Repeal of the Environmental Policy Act of 2007

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Repeal of Environmental Policy Act of 2007
FL 22-4 is repealed.


Sponsor: guess who! SPC

[Bacon King]

motion to table

[HappyWarrior]

motion to table

Seconded.

[ilikeverin]

Can't we at least hear what this would do, first?

[Bacon King]

it repeals this bill, most of which I rather like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I say keep sections 2 & 3; strike the rest.

[ilikeverin]

Oh.  yeah, that's a good bill.  I'll vote for the tabling.  Though, actually, Section 3 is rather much of a waste of money, not to mention the fact that it probably leads Atlasian consumers to pitch their old bulbs before their natural lives are done with... rather nasty fact of life that keeping an old, inefficient bulb is usually better than buying a new one for the environment because the new one requires shipping and manufacturing (which are quite polluting!).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Oh.  yeah, that's a good bill.  I'll vote for the tabling.  Though, actually, Section 3 is rather much of a waste of money, not to mention the fact that it probably leads Atlasian consumers to pitch their old bulbs before their natural lives are done with... rather nasty fact of life that keeping an old, inefficient bulb is usually better than buying a new one for the environment because the new one requires shipping and manufacturing (which are quite polluting!).

     Whoa, I didn't read section 3 closely enough it seems. So really, keep section 2 & eliminate the rest of them.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm sure this bill will be table, this senate isn't quite what I thought it might be.  Wait until take time I guess

[Lief 🗽]

Section 3 is perhaps somewhat problematic. Do incandescent bulbs cost significantly less than energy efficient bulbs? Do we really need to be subsidizing light bulbs? Maybe for large business, but doing it for individuals households seems like it would be a bureaucratic mess to me.

I fully support 1, 2, 4 and 5 though.

No on the motion to table, and I introduce an amendment to replace the entire text of SPC's bill with:

"FL 22-4, Section 3 is repealed. Sections 4 and 5 are re-numbered accordingly."

[ilikeverin]

I change my vote to no on the motion, and think the amendment is swell.

[Ebowed]

Oh.  yeah, that's a good bill.  I'll vote for the tabling.  Though, actually, Section 3 is rather much of a waste of money, not to mention the fact that it probably leads Atlasian consumers to pitch their old bulbs before their natural lives are done with... rather nasty fact of life that keeping an old, inefficient bulb is usually better than buying a new one for the environment because the new one requires shipping and manufacturing (which are quite polluting!).

Section 3 doesn't require anyone to change their lightbulbs.  It offers compensation for those who choose to do so until 2012.

And I don't see why that would be bureaucratic.

[Torie]

I would vote to reduce the rate at which gas mileage standards increase, since getting to 57 mpg by 2014 is ludicrous. Otherwise, I support retaining this legislation.  Since repealing the whole Act is never going to fly, perhaps the sponser might do a headcount to see if there are the votes to reduce the rate of increase in mpg standards, and amend his bill accordingly.

[bigbadgerjohnny]

I would vote to reduce the rate at which gas mileage standards increase, since getting to 57 mpg by 2014 is ludicrous.

Certainly the auto industry would have you think so.  For me, the problem extends beyond new cars to the old guzzlers on the road.  Why not add an amendment offering immediate imprisonment for operating a car that gets below 35mpg?  Of course, that would include me and my 1991 geo prizm.

Still, cutting the standards-to-be before we really even understand the feasability of implementing them in a large-scale action seems to me to be unnecessarily defeatist.

Personally, I want that car that our hero drives away at the end of the first Back to the Future flick, which runs on garbage.  And plenty of people have already opted to brew their own biofuel with old cooking oil and such.  And to insert another gratuituous film reference, the humping SUVs in Donnie Darko director's second flick (2 mammoth metal beasts screw eagerly in the driveway, 1 ramming its exhaust pipe into the other's) captures perfectly the size-obsessed Hummer driver's psyche.

Hummer drivers should just be shot on site [sight].

[Typo corrected by Torie] 

[SPC]

I would vote to reduce the rate at which gas mileage standards increase, since getting to 57 mpg by 2014 is ludicrous. Otherwise, I support retaining this legislation.  Since repealing the whole Act is never going to fly, perhaps the sponser might do a headcount to see if there are the votes to reduce the rate of increase in mpg standards, and amend his bill accordingly.

Who would support repealing section 1 of the bill?

[Lief 🗽]

Not me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Table motion fail

[ilikeverin]

Oh.  yeah, that's a good bill.  I'll vote for the tabling.  Though, actually, Section 3 is rather much of a waste of money, not to mention the fact that it probably leads Atlasian consumers to pitch their old bulbs before their natural lives are done with... rather nasty fact of life that keeping an old, inefficient bulb is usually better than buying a new one for the environment because the new one requires shipping and manufacturing (which are quite polluting!).

Section 3 doesn't require anyone to change their lightbulbs.  It offers compensation for those who choose to do so until 2012.

Oh, it doesn't require people to, but it definitely encourages people to change their lightbulbs before they should be, and to get a federal subsidy to boot.  A ban on selling old skool lightbulbs makes more sense for phasing them out.