SB 2016-043 - Gas Tax of 2016 (Passed Senate)

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor - Former Citizen LongLiveRock (Lab)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Seeing as gas prices have lowered quite substantially, I'll likely vote for this bill.

[Blair]

Could we strike section 2? I'm never a big fan of taxation rises that simply say 'lets put x amount of money raised into y'

I mean we'd be giving 1.9 billion to the EPA (which is a about a 20% increase in it's budget)

[NeverAgain]

Could we strike section 2? I'm never a big fan of taxation rises that simply say 'lets put x amount of money raised into y'

I mean we'd be giving 1.9 billion to the EPA (which is a about a 20% increase in it's budget)

Earmarking is meh. It has upsides and down, but I'd be perfectly fine with y'all getting rid of it. The purpose was similar to like a lottery program for education, or as the gas taxes are currently used for highway reconstruction. I do agree that giving 2 Billion is a ridiculous amount to the EPA (a 25% increase in the budget)

One quick thing (no biggie), LLR is the sponsor. I introduced the amendment.

[Clyde1998]

One quick thing (no biggie), LLR is the sponsor. I introduced the amendment.

I've corrected that now.

[Clyde1998]

I agree that nearly $2bn is far too much for the EPA's budget to increase. I would, personally, prefer for the tax revenue to be put into the pot, as with other taxes, in this case.

I would be open for money to be earmarked for funding research and development in electric or renewable energy vehicles though.

[Clyde1998]

Unless there is any further debate, I will open this to a vote in 24 hours.

[Blair]

I will sadly have to veto this bill if it passes in its current form

[Clyde1998]

I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I actually have a big concern about this and it stems from a potential policy with regards to fracking.

Everybody hates fracking. I get that, but quickly remember something. Remember back in 2006 when everyone was talking about peak oil, gas prices were racing to the moon and then relief came not from energy, but the economy completely collapsing dragging down oil prices with it. What was missed is that during the course of the "recovery" I would say about 2010 to 2012, the world of energy was fundamentally transformed by the growth of hydraulic fracturing. This meant that even as the economy began to hit its stride, in 2014-2016, gas did not go up in price, it crashed again.

This was because not only did US regain lost oil market share, but also because Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries began dumping oil essentially on the world market in a desperate ploy to regain market share and drive the frackers out of the field. I think this is what countered the 6% floor on unemployment that many said we would never achieve. Money that would have gone into gas, went into consumer spending boosting retail and other sectors. Granted, they aren't middle class jobs but that is a discussion for another thread.

The funny thing was, the science and technology was there in 2006 and 2007. However, everyone in politics, mainstream media and the like ignored it because it was coming from the energy sector and therefore they regarded the predictions/projections on same level of credibility as doctors paid for by big Tobacco. This was a serious situation, people talked of world wide apocalypse and industrial collapse with $500 a barrel oil and $15 a gallon gas. People worried that Iran had the ability to shut down the West by blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Fracking changed all that, and gave us a situation (in real life at least) with 4.6% unemployment and $2.00 a gallon gas, something people would have thought insane save with a time machine to the 1990's.

Now in the present situation, it makes sense to take some added gas tax and invest it in infrastructure. I am not even against putting some of it into the EPA. However, my recommendation, instead of banning Fracking, would be to instead invest a portion of that revenue into research into Energy Extraction technology.

At the end of the day, it was technology that was completely ignored that ended up saving us (literally saving us) and so I have every confidence, like with all environmental related situations, the answer is not to point a shot gun at your feet and pull the trigger, but instead to invest in technology and innovation that will render it pointless.

Go into a Wal-Mart and try to find an incandescent light bulb. Try to find a florescent for that matter. You can find a few of the former, you can find none of the later. Part of this is because of a mandate yes, but it was ultimately technology that produced this result. And I would point out that between LEDs and fracking of Natural gas that crippled coal, and caused many power plants to be converted like the one we live by.


It is my opinion that fracking is already nearing obsolescence and therefore alternative extraction methods are already in the works. Therefore a little nudge to bring up the time table is a far more responsible means of bringing an end to fracking and the risks it imposes on water and other concerns.

[Blair]

What's happening with this bill?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess I put them to sleep.

[Blair]

I guess I put them to sleep.

This is why I'm considering recesses during the Holidays

[Clyde1998]

The Vice President makes a very good point. I suggested earlier, we could put money from this towards investment into, and subsidising the cost to the consumer of, carbon neutral vehicles - this could potentially be along with investment into renewable energy (as the VP mentioned). We need to reduce dependency on oil and this could be an opportunity to find a way of doing so. Increasing gas taxes is a good idea to reduce usage of carbon producing vehicles, but there has to be an viable, affordable alternative for people to move to. Otherwise, it's just an additional cost for people, particularly those who are struggling to pay their bills as it is.

As a result, I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[LLR]

As the original sponsor of this bill, as well as a Senator, I support this amendment.

[Clyde1998]

The amendment has been deemed friendly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am ambivalent about the notion of a gas tax, but I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to fix it to the price of oil than it does inflation. Oil fluctuates in value, and it would probably help to reduce this tax if the price shoots up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess I put them to sleep.

This is why I'm considering recesses during the Holidays

It is not a terrible idea, but I would recommend not recessing for more then a few days. Granted, it might be exceedingly difficult in the intermediate period between the holidays to get people on the site, we could potentially get some stuff done during that time and give people both Christmas and New Years off (perhaps a day either side of them as well).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would once again restate (in shorter terms) my recommendation for investment in cleaner/safer energy extraction methods to replace fracking.

[Clyde1998]

I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[LLR]

That's a lot of money, I don't know...

[Clyde1998]

That's a lot of money, I don't know...

Feel free to suggest a different percentage. I only picked 40% to allocate half of the revenue. We don't need to allocate as much as that, if we don't want to.

[LLR]

However much $5.5 B is... (28.9%, I guess)

Then the amendment is friendly.

[Blair]

I'm happy giving $5 billion

[Clyde1998]

I rounded 28.9% up to 30% for this amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.