SENATE BILL: Atlasian Green Jobs Act (Law'd)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We can set soft target dates if we don't amend for a green energy fund. I tend to favor shua's proposal, or a hybrid of sorts, over the current wording though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You guys didn't understand what I meant.

Yes, in the process of the conversion you create jobs in construction and manufacturing of the machinery and the like. But once that is done, my point is in order to produce an equivalent amount of something using newer, greener production, or the equivalent amount of a new greener product, you likely need fewer employees to use that newer production system or produce the newer greener product, then you needed to produce the older less green technology. This same result would occur with any technological advancement regardless of how green it is. Hence why I said it should be an instant turnoff. Nor do I beleive it is necessarilly a bad thing, even in terms of economics.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I propose an amendment, based on what feeback I've heard so far:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

......

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Haven't we already had many bills on nuclear power? Wouldn't it be redundant to build both solar and wind power plants o top of the current conversation to nuclear power?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the sponsor originated Amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I honestly don't think this Bill is ready...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment 44:14 has passed.

I honestly don't think this Bill is ready...

There is most certainly other things that can be added for sure. Before, you had mentioned creating processes by which old school industry can be transformed into green industries.

To accomplish this, a sub clause could be added to number 4 to aim some of the loans toward this endevour. However, we would need to figure out a standard by which preposed transformations can be considered to "greenify" an industry to a sufficient degree to deserve such a loan. But that change is rather miniscule and it seems that a major sticking point is that the current text is fairly specific and focused on energy companies while the President seems to desire a broader focus encompasing a wider away of non-green industries and seeking to transform them. At the same time, more detail is needed to establish the processes. hmmm


Some open brainstorming on ways to spur this transformation in existing industries:
1) Incentives for efficiency in terms of energy consumption
2) Encouragement for Industrial R&D related to greener production
3) Loans and/or direct subsidies for Green investments 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We already give tax breaks to companies who are energy efficient. Remember my bill?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We already give tax breaks to companies who are energy efficient. Remember my bill?

Well, I think we need to be a bit more 'big picture' than paying people to encourage lower power bills

I suppose what it comes down to for me, is that if we want an effective Bill to really change the Atlasian economy into a greener one - it will take a lot of leg work.

When I get a moment, I'd like to work with interested Senators on this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Investi g in green technology is expensive. My bill was intended to give them inventive to invest in it for the betterment of this country long term. I think it's better for our budget than the federal government paying for it.

But don't worry , you don't have to worry about signing my bill.

I would favor federal funds being available for people to take advantage of to research green technology. I'm still wary of a flat rate to invest in X technology. Seems too simplistic.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Investi g in green technology is expensive. My bill was intended to give them inventive to invest in it for the betterment of this country long term. I think it's better for our budget than the federal government paying for it.

But don't worry , you don't have to worry about signing my bill.

I would favor federal funds being available for people to take advantage of to research green technology. I'm still wary of a flat rate to invest in X technology. Seems too simplistic.

I'm with you on this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We already give tax breaks to companies who are energy efficient. Remember my bill?

Well, I think we need to be a bit more 'big picture' than paying people to encourage lower power bills

I suppose what it comes down to for me, is that if we want an effective Bill to really change the Atlasian economy into a greener one - it will take a lot of leg work.

When I get a moment, I'd like to work with interested Senators on this.

I certainly am interested, but also a little confused.

I am somewhat familiar with the process known as value migration. It's basically a fancy term created by a business consultant to describe outsourcing and automation, though it includes much more then that as well. Basically it involves a business changing it's entire structure, design and organization to maximize competativeness and profitability. What you seem to desire is a similar change in business structure. However, I am confused on how to motivate such a change, as usually it takes strong market forces to compell such transformations, especially in existing companies (see how intransigent some old giants like GM have been in their refusal to adapt, it permeats their culture). Usually it is new competitors who come about, adapt the modern approaches and then they gain market (or value) at the expense of the old lions. 

Considering the importance of competativeness and especially considering how resistant existing companies are to break from tradition sometimes, what methods would have the desired impact?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Tax incentives, as I said early, give companies a financial incentive to upgrade and/or change their methods. It's not a perfect solution but it works. Other times, popular support can cause a change if a competitor's ideas are proving to be popular, an older company will join the bandwagon.

However, this bill doesnt really address that.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Tax incentives, as I said early, give companies a financial incentive to upgrade and/or change their methods. It's not a perfect solution but it works. Other times, popular support can cause a change if a competitor's ideas are proving to be popular, an older company will join the bandwagon.

However, this bill doesnt really address that.

Well I'd cetianly be happy to work with you if you had any amendments.  Just because I have a more liberal economic PM score doesn't mean I'm not willing to comprimise. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think geothermal should be a part (albeit small) of this bill.  Geothermal has potentially large benefits in some parts of the U.S., especially along the west coast.

We should also look into perhaps studying and determining how much renewable energy can be exploited in each region economically.  The Southeast, for example, will have the toughest time implementing renewable energy because it is rather calm and relatively cloudy there.  Furthermore, it is the worst region for geothermal potential and most hydro-electric sources have been exploited.

The same goes for the Northeast, and to some extent, the Mideast.  The Midwest and Pacific by far have the greatest renewable potential.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Tax incentives, as I said early, give companies a financial incentive to upgrade and/or change their methods. It's not a perfect solution but it works. Other times, popular support can cause a change if a competitor's ideas are proving to be popular, an older company will join the bandwagon.

However, this bill doesnt really address that.

Well I'd cetianly be happy to work with you if you had any amendments.  Just because I have a more liberal economic PM score doesn't mean I'm not willing to comprimise. 

My office is always open.

But what I was referring to was a bill I already got passed about a year ago under Purple State. We already offer private businesses to invest in clean technology. What I think this bill is trying to accomplish to spur research into different types of technologies, which is good.

That said, I think we are still going about it the wrong way. I think we should overhaul this bill to create a federal fund of sorts that offers low interest loans to companies researching these types of technologies. I think the green industry is one this country can see bloom and perhaps replace old manufacturing jobs that are never coming back. If this bill is designed to do that, not trying to beat a dead horse here, assigning a lump sum of cash to a certain industry seems silly simply because we don't know what works and doesn't work. We could also leave out something that does work, and then what happens?

At least in a fund, there is much more flexibility. If we discover one type of technology works and can be mass produced, we can borrow as much capital as needed to fund the project. If we give X number of dollars to a failed technology, then what happens?

Either I'm missing the point to this entire bill, or it needs some serious reworking before it's ready to be passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ahh, Mr. President, I am still waiting for clarification on how companies can be motivated to engaged in the transition you proposed?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apologies - I am working on possible option for consideration. Should have it ready within the next few hours.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thinking on it - I think Senator Duke's angle is the correct one for the short-term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Then shall we be expecting an amendment shortly from Senator Duke?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We'd basically be rewriting this bill if I wrote an amendment. How much should we out I'm this fund? $50 billion? And at what interest rate should we set the loans at?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well does anyone have any ideas on the amount? Polnut, MB?


As for the interest rate, my guess would be to keep it low, otherwise few will take advantage of it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Did I miss the plane to go to on the Greek Junket you guys all went on?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

OK, here's a rough amendment. It basically changes the entire bill, but so be it. I'm iffy on the interest rate. The current primate rate in the US is 3.25%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm thinking something like...

$50b package over 4 years.

$30b in loans to business - loan limits to be based on company size and a business plan - by application - application to include the purpose of the loan, and the measurable results (penalties up to double the loan amount will be payable immediately if the money goes elsewhere)
- Interest rate to also be determined by credit-worthiness - maximum of 5%pa - minimum of 2%.

$10b in grants to low-income businesses to undertake green-expansion projects - again with measurable outputs

$5b in loans to regional governments who wish to undertake their own Greening projects  

$5b in grants to community organisations to improve their green-credentials...

Thoughts??