Hagrid on it

Yep, I'm up for whatever. The tricky thing is that it's a bit difficult to tell the regions exactly how they should deal with their savings, as it's money that grows from federal investment, but never actually "belonged" to the federal government. I think it'd have to be a suggestion as opposed to a mandate.

Make the funding conditional on regions investing their own $15 million on the project, then give them the federal funds to invest as savings. That removes any type of unconstitutional provisions.

[Napoleon]

I still don't understand why the federal government is better equipped than the regions to tackle this project.  Federal oversight might complicate the process more than any amount of additional oversight is worth.

I've lost interest in supporting this. There is little reason why our larger regions should continue to get shafted financially.

[Napoleon]

Getting provided any funds should hardly be considered "getting shafted." I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's a problem to offer money to regions on the condition that they spend it on green building technologies. If it's so problematic, let's include an opt-out (and in the months I've been here, no region has yet opted out of an "opt-outable" program... so they can't be that bad). We're not specifiying which buildings to improve or when to begin the improvements, so the level of short-term inconvenience this bill will cause is negligible. All we're doing is saying "use this money for this type of project"—the regions can figure out the rest.

Regions that are larger and more prosperous are getting shafted with funding that is not proportional.

[Napoleon]

Aye

I do intend to raise the square foot criteria to 2500.

[Napoleon]

- I favor repealing #1 and #6 entirely.

I actually like that law. Why do you favor repealing it?

[Napoleon]

I actually remember posting here! Wtf! I object to indexing the gas tax to inflation. I think lawmakers should be able to be held accountable for tax increases. We don't tie our income tax brackets to inflation.

[Napoleon]

I don't see any reason to eliminate the Go Green Fund. Why should we?

[Napoleon]

I'm inclined to disagree with that argument. We've established fuel economy standards because we place a priority on our environmental well-being. I don't believe that wealth allows one an opportunity to pollute at will. I despise excise taxes but am willing to keep the gas tax because it helps fund our transportation infrastructure. In that sense, its more of a user fee than a tax. But the idea that its okay to use all the gas you want because you have the money to pay for it doesn't sit well with me.

I'd prefer to maintain the Go Green Fund and related standards, if other Senators agree I will offer an amendment.

[Napoleon]

I don't think its at all fair to compare our modest standards to 55 mpg standards. I'm not suggesting we remove the gas tax, so it isn't as if we don't get the immediate impact your link refers to. I think its just as important to focus on the long term as it is the short term. I don't believe that 35 mpg can compare to 55 mpg, and hopefully my fellow Senators agree. We can keep the gas tax, and keep our fuel economy standards. The only people who will be deterred by a high gas tax are people who have to micromanage their budgets- the lower and middle classes.

[Napoleon]

Are you also proposing that we lower the gas tax?

No. I didn't intend to give that impression.

[Napoleon]

The article I've quoted implies that given our current fuel tax, we're already achieving substantial reductions in carbon emissions, reductions equivalent to what we would have achieved if we had actually implemented the 57 mpg standard that the Environmental Policy Act of 2007 had originally called for. It's not clear that re-implementing CAFE standards would have any significant effect.

Snowstalker suggested earlier that we should be careful about how this law affects Atlasian automakers and their employers. Re-introducing CAFE standards would be a substantial regulatory burden for the auto industry. Unless there's some tangible benefit to reintroducing these standards, I cannot support this policy.

I'm willing to cap the standards at current levels. Perhaps we could get the GM to describe how compliance with CAFE standards has affected automakers? If the gas tax and the fuel economy standards have the same desired effect, why not use both? If the gas tax is supposed to dictate to the market that more fuel efficient cars are used, the standards shouldn't be a problem. If all it does is discourage driving the car one already owns, which your link doesn't mention, it still has an effect on the economy because a family paid however much money for a vehicle that they are now getting less value out of.

[Napoleon]

My sole objection to this was in terms of the fuel tax- then I was informed that these are the current rates in Atlasia. If Napoleon or any one else would like to look with me at ways to lower this- I'll be doing so...

As the bill stands- I find it good legislation. Encouraging good decisionmaking of private citizens by using free market incentives- to me- seems like good policy...I will be supporting this

Im fine with the fuel tax as is. I could maybe get behind a lower one but im not going to advocate for it. We have to keep in mind that fuel economy and mass transit are all superior in Atlasia to the US. Plus with our alternative energy investments, the price of oil is likely lower due to less demand.

[Napoleon]

Yankee, are we going to add the fuel economy standards back in? I think we should.

[Napoleon]

Also, is there any hope that Section VII could be eliminated? The business is slowly falling apart on its own. Why make a sweeping ban that could lose us jobs and affect people's careers?

Sale has been prohibited since January 1 2010.

[Napoleon]

I'm also not really a fan of what's set out in Section VI, subsections A and C... to me, this is a little bit discriminatory to people who live in rural regions. I seriously doubt that a home's proximity to the sidewalk will play much of a role at all in whether or not a person buys a certain house. I don't really see the connection to the environment here, and even if I did, I don't really see how this credit would actually help the situation.

It's to encourage compact use of space, not sprawly mess that encourages destruction of natural habitats or farm land or what have you.

[Napoleon]

I approve of the changes of course. What about keeping the CAFE standards and capping them at a certain point?

[Napoleon]

I had expected that Hagrid and Napoleon would have additional amendments to offer, but if not, I am ready for a final vote.

I am not going to offer an amendment unless someone else answers my question.

[Napoleon]

I will be putting forth an amendment today.

[Napoleon]

No problem, Hagrid.

So Napoleon's forthcoming amendment is the only remaining concern to be addressed here?

Sounds about right.

Here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

Amendment 54:34 has been adopted.

Napoleon, was I correct to process your text as an amendment? I have said it a million times, unless you say "I offer the follow amendment", "amendment offered", "amendment proposed" or something along those lines, it is just text for consideration. If the intent is otherwise, it may not get considered as such until the intent has been made clear.

Nix said "forthcoming amendment" and I said "here it is". It was an amendment. I don't know how it wasn't clear though.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

NORTH CAROLINA MELTDOWN.

The Constitution does not give you the authority to label a meltdown Mr. President.

[Napoleon]

Aye