Environmental Policy Act of 2009 (Final Vote)

[HappyWarrior]

Repeal of Environmental Policy Act of 2007
FL 22-4 is repealed.

_________________________________________________________________

Sponser: SPC

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm willing to discuss eliminating Section 3.....and making Section 1 less strict (or alternatively, I'd be willing to completely eliminate Section 1 if accompanied by a pretty large increase in the gas tax).

Otherwise, I'm not prepared under any circumstances to repeal this act entirely.

[RI]

I strongly disagree with this bill. I can not see any section that warrants repeal.

[HappyWarrior]

I also see no need for this repeal

[MasterJedi]

I could support making Section 3 less excessive like maybe 25-50% reimbursment but overall I'm against repealing this act. We already have the technology for Section 1 but the car and oil companies just don't want the technology to come forward so maybe I could see pushing back the deadlines but that's it in that regard as well.

[Franzl]

The limits set in Section 1 are artificial and I don't trust that we can accurately determine what cars "must" reach, in theory.

Now, I suppose I'd be willing to keep it....if the limits were made less strict, and pushed back, etc.

How about we drop Section 1, instead, and push a big gasoline tax increase?
If somebody wants to buy a car that only gets 28 mpg...well ok, that's fine....but let's increase the federal gas tax...by....let's say, $1.50/gallon.

All depends on how much people drive and the like....and artificially setting fuel consumption limits might not benefit everyone as it should, as it setting these restrictions invariably will make automobiles more expensive, and this would only be economically sensible if enough miles are driven. That, in my opinion, would be a more market friendly alternative.

[Bacon King]

I am against this bill.

[SPC]

How about a compromise, to make it so Section 1 is less strict, Section 2 requires a consumer safety warning if it doesn't meet the requirements, rather than imprisonment, and Section 3 is repealed?

[Franzl]

How about a compromise, to make it so Section 1 is less strict, Section 2 requires a consumer safety warning if it doesn't meet the requirements, rather than imprisonment, and Section 3 is repealed?

I'm willing to compromise on Sections 1 & 3, but I don't see why Section 2 is bad. Knowingly and willingly providing bad drinking water is a crime, in my opinion, that needs to be punished.

I submit the following amendment:

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

[HappyWarrior]

How about a compromise, to make it so Section 1 is less strict, Section 2 requires a consumer safety warning if it doesn't meet the requirements, rather than imprisonment, and Section 3 is repealed?

I'm willing to compromise on Sections 1 & 3, but I don't see why Section 2 is bad. Knowingly and willingly providing bad drinking water is a crime, in my opinion, that needs to be punished.

I submit the following amendment:

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

I may be open to this change.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How about a compromise, to make it so Section 1 is less strict, Section 2 requires a consumer safety warning if it doesn't meet the requirements, rather than imprisonment, and Section 3 is repealed?

I'm willing to compromise on Sections 1 & 3, but I don't see why Section 2 is bad. Knowingly and willingly providing bad drinking water is a crime, in my opinion, that needs to be punished.

I submit the following amendment:

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

     I support this, seeing as how the bill in it's current form would likely not pass.

[SPC]

How about a compromise, to make it so Section 1 is less strict, Section 2 requires a consumer safety warning if it doesn't meet the requirements, rather than imprisonment, and Section 3 is repealed?

I'm willing to compromise on Sections 1 & 3, but I don't see why Section 2 is bad. Knowingly and willingly providing bad drinking water is a crime, in my opinion, that needs to be punished.

I submit the following amendment:

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

As I said, I think that the Atlasian consumer should be the only to decide the quality of his water, so long as he knows it is unhealthy. I don't see why the government needs to be a middle-man.

[Franzl]

Take it or leave it

[Smid]

I don't mean to make it sound like Australia has all the answers, but in relation to Section 3, our government brought in a phase-out programme a few years back.

You can purchase energy efficent bulbs that last longer and use less power - thus reducing your energy bills. There is no reason for the government to subsidise something that will save the consumer money in the long run. A better alternative is to legislate that after a certain number of years, these bulbs will no longer be able to be sold. This means that the market can ensure that production of these bulbs will meet demand by the time of the phase-out, preventing a shortage of bulbs, while simultaneously providing an incentive for bulb manufacturers to produce energy saving bulbs.

Here's the Australian government site about this:
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/lighting.html

[Franzl]

Take it or leave it

Will you accept my amendment as friendly, SPC?

If not, I'd like a vote on it.

[Lief 🗽]

The amendment would look nicer if got rid of 1a and just had the amendment replace the entire text of the original bill. Just sayin'

And I like Smid's idea re: the light bulb phase-out program.

[SPC]

While your amendment would be an improvement of the status quo, I think it would be better to have a vote on it, so we can see where the Senate stands. So, I don't accept it as friendly.

[Franzl]

I submit the following amendment:

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

I'd like to bring this amendment to a vote now.


I do support Smid's idea (and Lief is correct too ).

I'll let Smid create his own amendment about that, though, after this is done.

[HappyWarrior]

On the Amendment at vote:

AYE

[Franzl]

AYE

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay

[SPC]

Aye

EDIT: Changed my vote to aye, because it looks like the original bill won't pass.

[RI]

Nay

[Lief 🗽]

Nay.

I like the bill as is, except for a change in the section 3. I don't see a need to impose a regressive gas tax.

[SPC]

Nay.

I like the bill as is, except for a change in the section 3. I don't see a need to impose a regressive gas tax.

Wait, you like my version of the bill as is, or Franzl's amendment as is?