HB 2016-1071 - Clean Coasts and Seas Act (PASSES TO SENATE)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: NeverAgain

Okay, 48 hours for debate.

[Enduro]

I'm not one for more government regulations. Can the sponsor tell us what the penalty is for violating these?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said during the campaign, I am very much interested in protecting our waterways and oceans.

For one thing January 1st, 2017 has already passed.

However, I have a grave concern beyond that.

As I said in the debate over the Gas Tax Bill, it is my view that hydraulic fracturing saved the world from the dystopia envisioned by those who thought we had passed peak oil and that $10 gallon gas was the wave of the future.

Technology came into play and instead we were bought precious time. That said Fracking comes with its own set of problems, but banning it outright and on such short notice would have the effect of legislating an economic recession on top of a supply crunch.

My recommendation as I made in the campaign and also stated during the debate over the gasoline tax bill would be to set a deadline down the road similar to that with lightbulbs and then make the investments over that period of time into research to ensure that you have cleaner and safer methods of oil extraction available and deployed by the time that arrived.

I realize the opposition to fracking and the concerns expressed over its usage with regards to water and other concerns, but to ban it in this fashion is just simply not realistic and the ones hurt the most will be the most economically challenged who won't be able to get to work or buy food because they cannot get anywhere.

If that wasn't bad enough, what oil was still provided here would be imported on a global price much higher than what we have now ($400 a barrel). This would represent a windfall of profits to Russia - that would be poured into Ukrainian terrorists, Iran - that would be poured into Assad, Hezbollah and Yemen and to Saudi Arabia - which could easily find its way to undesirable groups (like it did with Bin Laden in the past) or funding repressive actions in Yemen or even domestically in Saudi Arabia.

[Blair]

I'm not one for more government regulations. Can the sponsor tell us what the penalty is for violating these?

I didn't have any penalties in my mind when I authored the bill- the ban would be enforced alongside existing regulations. I don't want to mandate into law what the scale should be when departments can work it out themselves

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the agencies write the penalties?

[White Trash]

We have many rural communities across this nation which are dependent on industries that will be severely and negatively affected by this legislation. I cannot with good conscience support this action. Hydro-fracturing, the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, are integral to the economy of our nation.

In addition, deep sea trawling and the fishing industry as a whole is a vital part of the Gulf coast economy. I will not compromise for even a second, the livelihoods of my constituents so that others may push their environmentalist agenda.

[Leinad]

I'll just second what President Yankee and Representatives Gothic and Enduro said, as they addressed my concerns pretty well.

I will also add that time travel (going back to ban it on January 1st) would be tremendously dangerous, and even if I thought banning fracking was a good idea, we'd be putting many at risk to mess with the timeline in such a major way. I mean, this debate would obviously be altered, since someone would bring up the ban that was put in place 4 weeks ago, and presumably that would lead to it being voted down--BOOM, paradox, error code: universe GONE!

[Blair]

Well the reason that it's the 1st January was because I wrote the bill in December; I didn't expect it to take 6 weeks for it to come up. A member of the Senate should offer an amendment to change the date, and probably push it forward to the June or July (as my other regulations did)- I can't do that.

To the President question; yes. I don't have enough knowledge of environmental legislation to put my own penalties in. (often when we do in Atlasia they're either excessive or minuscule) There should be discretion in the matter as well.

I'd say that Southern Gothic's argument is disingenuous; I didn't come into this bill with the objective of wrecking people's livelyhoods, but with the exact opposite. We need sustainability for our fishing communities (many of whom in Louisiana are still suffering from the Horizon Spill)

It's simple; if we want the fishing industry to be there in 50 years we're going to need to take action; by standing up now and saying 'I'm going to protect jobs' and allowing unsustainable practices you're damaging the very industries you're trying to protect.

Look at the national geographic article on deep sea trawling

[Blair]

I do however appreciate the concerns raised by members, and would be willing to offer an amendment to this bill that would address some of the key issues

[White Trash]

I appreciate Mr. Blair looking to compromise with the negation, but I cannot fathom an amendment to this legislation that will not cost jobs in the Gulf and in rural areas. I would however, support a bill requiring more stringent safety regulations on jydrofracturing and offshore drilling.

But since that is not the legislation on the docket, I will remain on the negation.

[Enduro]

Blair, what do you think should be the penalties?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot support a ban on fracking that immediate for the reasons I stated before. The energy needs it provides for as well as the cost reductions that it provides are critical to our economy and the livelihoods of our working class people. Any ban that goes into effect before reasonably suitable alternative methods can be obtained from research monies, would only serve to have the effect of harming those who can least afford more expensive energy (it is thus regressive in that sense) as well as empowering those who can still cheaply acquire oil from traditional methods (more cheaply then us) and that list of course begins with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. We should be minimizing the flow of oil money to such regimes, not expanding it.

[Blair]

I cannot support a ban on fracking that immediate for the reasons I stated before. The energy needs it provides for as well as the cost reductions that it provides are critical to our economy and the livelihoods of our working class people. Any ban that goes into effect before reasonably suitable alternative methods can be obtained from research monies, would only serve to have the effect of harming those who can least afford more expensive energy (it is thus regressive in that sense) as well as empowering those who can still cheaply acquire oil from traditional methods (more cheaply then us) and that list of course begins with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. We should be minimizing the flow of oil money to such regimes, not expanding it.

I'll be offering an amendment on this later today when I get back from the Library/Swear into office

[Blair]

Amendment removes the congressional fracking ban, and creates a committee to explore the issue. Also changes the deep trawling ban in line with EU regulation so it only affects the deep sea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[White Trash]

I am fine with the proposed amendment regarding the hydro-fracturing committee. But would like to propose an amendment to the amendment (if that is possible), that would remove all mention of deep sea trawling.

[Blair]

I am fine with the proposed amendment regarding the hydro-fracturing committee. But would like to propose an amendment to the amendment (if that is possible), that would remove all mention of deep sea trawling.

The 800 metre limit is put in place to allow trawling fishing, whilst limiting the most destructive aspects

I really don't see why the Representative would support a practice that will destroy the biological, and economic value of our oceans. Dragging a net the side of a football field across the ocean and scrapping up everything in it's path is not a sustainable, for the economic or ecological value of our oceans. 

[White Trash]

I am fine with the proposed amendment regarding the hydro-fracturing committee. But would like to propose an amendment to the amendment (if that is possible), that would remove all mention of deep sea trawling.

The 800 metre limit is put in place to allow trawling fishing, whilst limiting the most destructive aspects

I really don't see why the Representative would support a practice that will destroy the biological, and economic value of our oceans. Dragging a net the side of a football field across the ocean and scrapping up everything in it's path is not a sustainable, for the economic or ecological value of our oceans. 

Because I do not want to compromise the job security of my constituents in the present. I find this sort of regulation harmful to an industry that employs many in the Gulf.

[NeverAgain]

I am fine with the proposed amendment regarding the hydro-fracturing committee. But would like to propose an amendment to the amendment (if that is possible), that would remove all mention of deep sea trawling.

The 800 metre limit is put in place to allow trawling fishing, whilst limiting the most destructive aspects

I really don't see why the Representative would support a practice that will destroy the biological, and economic value of our oceans. Dragging a net the side of a football field across the ocean and scrapping up everything in it's path is not a sustainable, for the economic or ecological value of our oceans. 

Because I do not want to compromise the job security of my constituents in the present. I find this sort of regulation harmful to an industry that employs many in the Gulf.

I guess I don't see it that way. In my view, businesses can and should adapt to stop the threat of overfishing which, if left unchecked, will ravage the livelihoods that these men and women work so hard for. We must also look to the environmental security of our oceans, which must be of extreme importance when looking at the future of our world (as our oceans make up 70% of it). I do agree that the lives of deep sea trawlers need to be addressed so I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[White Trash]

I support NeverAgain's addition to the amendment, but would also like to lay upon the table an amendment, discussed by Representative Blair and I, in which the deep sea trawling limit was extended to 1000m (the limit found in some countries).

[Enduro]

I can't support this bill; it's anti-choice, and taxes the people more. If this bill is passed, the first thing I'd do is introduce a repeal.

[NeverAgain]

I can't support this bill; it's anti-choice, and taxes the people more. If this bill is passed, the first thing I'd do is introduce a repeal.

Eh? I am very confused.

Anyways, 24 hour vote on the amendment (Ending at 7:37 pm EST 2/2)

[Blair]

Aye,

I'll be introducing another amendment in line with what me and Southern Gothic spoke about but this looks like a good start

[NeverAgain]

Aye.

[Goldwater]

AYE

[White Trash]

Aye