Oil Pipeline Funding Expungement Act (Law'd)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

We already have some of the lowest energy prices in the word. Even with Atlasia's modest carbon tax, these prices do not fully reflect the social costs associated with burning fossil fuels.

Reducing energy prices across the board encourages waste and discourages conservation. Lower per unit prices should not be a goal of our energy policy.

Those carbon taxes are turned into higher prices. In a sense forcing conservation. That is not the governments place.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We already have some of the lowest energy prices in the word. Even with Atlasia's modest carbon tax, these prices do not fully reflect the social costs associated with burning fossil fuels.

Reducing energy prices across the board encourages waste and discourages conservation. Lower per unit prices should not be a goal of our energy policy.

Those carbon taxes are turned into higher prices. In a sense forcing conservation. That is not the governments place.

Then whose is it?

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I believe JCL's position on the veracity of climate science is important here.

[TNF]

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[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".

[TNF]

In light of Senator Cranberry's objection, a vote is now open on the proposed amendment. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[TNF]

Aye

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.

[Lumine]

Aye.

[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...

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[bore]

Aye

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The reason I am defending the current funding on natural gas is we need a transition point between what we are utilizing right now and the renewables with regards to our transportation industries. Natural gas is one of the cleanest non-renewables and we have enough of it to cover any transition time needed to a strictly renewable set up (like hydrogen fuel cells).

[Cassius]

Nay

[Cranberry]

Nay

Thank you

[Goldwater]

AYE

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[TNF]

The amendment has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would anyone like to add anything else, or are we prepared to take this to a final vote?

[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.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye FTR on the previous Amendment vote.

[TNF]

The Amendment has been adopted.


Unless anyone is opposed, I would like to move that we have a final vote on this.