CO2 cap-and-trade bill (Awaiting Presdential Signature/Veto)

[Franzl]

CO2 cap-and-trade bill:

Section 1: In an effort to combat the catastrophic effects of climate change, Atlasia will attempt to reduce overall emmissions of carbon dioxide by regulating the total amount that may be produced through a "cap-and-trade" system.

Section 2: The Atlasian government will provide regions with "climate credits" proportional to their share of employed Atlasians, which will be distributed as regions see fit within their boundaries. The Atlasian government will auction "carbon credits" on the commodities market competitively.

Section 3: These credits may be bought, sold and otherwise transferred among the companies that receive them as they see fit at market based prices.

Section 4: The total level of CO2 credits issued to the regions by the Atlasian government will equal to 98.5% of the total amount of CO2 produced credits issued in the previous year, with the goal of meaningful, long term reduction. The total amount of credits issued in the first year after adoption of this legislation will equal 97% of all carbon taxed by Atlasia in 2008, whether domestically or under carbon import taxation.

Section 5: The Carbon Tax and Carbon Import Tax are repealed.

Section 6: Foreign companies will be allowed to purchase carbon credits on the Atlasian market in the same way a domestic company would.

Section 7: This carbon regulating scheme will last for a maximum minimum of 10 years, after which it will be evaluated again and renewed according to new demands and goals.

[Franzl]

Any comments?

[Franzl]

As nobody seems to want to comment, and it has been 24 hours since I put up my proposal, I wish to call a final vote on this legislation.

[HappyWarrior]

On the final vote:

AYE

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Franzl]

We can't even get enough votes to pass in 24 hours?

[Smid]

Aye.

[Bacon King]

Abstain. It's a fine bill but I don't see why the current tax system isn't sufficient.

[Lief 🗽]

Nay. As Bacon King said, it's a good bill, but I prefer the current carbon tax system.

[RI]

Aye.

[Franzl]

This bill has passed. I'd appreciate if the PPT would declare that.

[HappyWarrior]

Now awaiting the President.

[Purple State]

This seems much less comprehensive than the current CO2 legislation we have. What is wrong with keeping that?

[Franzl]

This seems much less comprehensive than the current CO2 legislation we have. What is wrong with keeping that?

I feel that the a market based system that clearly defines how much carbon is to be produced and allows companies to compete for those rights ultimately is a more just and effective way of dealing with the problem.

[Purple State]

This seems much less comprehensive than the current CO2 legislation we have. What is wrong with keeping that?

I feel that the a market based system that clearly defines how much carbon is to be produced and allows companies to compete for those rights ultimately is a more just and effective way of dealing with the problem.

Fair enough. I do think it could use a few adjustments in the next Senate, including defining penalties for emitting beyond the credits you have purchased, how the foreign purchase of credits would work, etc. Perhaps it would be best for a veto and a recalibration in the next Senate? Otherwise we risk getting stuck with less clear, less comprehensive legislation.

[Franzl]

This seems much less comprehensive than the current CO2 legislation we have. What is wrong with keeping that?

I feel that the a market based system that clearly defines how much carbon is to be produced and allows companies to compete for those rights ultimately is a more just and effective way of dealing with the problem.

Fair enough. I do think it could use a few adjustments in the next Senate, including defining penalties for emitting beyond the credits you have purchased, how the foreign purchase of credits would work, etc. Perhaps it would be best for a veto and a recalibration in the next Senate? Otherwise we risk getting stuck with less clear, less comprehensive legislation.

Well, that's certainly something I agree with. We don't have anything there for emitting beyond the issued credits. That could be a problem.

Not sure about the foreign purchasing aspect....why would that be a problem? Don't think they would purchase credits any differently than companies based in Atlasia.


I wouldn't mind a veto for the reason you outlined here, though. I do wish, however, that you had spoken about this matter before the legislation was called to a vote!

The President should decide this matter....I'll just say: If vetoed, I will not seek to override.

[Lief 🗽]

The 19th amendment gives President Bgwah the power to amend the bill to include something about a penalty for emitting beyond issued credits, if he wishes to.

[Franzl]

The 19th amendment gives President Bgwah the power to amend the bill to include something about a penalty for emitting beyond issued credits, if he wishes to.

That'd be an even better idea.

[Purple State]

This seems much less comprehensive than the current CO2 legislation we have. What is wrong with keeping that?

I feel that the a market based system that clearly defines how much carbon is to be produced and allows companies to compete for those rights ultimately is a more just and effective way of dealing with the problem.

Fair enough. I do think it could use a few adjustments in the next Senate, including defining penalties for emitting beyond the credits you have purchased, how the foreign purchase of credits would work, etc. Perhaps it would be best for a veto and a recalibration in the next Senate? Otherwise we risk getting stuck with less clear, less comprehensive legislation.

Well, that's certainly something I agree with. We don't have anything there for emitting beyond the issued credits. That could be a problem.

Not sure about the foreign purchasing aspect....why would that be a problem? Don't think they would purchase credits any differently than companies based in Atlasia.


I wouldn't mind a veto for the reason you outlined here, though. I do wish, however, that you had spoken about this matter before the legislation was called to a vote!

The President should decide this matter....I'll just say: If vetoed, I will not seek to override.

Does the foreign clause refer to foreign companies with factories in Atlasia? Or is that as a way to cover the repeal of the import tax?

If it's for the latter reason, the bill would be incredibly harmful, as foreign nations could simply shut down our national production through massive buy-ups, forcing us to import. To avoid that you would have to provide credits covering all carbon emission worldwide which would be kinda pointless.

Sorry for not speaking up earlier. It's tough to run an Assembly, a Convention, and help you guys out in the Senate. In a few days this will be my main concern.

[bgwah]

I don't see any good justification for replacing the current system

veto

[Franzl]

As promised, I will not attempt an override, and I look forward to discussing the issue in the next Senate.