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.
