Pacific Stimulus: Allocations for July

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm going through it now. I hope you don't mind me making a few changes to the wording of things, but right now some of the clauses are a little unclear (I think it's mostly due to the language barrier: Where you say "commission," the word "grant" is probably less confusing).

Actually, on second thought, I'll wait until we've talked more about what we want to do in a broad sense. Because right now, I'm kind of wondering if it's the best idea to create all these job creation commissions. I mean, that's basically all that sections 1 and 2 do. Right now, it seems like we're funding a lot of bureaucracy just so we don't have to deal with the specifics ourselves. Wouldn't it be better to actually say outright what kind of green jobs we want to create?

[DemPGH]

You guys are doing great work, and as I mentioned to several people privately, I will support continuing the stimulus so long as you guys are using it wisely, and you are; and so long as it is not a train wreck, and clearly it is not.

Question, though, probably for Cranberry: What is the purpose of these boards that are being created? Is that actually supposed to be something or is it just a placeholder? If you're outlining how the money is to be spent, I really think that's sufficient. In one of the planks from the first stimulus bill I think we made something contingent upon banks or approval of lending institutions or something, so this may be like that. The intent is that the money will be spent. So is that what these boards are going to do?

[Cranberry]

Well, since both of you seem to notice the boards, I'll give my reasons for it. I just thought that the allocation of the money would go on more swiftly and efficient with there being boards to administer it. But yeah, my proposal would create a whole lot of bureaucracy. So I'll give a second proposal with the boards cut out in the afternoon, ok? 
And yes Hagrid, the unclarity (hopefully) is due to the language barrier - I usually draw a rough sketch in mind, but when I write it out, there are some specific termini I don't know how to say in English, so I usually pick the first one my dictionary offers me

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hey, don't worry about it haha. I hope I didn't offend you by saying it, but it for clarity's sake some of the terms could probably be dumbed down a bit.

Re: A proposal without the bureaucracy, don't feel like you have to do all of it anew on your own. If you want to brainstorm here, I'm up for it. For example, if we're talking about specific green projects, I think it would be worth delineating grants for the manufacturing of green vehicles. We could give money to smaller electric car companies so that they can expand their operations and hire more people. I'd also look into helping private bus companies purchase more fuel efficient buses for operation along routes in the region. Savings on fuel could free up money for these companies to expand coverage and grow their businesses.

So if we changed section 1 from "Environmental Workstations" to "Green Jobs," we could have a subsection on vehicles. What are some other green jobs we could help fund? I would support giving farmers grants to set up solar panels on their property. In rural Ontario, farmers have the option to sell back extra power to the grid and it ends up supplementing their incomes quite nicely. This idea would also fold into rural development.

On rural development, I wrote a pretty long paper on agritourism just last year. Although large, corporatized agritourism isn't great, when a collection of smaller farms diversify into agritourism, there are primary economic benefits for the farmers as well as secondary economic benefits for local communities. The tourist business may create jobs on the farms, and by bringing more visitors to the area, it also boosts sales in nearby towns (which can in turn create more jobs). Another benefit is that the educational experience of being on the land and seeing where food comes from often encourages visitors to be "responsible consumers" at home in the city. Maybe they will be more likely to check out their neighbourhood farmers' market and support local farmers.

You can really see how rural development and green jobs play off of each other. It's kinda cool.

[Cranberry]

I wasn't offended at all, why should I? Really, just do what you feel to there.

I like your idea of funding smaller electro car companies. It's a great way to both create jobs and help the environment. I too like the idea of the solar panel funding. There is a similar program in Tirol (my state in Austria), where you'll get subsidied by the state if you buy and install solar panels, with the extra power being purchased by the statal power company. That program is however for everyone, not just farmers. Should we exceed to everyone too, or also just leave it to the farmers?
I also have another idea here. I don't know how this is in the states, but in Austria there is quite a range of products sold and produced under the "bio" label, that is to follow a certain set of standard outlined by a board somewhere, e.g. using no (or very few) chemicals for the production and the lot. It makes the production harder, but more climate efficient, and the farmers can sell the products for a higher price, if they follow the standards. We could fund farmers that want to start producing bio-food, which would increase their incomes and help the environment too? (That would again be a mixture between green and rural development )

What kind of paper did you write? For the university? Would you mind rewriting the Rural Development section then? You're certainly more expertised than everyone here.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Just checking in to say I'll get something up in writing tomorrow!

[Cranberry]

Great! I should be finished with rewriting section 1 sometime today...

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would be my rewrite of section 1, without bureaucracy.

[Cranberry]

Any opinions on this?

[Sec. of State Superique]

First of all, I would like to apologize for taking so much time to comment on this but I must that I'm strongly in favor of the strategy outlined by my fellow Governor. Even so, I believe that there are many areas of Green Projects that we could make more efforts. For example: providing financial support for the research of hydrogen engines, investing on recycling institutions, specially those cooperatives that usually make this effort of properly taking care of our garbage and, finally, helping all the Pacific Major Cities to implement programs of methane combustion. Methane is one of the biggest threats to global warming and it is 144x more times stronger than CO2. There are many landfills with huge leves of methane emission and we could improve the usage of this methane as a fuel for thermoelectrical power plants for example.

The Combustion of Methane actually reduces Global Warming:

CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O

[Cranberry]

Thanks for outlining these plans, but I wonder if 2 Billions isn't to small a sum for all this?
Anyway, now to your proposals in single: Grants for hydrogen engine development are certainly a good idea, yet I don't know if that isn't better left to the Federal Government, as they have more money to spend? On the other hand this is a great idea, and what if we changed the sum to 3 Billions (we have left 2 Billions for a backup clause)?
Anyway, I also like your proposal in recycling institutions and cooperatives. This would require effort from the people of the Pacific too, however, and we'd certainly need a program to make it easier (eg require dustbin manufacturers to paint all plastic dustbins black and all organic rubbish dustbins green or whatever), but that should be left to the Council for after the passing of the Stimulus, after all they need to do something
Finally, I don't know if funding of methane combustion thermoelectrical power plants is such a great idea. After all, CO2 is produced there, of course on the expense of Methane, but CO2 is CO2. I'd rather see our cities reduce their methane emissions more, but therefore we don't need the stimulus.
Thank you for your input!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

FTR, I'm not necessarily opposed to this stimulus, but I do think that other regions deserve something as well.

If only I weren't typing from a cellphone, I'd write an amendment for that.

[Deus Naturae]

FTR, I'm not necessarily opposed to this stimulus, but I do think that other regions deserve something as well.

Why would the Federal government just hand money out to the Regions at a random time? The only reason the Pacific might end up getting money is because it is (or at least it was) in the middle of an economic crisis.

[Cranberry]

I'm really sorry, but this thread is not for any discussions regarding the future of the Pacific or the necessity of Stimuluses, but just for the debate of the Pacific's proposal for the second stimulus. Hagrid already stated that multiple times, and I want to remind of that.

By the way, Hagrid, I don't want to rush you, but didn't you say you'd present a rewrite of the Rural Development section?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, I spent the weekend away from home and I thought I'd have WiFi. I was wrong.

I will have something up tonight for sure. My post will include a new section 2 as discussed and a slight simplification of the other sections. I think we should aim to have something signed by Wednesday (and I think it's doable).

One question I have about section 1(1i)... what do you mean by edifices? To be honest, I don't really understand that entire clause. It tasks companies with some sort of job but doesn't say anything about money or what will compel these companies to want to follow along. Just want some clarification.

[Cranberry]

Aren't edificies buildings?
I wanted this clause to be that the government would task private companies with refurbishing buildings of the Reg Gov that they are more environmentally efficient... Feel free to rewrite that section though that it becomes clearer...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay, better late than never! I made a few changes to the wording, but pretty much everything carried over. I attempted to track the changes I made with green text and strikethroughs, but it was really difficult to code for the forum. If you are disappointed with anything, please let me know.

One change you will notice is that I actually specified dollar amounts for specific programs. Let me know if you think any of the numbers need changing.

I also eliminated the last section that set aside a whopping $2 billion for the continuance of programs outlined in the first stimulus. The way I see it is that we "gave enough" already for those programs, and we can assume that the money was sufficient and well-spent. Instead of that last section, I put the money towards a Pacific Student Work Experience Program, which is modeled after a federal program in Canada. If you don't like it, no worries... but we just have to keep in mind that we're running out of time (and I know it's totally my fault). You can read more about the Canadian program here.

To make things easier, everything that I've added is in green.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing I didn't include was Superique's suggestion on burning methane (?). I really don't know anything about the science of it and couldn't figure out how to turn it into a program for the stimulus. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, be my guest.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I realize I also missed adding in stuff for recycling programs.

As for money for research on hydrogen engines, I think that probably is better left to the federal government. The point of this stimulus is to jump-start the Pacific's economy. The last stimulus put quite a bit of money into research and other social programs that didn't necessarily create jobs. I think it's time for a stimulus that can accomplish positive social ends while immediately creating jobs and helping people put money in their pockets. I think the stimulus package above accomplishes those goals and strikes a good balance.

[Cranberry]

I think so as well, researching hydrogen engines is good, but not suited for the Stimulus money.

Anyway, I fully agree with your proposal Hagrid, I don't think there is much left to say...

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I agree with the Governor, you did well Hagrid.

[DemPGH]

Exceptional work, Hagrid, Cranberry, and Co. Believe me, if it were less or subpar or not terribly relevant, I'd be kicking and screaming about sending more money to the region. There's a balance to what you guys have written between jobs, culture, and research that makes it very useful. 

[Sec. of State Superique]

It's a shame that the Recylcying Programs were not added but I can live with the original text...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hey, we got a bit of time. If you can draft something up quick I'm totally open to it! I think it would be a good addition.

[Cranberry]

I'll be getting to sleep soon, so I'll have to sign this now:

x TheCranberry, Governor of the Pacific

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, I was hoping Superique would put something together, but at this rate I think we gotta just get it signed. If I'm SoIA for the next stimulus I'll make sure recycling programs get in there.