Energy for the Future Bill 2014 (Debating)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't realize before the coal ash spill, that coal ash is radioactive, but I suppose that was just a failure to cross apply certain scientific knowledge I already possessed. So times you need a vivid example to put two and two together.

I have long opposed the carbon tax (but consider it preferable to cap and trade, which I see as a Ponzi scheme at best, one big area of disagreement between myself and Duke), so if this returns at least some of that to the people and has a chance of passing, I lean towards supporting it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have long opposed the carbon tax

Why?

It is a unilateral decision on a global matter that would severely hamper our economy and competitiveness if the developing economies are not doing likewise.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have not the time to block quote Old Nixy baby, but I will do my best to response to his post.

1. There is a such a thing as multilateralism, no?

2. They told us in school that general knowledge doesn't require citation. It is a global matter, the tax is the action of one country, and I assume most people are at least familiar with the concept of outsourcing even if the finer particulars of "value migration" are not so widely known. What will likely happen is productive capacity will shift to countries with less standards, and thereby regress, not improve in terms of the overall picture environmentally speaking.

3. I recall reading that China had eclipsed us in carbon emissions and India was not far behind. I would also point out that whilst developing economies need some accommodation, there is no reason to repeat every single stage of the industrialization process either. An example of this was Russia leading up to World War 1 adopted several technologies and practices that allowed them to make enormous strides in production and industrialization. Use of latest technology, and on the flip side making that technology available, can skip some of the dirtier stages. You could make a treaty trading such access in exchange for a general agreement on carbon taxation levels.

4. Leaving any difficulties with Deus wording aside, technology is what will solve the problem not the means by which such is encouraged. It is therefore up to use to find the best means to incentivize research and deployment of such and I hardly think that there are only two undesirable means to effect that result.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Yankee - do you have amendments or suggestions? I'm happy to entertain reasonable amendments as friendly.

Mind you, I'm also a little concerned about the straw-man of the carbon price being some kind of  unilateral action that has no connection to any other kind of global action. Considering China was raised, it is important to note that large tracts of China will have a carbon tax in place by next year.

It is us playing our role and taking action early benefits us in the long-term. We have the capacity to do something and continue to build and develop our economy.

This action considers a simple issue - we have a source of revenue that creates a price signal. There are issues about needing to expand eligibility and increase the value of low-income support for heating, as well as creating credits to enable households to undertake their own energy-efficiency activities, including self-generation, that can actually make households money.

Actually I agree with most everything the text does at this point considering that the carbon tax is here to stay most likely.

I never said that we should do nothing, I just have issues with the carbon tax as the base approach to work from. I would a slightly more complex but less overarching approach combining some incentives and regulations.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay I suppose

I share Deus is preference, but if I have to choose a research mandate is preferably in my view to the other worse options.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually, I am switching to abstain, I would prefer a less aggressive wording on that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It looks good from first glance.

That is yet to be offered correct?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Though I am open to discuss the numbers further

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The difference here at least from my perspective is not that huge. My main concern is the wording of the present text and to some extent the one size fits all number with regards to the research mandate. I would prefer one that didn't operate with such a heavy hand and a greater degree of contextuality so to speak based on industry at least or perhaps company, though granted that could get rather complex to formulate obviously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reluctantly Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The research mandate needed a lot more work to be practical in my opinion and needed to be crafted based on the industry in question as opposed to a one size fits all blanket wording.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is this doing right now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain FTR