Environmental Policy Act of 2009 (Final Vote)

[Franzl]

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?

Neither, I think. Lief prefers to keep the "Environmental Policy Act of 2007" as it is.

Should my amendment not be accepted by the Senate, then I will also join Lief in rejecting any repeal.

[Lief 🗽]

Franzl is correct; I like the 2007 Act as is, and see no reason to change or repeal it (except for section 3).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye. If we can't eliminate it, at least we can neuter it.

[MasterJedi]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

[Franzl]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

[SPC]

On Franzl's Amendment:

Aye 5 (Happywarrior, Franzl, SPC, PiT, Masterjedi)
Nay 3 (DWTL, RealisticIdealist, Lief)
Yet to Vote 2 (BaconKing, Smid)

[MasterJedi]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

True, I did not think of that.

I change my vote to Aye. I think we should PM realisticidealistic so he knows about this, he'd probably change his vote then!

[Smid]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

Thanks for the clarification, it was confusing language and I was wondering about the double negatives.

A quick query - would the increase in the gasoline tax/fuel excise be limited to petrol/gasoline, or would it include other fuel types such as biodiesel and fuel that contains ethanol? Leaving the level of taxation constant on biodiesel and fuel with an ethanol content (or at least an ethanol content of more than 5 or 10%) would consequently make that fuel cheaper and therefore create an incentive for people to convert their engines/buy cars which can run on these types of fuel. The tax on gasoline could also be funnelled into a subsidy for converting engines and/or new cars using those types of fuel. A subsidy would require a further, future amendment but I'd still like a clarification on the extent of the additional fuel tax.

[RI]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

True, I did not think of that.

I change my vote to Aye. I think we should PM realisticidealistic so he knows about this, he'd probably change his vote then!

I ended up voting nay because I didn't really want to repeal any of it, like Lief. However, if we adopt Smid's clarifications on the gas tax and delineate that the funds generated would go directly towards alternative energy promotion/conversion/research, I would be willing to change my vote.

I think the bill as of now does plenty to slash down fossil fuels, but it doesn't do enough to boost alternatives.

[HappyWarrior]

As of this moment the amendment at the vote is passing.

[SPC]

As of this moment the amendment at the vote is passing.

Only 5 is needed to pass?

[HappyWarrior]

As of this moment the amendment at the vote is passing.

Only 5 is needed to pass?

Oh my mistake, I did'nt pay attention to the names listed on your count.  I thought it was'nt up to date on MasterJedi changing his vote.  Pardon me.

[Franzl]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

Thanks for the clarification, it was confusing language and I was wondering about the double negatives.

A quick query - would the increase in the gasoline tax/fuel excise be limited to petrol/gasoline, or would it include other fuel types such as biodiesel and fuel that contains ethanol? Leaving the level of taxation constant on biodiesel and fuel with an ethanol content (or at least an ethanol content of more than 5 or 10%) would consequently make that fuel cheaper and therefore create an incentive for people to convert their engines/buy cars which can run on these types of fuel. The tax on gasoline could also be funnelled into a subsidy for converting engines and/or new cars using those types of fuel. A subsidy would require a further, future amendment but I'd still like a clarification on the extent of the additional fuel tax.

I apologize for not clarifying that. I intended for that to only include gasoline.

[Smid]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

Thanks for the clarification, it was confusing language and I was wondering about the double negatives.

A quick query - would the increase in the gasoline tax/fuel excise be limited to petrol/gasoline, or would it include other fuel types such as biodiesel and fuel that contains ethanol? Leaving the level of taxation constant on biodiesel and fuel with an ethanol content (or at least an ethanol content of more than 5 or 10%) would consequently make that fuel cheaper and therefore create an incentive for people to convert their engines/buy cars which can run on these types of fuel. The tax on gasoline could also be funnelled into a subsidy for converting engines and/or new cars using those types of fuel. A subsidy would require a further, future amendment but I'd still like a clarification on the extent of the additional fuel tax.

I apologize for not clarifying that. I intended for that to only include gasoline.

On the clarification that it will only be on petrol/gasoline and not other products and additives such as biodiesel and ethanol, I shall support the amendment.

Aye.

[HappyWarrior]

At the moment the amendment is passing by a 6-3 margin with one Senator not voting yet.

[Purple State]

At the moment the amendment is passing by a 6-3 margin with one Senator not voting yet.

Doesn't that mean it has passed?

[HappyWarrior]

At the moment the amendment is passing by a 6-3 margin with one Senator not voting yet.

Doesn't that mean it has passed?

Yea it does.

[Franzl]

I hope Smid doesn't mind if I take his idea. (But I think he'll be in bed in Australia at the moment , and I'd like to get it through.)

Amendment:

Section 1: The Atlasian government will prohibit the sale of incandescent lightbulbs effective January 1, 2010.

Section 2: The gas tax increase of $0.25 will only apply to gasoline. The taxation of other energy forms will not be changed.

[RI]

As I said before, I'd like some clarification as to where the tax money will be going.

[Franzl]

As I said before, I'd like some clarification as to where the tax money will be going.

the gas tax, which has already been approved, can be used for a variety of projects. Personally, I'd just leave it open....and use it for stuff like: road construction, education, etc.

If you'd like to use it for something specific, please propose an amendment. I'm more than happy to listen to it

[Bacon King]

aye ftr on the previous amendment

[RI]

As I said before, I'd like some clarification as to where the tax money will be going.

the gas tax, which has already been approved, can be used for a variety of projects. Personally, I'd just leave it open....and use it for stuff like: road construction, education, etc.

If you'd like to use it for something specific, please propose an amendment. I'm more than happy to listen to it

Alrighty then. I propose the following amendment. Frazl's amendment would henceforth read:

Section 1: The Atlasian government will prohibit the sale of incandescent lightbulbs effective January 1, 2010.

Section 2: The gas tax increase of $0.25 will only apply to gasoline. The taxation of other energy forms will not be changed.

Section 3: All revenue from said tax will be reused as a subsidy for alternative energy usage.

(a) 50% of funds shall be allocated as a subsidy for the purchase of alternative energy vehicles.
*(i) Alternative energy shall be defined as non-gasoline consuming such as, but not limited, to ethanol, solar, and fuel cell technologies.
*(ii) Any person who seeks to purchase an alternative energy vehicle shall have up to one half of the cost of the vehicle reimbursed upon completion of the transaction.

(b) 25% of funds shall be allocated for the conversion of gasoline engines to ethanol usage.
*(i) Any person who seeks to convert a gasoline-powered vehicle to an ethanol-powered vehicle shall have up to one half of the cost of the conversion reimbursed upon completion.

(c) 25% of funds shall be allocated for the research of alternative energy technologies in vehicles.
*(i) Any person who seeks to research alternative energy technologies for their usage in vehicles may receive a grant of up to $100,000. Any money not used for alternative energy research will be recollected.

[HappyWarrior]

If Franzl is open to it I will happily bring it up for a vote as one amendment.

[Franzl]

If Franzl is open to it I will happily bring it up for a vote as one amendment.

Absolutely, I accept it.

Great work, realisticidealist.

[HappyWarrior]

Alright, on the realisticidealist/Franzl amendment:


_________________________________________________________________________

AYE