Talk Elections

Upon the passage of this bill:

1. The regions of Atlasia shall have six decades to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best.
1b. The federal government shall allocate sufficient funds to help the districts meet these goals.
2. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and finish the job post haste only and only if the job hasn’t been completed.
3. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.
    A. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy
4. Every Atlasian citizen is required to receive energy from the new sources if wanted and also have access to the back up sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll introduce this now but we still need to pass a senate power act.

I recommend you open up federal funds for this research as our regions are too poor to budget it themselves.

Better?

REQUIRED? Are you going to ask the Amish to wire their houses for clean energy? What if i want to use a diesel generator and create my own, non-clean power?

Seriously, this doesn't jive well with me.

Way to take it out of context.

I suggest that you re-word it, so over-serious bureaucrats don't pester the Amish.

Perhaps it should be applied to all sources of major power generation, over a certain quantity of watts or something. Wouldn't want to crush Daniel's freedoms. I think, sadly, their choice of generation is not our responsibility, in the big picture there isn't enough independant generators to make a difference.

Siege

Taking the law out of context is what makes lawyers rich. :)

Seriously, tho, this bill has some major problems due to lack of specificity, such as...

1) What constitutues an alternative source of energy?

2) What makes energy "clean" ?

3) The penalties under the law are not clearly specified.

Whatever the regions decide?

As far as penalties make a sugestion.

The problem is when you give someone 60 years the technology may change, it is difficult to predict, however, I think a definition would be good, like "Any form of energy production that produces X watts of energy, with Y or less UNITS of pollution.

Siege

This is the reason i posted this now was to get feedback.

Great idea, but we really should be more clear.
And why six decades?  Why not 3 or 2?

Time frame is certainly negotiable.

I had some ideas, and I just wanted to repost the whole shibang.

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Nuclear, Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) - Hydro, Wind, Solar, and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Volts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Volts.

Sections

1. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination or reduction of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

1b. The federal government shall allocate sufficient funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the plan is deemed feasible by the Senate.

2. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce/eliminate hazardous power generation.

3. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

3A. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small power generator of any make or model.


Siege

Seems better than mine. :)

I hoppose this. And I thik senators should really stop puting forward new bills that will all be deemed unconstitutional, and work on constitutional ammendments first.

I like some of Siege's ideas.

Texasgurl, in your original clause 2 refers to "districts" yet all the others to regions. I suggest consistency.

Well PPT JFK, I changed the term from District to Region because I thought it was a typo, district our the elected areas for Senators, and a Region is a state Government. A district has no power to make energy reforms, so I changed it. Sorry.

Siege

Yes, I realised it was a mistake, that is why I pointed it out - it could create a serious loophole regarding government refusing to pay funding to the regions as the act did not require them to.

Am I to assume texasgurl is withdrawing her version and yours is the definitive one Siege?

Well, that's up to her, but I think it is.

Siege

While I have some serious misgivings about this act, as a technical point you need to express the difference between small and large power plants in terms of Watts, not Volts.

That is correct.

Updated based on recommendations.

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Nuclear, Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) - Hydro, Wind, Solar, and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Watts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Watts.

Sections

1. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination or reduction of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

1b. The federal government shall allocate sufficient funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the plan is deemed feasible by the Senate.

2. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce/eliminate hazardous power generation.

3. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

3A. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small power generator of any make or model.


Siege

I would like to know your reasoning behind making Nuclear a hazardous or Non-Renewable Power Source?

I would have though that Chernobyl would have been a pretty good justification, though that was more due to safety lapses on the part of the Russians, it showed just how lethal nuclear energy can be when mishandled.

I do not agree with the "elimination" of non-renewable heavy pollutant power production (note no of should be between non-renewable and heavy pollutant power if I am not mistaken) as I do not think it would be foreseeably possible to rely solely on renewable energy sources, especially if nuclear power is not included  as they simply cannot produce enough power in many areas.

Also, under your list of renewable sources I believe you should also include Tidal, Wave and Geothermal energy.

I don't think in 25 years we can hope to remove all forms of polluting energy sources and I think it would be very costly to have these back up sources of energy, I think we should be still using them, but in smaller quantities.

But it hasn't been mishandled in this country. Their has only been one major nuclear accident and that was at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg. In that incident because of the good heat containment fields and radiological containment fields their was no radiation leaked into the atmosphere. Their was no contamination of any area outside the plant. Chernobyl only happened because it did not have any sort of containment field and was structurally too weak to safely contain a nuclear reactor. The reactor used in Chernobyl was too large for a containment field so instead of not building it or waiting for a large enough containment field to be built the Russian government gave the go ahead to build the plant without a containment field or the nescessary safety features need in the event of a nuclear disaster. This could not happen in Atlasia because we already have stringent safety laws concerning Nuclear power plants and any company that does not comply with these laws is penalized. So Chernobyl couldn't happen in this country and nuclear disasters would be very, very rare in a country like Atlasia.

I would also like to give you the example of France. They have the most nuclear power plants in the world but yet they have never had a major radiological incident.

All of the above is most certainly true, but if there were to be a nuclear accident (which despite its improbability is still a possibility) has the potential to have the long term effects of killing millions. That sounds quite hazardous to me.

The reason it is included is that Nuclear energy generates many tonnes of nuclear waste. This waste, in theory, should be... safer, to handle 180000 years later. This is not a good ulternative. I'll continue to adapt the legislation.

Siege

I have some serious problems with the bill proposed here.


I think this is incredibly vague.  I understand the value of trying to find a regional solution to this problem, but this part of the bill doesn't at all make it clear what the goal here is.  What is "alternative, clean energy?"


How much is sufficient?  Is there to be some kind of cap on the amount of federal funds to be allocated for this purpose?  My fear is that regions, knowing that the federal government will foot the bill for whatever "alternative, clean" energy sources they come up with, will propose some ridiculously expensive, very anti-free market plan that will force the federal government to spend far more than is anticipated at the time of this bill.


We still don't know how to tell when "the job is completed."  This portion of the bill could give the federal government wide-ranging powers to step at the end of the sixty years and shove anything down the throats of the unsuspecting regions.  We really need to have some specific job before we can talk about completing it or not.  We need to know how you're going to measure success.


Once again, we don't know what the regions need to back up.  And we still don't know how we're going to measure whether or not the regions have failed in executing this portion of the bill or not.


I don't think it's within the federal government's constitutional authority to command Atlasian citizens to buy electricty made by certain means.  And it is impossible to force citizens to get their power from two seperate energy sources.  Citizens simply get electricity.  The source of that electricity is something for the power company to figure out.

Overall, I fear that this bill's vague language would lead to any combination of the following:  nothing, something, but a cost much greater than anticipated, or higher energy costs and massive abuses of federal power.

I would also like to add the following suggestions:

1.  Atlasia should reduce her dependency on foreign oil by enacting efficiency standards by the following years: 

    a.  2010
         i. Minimum 20 MPG for vehicles over 4 tons
        ii. Minimum 25 MPG for vehicles between 2 and 4 tons.
       iii.  Minimum 30 MPG for vehicles under 2 tons.

     a.  2015
         i. Minimum 25 MPG for vehicles over 4 tons
        ii. Minimum 30 MPG for vehicles between 2 and 4 tons.
       iii.  Minimum 35 MPG for vehicles under 2 tons.

2.  Tax credit for 15% of the purchase price for hybrid vehicles.

3.  $50 million in increased funding for the discovery of alternative energy sources.

While their is a very small risk their is no way of producing enough energy for the entire nation using the resources that are excepted under the Siege-Texasgurl plan.

Four resources all of which produce very low amount of energy. Hydro is very expensive and takes alot of manpower to build and produce. You need to make a new lake, basically, for the generators to operate. Wind can only be used in areas were their is always a strong steady wind and were their is alot of land. I would also ask everyone to look into the current controversy over putting windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. Solar can only be used in areas where their is alot of sun light, like the southwest. I don't know about you but their is very little sunlight, due to clouds and shorter days, in the Fall and Winter up here in PA. That itself would rule out Solar as a very usable energy source. Biomass or Geothermal may be options. I don't know much about Biomass but I know that Geothermal can only be used in areas of volacanic activity, like Yellowstone or Hawaii, and while it has been put to good use in Iceland I don't see it creating much power here.

As General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers...

The NUM thinks that more money and resources need to be spent researching into cleaner and more efficient ways of burning coal (currently only a small fraction of the possible energy in a lump of coal is used. The vast majority is wasted), while encouraging the growth of certain renewable fuels.
The NUM thinks that the use of Oil and Natural Gas in power plants should be scaled down.

Now your support of that wouldn't be because you represent thousands of coalminers, now would it?

Yes it would be Daniel. As the head of a labour union he has to represent the intrests of those people who are part of the union he is a leader of.

It is the intention, in my view anyway to reduce the dependency on polluting inefficient fuels, and encourage CLEANER fuels, and Clean fuels. I'll prepare another draft by Wed.

Siege

Clean Energy Act of Nov. 22 2004 - Draft 3

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) – Electricity generated through the following methods Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal Wave, Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Watts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Watts.

Efficiency – Reducing the amount of pollution produced by this form of power by 20% or more.

Sections

1. Regional Planning

A. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination, reduction or regulation to increase the efficiency of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

B. The federal government shall allocate rather total or partial funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the Senate through a vote deems the plan feasible.

2. Penalties for failure of Regional Action

A. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce, eliminate or increase the efficiency of hazardous power generation.

3. Back-up

A. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

B. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Citizen Power

A. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small generator of any make or model.

B. Any citizen that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their home, or if a citizen purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 20% of the cost.

C. Any business that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their business or if a business purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 15% of the cost.

Just a few things here. I have never heard of Tidal Wave Energy Production so if you could give me the FYI on that type of power plant that would be great and the inclusion of Nuclear Fusion is pretty much unneeded considering the Fusion is aleast 35 years away from success.

Tidal wave energy is an interesting possibility. A wave is a circular spinning circle of water moving alond the ocean. Eventually it comes to the shore and 'rolls' to the beach in a wave. The idea is that if you put generators in the water, these waves will turn the small turbine and generate power. They have testing facilities for this in British Columbia. It generates very little power, but if there was a way to make is on a larger scale who knows.

Who knows about Fusion, for all we know, some nut bar in a basement in Indiannapolis could figure out how to do it, and problem solved. But the point is, it's out there, so what does it hurt to give it a nod?

Siege

Good idea.  My suggestion would be to have such plants in a cove or bay area away for tourists.  Example, New Jersey shore should have such plants back in the Intercoastal Waterway.

Add a clause on research into cleaning up fuels and making them more efficient

A comma is needed between Tidal and Wave, they are two different ways of generating electricity, a tidal wave is not so great ;).

OK Al.

Siege

Good man

^^

Clean Energy Act of Nov. 26 2004 - Draft 4

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) – Electricity generated through the following methods Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Watts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Watts.

Efficiency – Reducing the amount of pollution produced by this form of power by 20% or more.

Sections

1. Regional Planning

A. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination, reduction or regulation to increase the efficiency of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

B. The federal government shall allocate rather total or partial funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the Senate through a vote deems the plan feasible.

2. Penalties for failure of Regional Action

A. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce, eliminate or increase the efficiency of hazardous power generation.

3. Back-up

A. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

B. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Citizen Power

A. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small generator of any make or model.

B. Any citizen that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their home, or if a citizen purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 20% of the cost.

C. Any business that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their business or if a business purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 15% of the cost.

Siege

I think that this is a nice idea and a noble one at that.

However, I have concerns regarding the feasibility. It requires that the regions use all of these renewable forms of energy, but unless some serious progress is made over the next twenty-five years, I do not see it being possible to base our infrastructure solely on renewable sources of energy.

This also has some severe economic problems attached, firstly the research into these forms of energy will be expensive in itself, not to mention the establishment of all the different types of power plants all across Atlasia, no easy feat. It also incurs costs in the fact that the coal, oil, gas etc. plants must be kept in good condition as a form of back-up in case the renewable sources of energy fail, this means that the government is having to spend an absolute fortune to keep the power grid of Atlasia afloat, something I do not see being economically viable. If you can produce for me a twenty-five year forecast on the costs incurred through this bill that seems within reason to me, I will gladly vote in favour, if not, I do not feel I can.

Instead of trying to eliminate non-renewable forms of energy, we should be encouraging renewable forms by means of tax cuts and systems of this type, I do not think it is feasible within the next twenty-five years that we could rely solely on renewable forms of energy.

While this is nice in principle, I do not find it feasible.

As the Status thread of Peter Bell doesn't recognise this as on the Senate floor, I declare the debate open.

I think you should changes 5 tonnes in the first paragraph to 10 tonnes so that Clean Energy would also include certain Clean Coal technology that is making Coal operations cleaner and more effecient. The main thing is that if this piece of legislation is passed would these Clean Energy Source provide enough power. Power grids are already heading near capacity and we have seen what has happened when one power station has a surge, the power outage that went across the whole Northeast a year ago. That is why I am pushing for this Clean Coal techonology because that would enable Coal plants that are operating as of now to convert to this new energy type and provide more megawatts of power that Atlasia needs.

I know that I am not an Senator, but if I may make a request... I used to work here you know.

I would like to attach a proposal to this bill that would call for federal funding of research into the building of Mag/Lev trains.

Mag/Lev Trains are a concept that is currently being realized in Japan.  The science behind the Mag/Lev is not fantasy, indeed it is very real.

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/maglev.htm

These trains function by electro-magnetically charging a rail.  When the possitive and negative forces from train and rail interact, they repel and cause the train to lift off the rail.  This lack of friction then allows the train to be propelled forward at incredible speeds of up to 190 mph.  However, the trains are very safe and unless a severe maintinance mishap occures, the chances of derailment boarder on impossible. 

The trains would help protect the environment, as the cause no external pollution themselves and would certainly replace some airline and automobile travel.

I believe that this is a wise investment into science, the environment and the future of our nation.

I propose that this body make it a priority to fund research into this area for the next 10-15 years.  We should set as a long term priority, the construction of Mag/Lev lines btween San Francisco and San Diego and Boston and Washington D.C. by the year 2030.

I humbly ask a Senator to propose this as an ammendment to this bill.

Thank you.

Whatever the merits of mag lev trains or promoting clean energy production may or may not be, they are sufficiently different in scope that I would prefer that they be addressed in seperate bills.

I wil take my current Senate opponent's suggestion and propose an Amendment:



Mag-lev trains

1.  An increase in funding for research for Mag-Lev trains of $100 million over the next 20 years

2.  These trains are needed in the following Atlasia corridors. 
       
       a.  Houlton,ME (Canadian Border)-Bangor-Portland-Portsmouth-Boston-Providence-Hartford-New Haven-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington,DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charleston-Savannah-Jacksonville-Daytona Beach-Miami (roughly I-95)
 
            1. Spur to East Stroudsburg,PA
             2. Spur to Atlantic City, NJ
             3.  Spur to Orlando-Tampa, FL from Daytona Beach
       
      b(main).  New York-Cleveland-Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver-Salt Lake City-Reno-San Francisco (roughly I-80)

           1. Spur to Detroit, MI
                   
      b1.  Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo-Syracuse-Albany-Boston (I-90)
 
      b2. Chicago-Milwaukee-Maidson-Minneapolis-Fargo-Bismarck-Missoula-Spokane-Seattle (I-90/94) 

       c.  Candian border-Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego-Mexican border (I-5)

      d. San Diego-Phoenix-El Paso-San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans-Mobile-Tallahassee-Jacksonville (I-10)

     e. Mexican border-San Anontio-Austin-Dallas-Oklahoma City-Kansas City-Des Moines-Minneapolis-Duluth (I-35)

3.  Clause 2 shall be the top prorities.  We hope to get these in effect by 2025.  More corridors may come later

Could you please clarify clause 1:

Is it $100 million a year for 20 years or a $5 million a year for 20 years.

As a general point, could people be specific when proposing legislation that appropriates money for a number of years as to whether the appropriation is a total for all the years, or is a per year figure.

Well, my opponent knows a good idea when he sees one, I have to give him that.  Thank you, Senator, for spearheading this.

Mr. Senator if I could make a suggestion. Why don't you propose this as a seperate bill. This bill is already rather cluttered and I would rather see this as a seperate bill to be debated seperately from the Clean Energy Act.

I strongly support this legislation. I feel that alternative energy research is of paramount importance and the future of Atlasia depends upon it. This legislation will promote responsible use of energy and enhance our nation's ability to respond to future energy problems.

I wish that the Mag Lev issue be addressed in another bill, perhaps addressing restrictions on SUVs and heavy trucks, and something of the like. I suggest the Clean Transportaion Act, related, but not here.

Siege

Very well, but I request that federal funding for research into clean coal technology be a part of this bill.

I agree. I'll get on it soon.

Siege

Have you produced a definitive version of your act? It is supposed to go to a vote today and it would be nice to know which version.

I think this may be it.

See Siege40's latest comments, he said he would get right on changing something, I wasn't sure if he had done that or not.

Clean coal technology is the holdup it seems.

I'd like to point out that this proposed bill is entirely unconstitutional as the federal government does not have the right to force the regions to take any course of action whatsoever.

Well then we will give the supreme court something to do! :P

If a Region doesn't do what the Federal government wants it to do, then all the Act does is mandate that a certain Federal action will occur.  It's the same principle that has been used for setting the .08 BAL, the 55 mph speed limit, seat belt laws, etc.  The phrasing could probably use some improvement, but as far as I can tell, it would pass constitutional muster at least as far as any concerns about Regional rights might affect its Constitutionality, as it is all carrot and no stick.  In fact, I've prepared several Initiatives to present to the Southeast should this Act become law, and they are all worded so that if the promised carrot isn't presented, then certain provisions in them don't come into force.

Clean Energy Act of Dec. 4 2004 - Draft 5

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) – Electricity generated through the following methods Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Watts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Watts.

Efficiency – Reducing the amount of pollution produced by this form of power by 20% or more.

Sections

1. Regional Planning

A. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination, reduction or regulation to increase the efficiency of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

B. The federal government shall allocate rather total or partial funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the Senate through a vote deems the plan feasible.

2. Penalties for failure of Regional Action

A. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce, eliminate or increase the efficiency of hazardous power generation.

3. Back-up

A. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

B. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Citizen Power

A. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small generator of any make or model.

B. Any citizen that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their home, or if a citizen purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 20% of the cost.

C. Any business that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their business or if a business purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 15% of the cost.

5. Clean Coal

A. The Federal Government will invest 100 million dollars over 5 years into the research, and development of clean or cleaner coal technology.


_______________________________________________

Sorry I took so long. Hectic week. This should be it, and the vote should be good to go. This bill keep in mind is to encourage better energy production, and not the total elimination of polluting energies, just the reduction.

Siege

Nay.

I didn't know voting had opened, hmm, when in Rome.

Yay.

Siege

Thank you, Senator.

No problemo.

Siege

Well, with two votes already in I declare the voting open.

All Senators please vote yea, nay or abstain.

Nay.
Spending money on energy is like throwing it down the drain. Energy needs a microeconomic outlook that cannot be arrived at by government programs.

I might not be able to vote, but I strongly endorse this bill.  It means progress for our nation and security for our future through energy independence and intellegent management of our natural reasources.

Despite prior objections, I think that if we use the more efficient coal technology, it won't be such a problem.

Yea

Yea.

Aye

Aye.

Aye

()

What?

I think he posted this in the wrong window.

Still, though, he does have a point.

And that is?

Really. Look at it. Stare at it. Obsess over it. It will come to you. And boy is it profound.

LOL

That this bill gives you more economic freedom but no change in personal freedom?

With five yeas and one nay, this bill has passed.

I present it to the President for his signature.

This lost it's original intent.

VETO[/i]

You should use red ink for your vetoes Mr.President ;)

I made it 6-2-0 - there are votes on the previous page. Its immaterial though.

Yes and no. It indicates that there may be enough support for an override.

Override vote on the vetoing of this bill. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=13765.0)