Oil Pipeline Funding Expungement Act (Law'd)

[Cranberry]

May I offer an amendment myself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not just stopping funding for gas and oil, but also increasing funding for renewable energy sources. What do you think?

[Cranberry]

May I ask you why in particular you oppose this? What is wrong with this bill in your eyes?

[Cranberry]

May I ask you why in particular you oppose this? What is wrong with this bill in your eyes?

Are you aware of the current gas prices? Higher gas and energy prices make for less discretionary income. As our (Atlasian) economy hasn't fully recovered. We should be about promoting growth economically. Allowing the Keystone pipeline and opening ANWAR for drilling will reduce prices in the long term. In addition I suggest converting our vehicles to natural gas which we have enough of(several hundred years if not more) to utilize until we can find an efficient and cheap means of using green energy to fuel our vehicles.

The only thing, and really the only thing we are doing here is to cancel funding for newly built pipelines. This bill probably is the most toothless piece of legislation regarding that issue, in forever, and still you oppose it because "muh gas cheap, muh gas cheaper, muh gas brilliant". First of all, shouldn't it be that you as a Libertarian must be content with cancelling funding? Secondly, how in earth should gas prices increase but a tiny little tad, if we keep the funding for the delivery of gas and oil and the funding for existing pipelines?
You may very well suggest these things, if I may then suggest for you to live either in the desert of Arizona or no higher than 1m above the sea level, for, I guess the next twenty years should suffice.

[Cranberry]

I object.
This just disables the bill even more, and it is at self a very toothless piece of legislation. We could call it then the "let's do everything that JCL is happy because muh gas act".

[Cranberry]

Nay

I don't like gutting this portion either, but I do think that, in light of some comments made by the SecIntAffairs and others, we should tread carefully in disabling federal funding for NatGas pipelines. NatGas isn't my first choice for energy, either. I want to see a fully renewable grid, too, but at this point, I wouldn't want to risk resuming coal production on a massive scale and thus undermining the entire point of this bill by cutting off funding for NatGas pipelines.

But we don't cut off funding for NatGas... The only thing we do with this bill is to do not fund any new natural gas pipelines, we keep the funding for all existing pipelines, and for all existing and new delivery. Heck, am I completely understanding this bills wrong or what? It says clear: "No new (..) pipelines shall be constructed with federal aid (...)." So, in what way does that affect our energy security? In no way. Just because Exxon or BP now have to pay for their new pipelines themselves, that doesn't dismantle all existing pipelines, and stops them from further sourcing gas and oil.... I really don't get your opinions there...

[Cranberry]

Nay

Thank you

[Cranberry]

Since no one seemed to care to respond to my arguments presented against the amendment, I guess no one has any problems with this, but that just as a side note.
While I of course support the objectives of this form of the bill as well, I don't think this bill deserves the name "Clean Energy Act". What do we do? We cut of funding for new oil pipelines in Atlasia. How much of our energy funding numbers goes to that process? Not that much. How much cleaner do we make our energy with this? Not that much. One can call this bill many names, but it certainly does not deserve the name "Clean Energy Act" anymore.
Hence, the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

Your last two sentences just so perfectly sum up my philosophy on that issue, Mr President

I am too in favour of a final vote.

[Cranberry]

Aye

Why are you opposed to this, Spiral and Cassius? I don't recall you ever making your point here.

[Cranberry]

I will not delay the final vote.

What are your reasons to not delaying the final vote even though I have proposed an amendment?

Because the final vote has already begun and I do not feel that your amendment would pass even were I stop the final vote and instead begin another vote on your amendment. It is frivolous and therefore not worth considering.

You're no longer PPT.

But he is Acting President of the Senate, until we have a VP or a new PPT. Who else should administer the Senate please?

[Cranberry]

If the President is correct I motion to hold a vote to delay a final vote to determine the merits of the proposed amendment.

Hasn't the final vote already concluded? It's just the 24-hours vote change period, afaik.

[Cranberry]

Funny how many things we can do or cannot do, suddenly since JCL is in the Senate... Must have been that no one read the rules before, I guess that's the only way I can explain this...