First things first. Offered as a friendly amendment: Section 4, Subsection 2, Clause 2, b should read "b.) Multiple-
story apartment buildings." (Spelling error correction.)
Considering the obvious deficiencies of ethanol, I motion to strike Section 1, Clause 3.
I would also motion to strike Section 2.
Maybe more later...
Honestly, I have a problem with just about all of Section 1 except, perhaps, for the CAFE standards (1-1). Requiring hybrids sounds like a good idea, but honestly, with all the tax breaks we've passed combined with the carbon tax, I'd guess that the number of non-hybrid cars being sold in Atlasia right now are already under 25%.
Further, hybrid technology is likely to be highly outdated by 2021. We'd be propping up a less earth-friendly technology by legislation.
Ethanol is a fine short term solution to help reduce gas consumption. Similarly, flex-fuel is good in the short term. But, just as with the hybrid technology, this is likely to be a less-than-optimal solution by 2020.
I think that eventually, out of necessity, cars will have to move toward an all electric model. If this is combined with (1) a battery technology capable of achieving ranges of ~300 miles as with a gas powered car, and (2) a fast-charge technology where vehicles need to be plugged in for minutes, rather than hours, and (3) a proliferation of solar cells to ensure that these cars are being powered by renewable sources, we've got a real, lasting solution that gets us out of Middle Eastern affairs, cures our gas addiction, and saves our planet's atmosphere.
This should be cost effective by 2020, but only if the government does not actively work to prevent it. I fear that's what a good portion of section 1 does. It's like the Reagan administration passing a bill requiring all cars to have a tape deck standard by 2007.
I agree with Senator Spade on Section 2. Really, I think that we can move toward quieter snowmobiles to eliminate the main concern of noise pollution.
I don't have any strong objections to Section 3.
I'd like to see Section 4 stricken in its entirity. I do not support making "regular" light bulbs
illegal. I think the free market is doing a terrific job in making them obsolete, but honestly, in the case of dimmable lights, the technology just isn't there yet. (As someone who's shopped for and bought dimmable florescents, I can testify to the fact that they suck balls hardcore.)
As for making electric water heaters illegal...how the hell do you think people are going to heat the water for their homes? There are parts of the country where solar simply is not a workable option, and not every home has access to a natural gas line. It's just not realistic to make electric heaters
illegal at this point.
No problem with Section 5 as written.
Section 6 is ... unrealistic. I would support a requirement that for every tree cut down,
one or more must be planted, not two.
