The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Hash]

I have no problem with this legislation.

[Hash]

Aye on the fixer-upper amendment

I hope the nuclear power debate can get back on track. It should be brought to a final vote. I lean towards opposing the bill as it currently stands, but I should be able to post some more thoughts on the matter later on.

[Hash]

I will resist all attempts to remove me from office, especially in favour of some guy who couldn't even bother to vote for himself.

[Hash]

Abstain

[Hash]

I wanted to expose my views on this hot topic before the vote, but I'm lazy and never got around to it. But better late than never.

I don't particularly like nuclear energy, and I certainly don't see it as the answer to energy problems. There have been admittedly few nuclear disasters compared to the number of nuclear power plants/reactors, but the two largest disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima) have been gigantic disasters which will affect the local community for hundreds of years, which have ruined thousands of lives and which have affected the health of countless surrounding communities/countries.

And even when there aren't nuclear disasters on such a scale, nuclear waste is a serious issue which I don't feel has been taken seriously enough by the proponents of this bill here. There have been cases of improperly processed nuclear waste from Sellafield in England turning up in fishing villages in northern Norway, and around both the Cap de la Hague in Normandy and Sellafield, you have had above average numbers of leukemia cases. I am happy to have contributed to the Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Act when I was in the Senate, and I trust that current federal laws/regulations are appropriate for the issue.

But while I don't particularly like nuclear energy, I can't say I really subscribe entirely to the anti-nuclear movement. Sure, nuclear power isn't great and I would much rather we turn to wind power/solar energy/hydroelectricity etc; but when compared to coal and oil/fossil fuels, nuclear energy - while not 100% 'clean' and far from safe - is probably preferable. From my understanding, the South is not well suited for other renewable sources (wind power, see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg; solar etc).

This is a tough choice. Nuclear energy is, on balance, a step up from coal and oil; despite all its obvious drawbacks and in the absence of a suitable environment for intensive production of renewable energies. I still fully support the efforts of those who want to introduce a bill providing for more investments in non-nuclear renewable energy. Nuclear power CAN NOT be the only solution to the energy crisis or the solution to dirty energy sources.

The bill in its current form is much better than its two previous forms. I am still a bit uneasy about the costs, even if 20% can be covered by the feds. Do we have the budget for such a project, even over the long-term? Would spending so much on nuclear energy preclude us from appropriating funds for research and hopefully development of renewable energies? I would have preferred for the text of the bill to include a detailed cost breakdown, as the GM provided.

[Hash]

Thank you for keeping the vote open for me.

This is a huge issue which has inflamed passions on both sides. I am not pleased with how this debate has turned out, with straw man arguments and exaggerations on both sides. Nuclear energy is not the only 'clean' alternative, it is not safe, clean or cheap. A region which chooses nuclear energy as its sole alternative to dirty energy is committing a capital mistake.

But nuclear power isn't either akin to immediate nuclear armageddon nor is it certain to bring Chernobyl/Fukushima-like nuclear disaster in their path. Despite all its imperfections and its inability to definitely solve future energy crises, it can provide a first and hopefully temporary solution to our region's dependence on coal - which is even dirtier and unsafe - and fossil fuels.

I have hesitated on this issue and I had a hard time making a decision. I cannot shriek away from my duties and responsibilities as a legislator by abstaining on such a capital issue. I carefully read through the arguments presented by both sides in this present debate, reviewed existing federal and regional legislation on energy, safety and waste disposal, and took into account the costs. I am still very concerned about the costs of this project and its impact on regional finances, because it is extremely common for such projects to end up costing way more than originally planned. Regardless of how this ends up, I am determined to fight for the development of other, non-nuclear renewable energies in the region. I hope to work on legislation related to those matters, energy efficiency and safety.

I have come to the decision to AYE on this bill. It's not because I love nuclear power or anything, because I don't. I think nuclear power sucks. But the fact that most of our energy currently comes from even dirtier and environmentally dangerous things like coal or fossil fuel played a large role in convincing me. If we want to tackle climate change, one of our priorities should be to reduce our energetic dependence on coal and oil. Nuclear power is one among many ways to do it, and for the time being, it is - on balance - the most realistic possibility. I still have major concerns about costs, impact on regional finances, waste disposal and safety precautions. I hope that the legislature and the region will continue to monitor and keep tabs on the progress of construction and continue paying attention to energy matters. In any case, I hope that I will not come to regret my vote, or I will hate myself for it.

Call me the pawn of the 'nuclear lobby' and hate me all you want, but I took this seriously and voted my conscience. If you want to bitch, then go right ahead.

[Hash]

Aye

Of course I don't support the abolition of the income tax veto override bullsh**t.

[Hash]

I am offering the following changes to the bill, modeled on stuff from Canada

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am working on an education reform bill, in which I hope to include stuff on recycling and environmental education in schools.

[Hash]

Sorry, I was busy and distracted with other sh**t. We should open a final vote on the clean govt bill at this point.

In which case, I vote

[Hash]

To make it fully official.

[Hash]

I'd like to pass this and move on to HSR, if we could (only because the ME is debating HSR right now too, so if we're going to try for an interconnected network it should be now).

How can we debate HSR if there is no bill introduced on the matter and there are other bills still pending in the queue?

I want to motion to bring my last bill (Senate rules and procedures) to the top of the queue over my two other bills (but not over whatever else there is, introduced by others).

[Hash]

[Hash]

My procedural bill goes beyond what is/should be in the Constitution. The constitution is for the organization of powers, specifying stuff like number of seats, terms, appointments, elections, vacancies and speakership. My procedural bill includes a bunch of nuts and bolts (debate time, sponsors, amendments, votes etc) dealing with the day-to-day working which should not be included in the constitution unless we're Alabama. I hope you guys don't reject it out of hand, it's only a serious proposal to get things moving and make the legislature more efficient. I'm open to amendments and proposals as long as they still make the legislature more efficient. If you guys want to debate it last, I guess I can't object but I don't know how long I'll be a legislator so...

As for the Tsarina bill, it's pretty obvious and self-explanatory: Aliya Mustafina is one of the greatest persons alive today, and she's one of the best if not the absolute best female gymnast in the world. And it would send a strong signal against misogyny.

[Hash]

(that's an Aye obviously)

[Hash]

nay

 

Please die in a fire.

[Hash]

Well, I'd love to see more debate on it since Zanas had a few objections/concerns, but he seems to have gone AWOL.

I don't care much for the stricter timing and requirements in the bill as a whole, but I really think this legislature needs to be kicked in the ass to get moving a bit quicker. This bill is an attempt to do that, if anybody has better ideas to accomplish the same/similar goal, I'm willing to hear them.

[Hash]

I accept Velasco's amendments as friendly.

[Hash]

aye (finally)

[Hash]

Aye

[Hash]

Aye

I'm pretty sure voting should take place in the legislation's own thread.

[Hash]

I'm willing to serve as Speaker.

[Hash]

Yes