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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Fair enough. I was just afraid it was missed because it was kind of hidden amongst a bulk of text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Fair enough. I was just afraid it was missed because it was kind of hidden amongst a bulk of text.

We were discussing it on AIM litterally as you were typing your post.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, how about that vote here?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor feedback: hostile
Status: the above amendment is open for a vote. 24 hours.

[Napoleon]

Aye

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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For the record, I don't know what Duke was talkin when he said 24 hours. Amendments are five days and always have been.

I am leaning towards Aye for three reasons:

1. The Green Power Act is a terribly designed and poorly written piece of legislation, no offense to my to my old friend Hans-im-Gluck and for shame on those people who placed it upon the shoulders of the opposition (who opposed it for other reason's as well) to fix a bill's deep flaws (glances towards the White House ). So getting that off the books would be an improvement.

2. It might get another bill out of the queue.

3. It caused me to have a nice trip down memory lane.

You know Yankee, i have no problem with you not supporting this. I really don't. I hope you don't over inflate yourself to believe otherwise. Your vote is about as relevant as i am as a whole. But going off and calling me a has been who needs to be primaried is a bit much, donchathink? Once you get to be my age and become irrelevant and equivalent to half a senate seat, you'll look back and understand how hard it is for someone like me to be taken seriously anymore.

The only reason I call you that is 1) I don't think its true and I am trying to get you to stop saying it about yourself by making your sick of hearing it. 2) as a finger to the idiots who say that about you. I take this kind of thing very seriously, thats why I did it . I will change it just the same though. You need to stop beatin yourself up and project some confidence. Look at Fritz, Jedi, and Peter. They have been around far longer then you and they don't say that kind of thing.  I also find it funny that you would connect that to my stated opposition to this bill. The two are unrelated.

However, I do have issues with it.

1. It seems to perpetuate a Cap and Trade scheme, without detailing the cap in this bill, which thus precludes the opposite of the following from being number four above

2. It isn't a full compiliation of the Green Energy policy, which seems to be the desire behind the administration support for, and Nix's introducing as an amendment to this bill, the policy in question. Unless I am missing something...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes Nix, where is this cap outlined in amendment? If you want comprehensive, then perhaps the biggest (and least intelligent aspect ) should be included, should it not?

I have no problem passing the amendment now, and offering another one to fix this. I just want some kind of assurance that such will be corrected before I vote on this amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment process was so primitive back then.



okay, then AYE


Happy Now?


OH AND THIS IS A CRAPPY VOTE RIGHT NOW?!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4-2? WTF?!!!!!!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nay

[Spamage]

Nay

[Franzl]

AYE

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I worry that power providers will simply raise prices to offset any forced decreases in emissions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Time expired just three minutes before Franzl voted.

Vote on Amendment 54:02 by Averroës Nix:

Aye (4): Averroës Nix, jdb, Napoleon and NC Yankee
Nay (4): Ben, HagridoftheDeep, Snowstalker and Spamage
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Franzl and Oakvale.

The vote is tied and the VP shall break the tie.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I worry that power providers will simply raise prices to offset any forced decreases in emissions.

It should be noted that, like, 90+% of that is current law; I didn't know Nix was going to insert Duke and I's proposal to centralize current energy statute into this bill's debate, but that's almost all our proposal did; just put all our disparate green energy statute together in one nicer, cleaner, place.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye on the amendment, Mr. PPT!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Number 1 is probably aimed at buildign refineries and thus I would be hessitant to repeal that without more justification o nthat matter.

I definately think in general repealing all or as many as possible and then consolidating what we keep into one bill would be preferable at this point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If we got rid of the CAFE standards, will we be brining that back, then? If so how would that transition look like?

[Napoleon]

- I favor repealing #1 and #6 entirely.

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

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Like it or not, cars are still very important, and like weaning a baby, it's important to start with tax credits for buying more fuel-efficient cars, thus allowing older gas-guzzlers to fade away without harming the automobile industry.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This is an expensive and regressive transfer scheme and the primary beneficiaries are the  auto industry

Exactly, the automotive industry is a non-negligible part of our economy and a source of good union jobs. However, I'd be interested in finding ways to encourage production of other mechanisms of transit, as well as to further raise fuel efficiency standards while removing subsidies for cars below the new standard.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't one of the acts you cited remove it?