Environmental Policy Act of 2009 (Final Vote)

[RI]

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

[RI]

Nay

[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.

[RI]

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

[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.

[RI]

Aye

[RI]

Vote is at 5-1 with Lief, BaconKing, DWTL, and PiT yet to vote.

I would also like to suggest that we retitle this bill once we do come to the final agreement.

[RI]

7-2-1 on the amendment. It has passed.

Come on, I encourage the Senate to not sink into inactivity again, let's keep the ball rolling.

I was waiting for HappyWarrior. I'd like to get a vote on Smid's amendment as soon as possible.

[RI]

Aye.

[RI]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

[RI]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

Only on the amendment. Not the bill yet. Let's hope we get some consensus though.

Very true. It still makes me excited, though.

I think we will see a good margin on this bill. Some others....not so much, however.

[RI]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

Only on the amendment. Not the bill yet. Let's hope we get some consensus though.

Consensus for the sake of consensus is useless.

True. I'd rather some of these repeals be tabled right off the bat than have you all trying to create compromises that gut useful legislation for the purpose of consensus.

With one more vote, we could have tabled the HIV/AIDS bill, but alas, it was not to be.

[RI]

I'd like to propose that we retitle the bill, as it has mostly isn't a repeal anymore seeing as it keeps the majority of the original bill. As such, I move that we change the title to the Environmental Policy Act of 2009.

[RI]

As such, I move that we change the title to the Environmental Policy Act of 2009.

I agree with realisticidealist.

Do we need a vote to rename the bill?

[RI]

I think it looks better this way...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RI]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

I was thinking that the individual regions could deal with the specifics of which vehicles would be subsidized which amount and whatnot. It seems, to me, a bit too much micromanagement on our part.

[RI]

As SPC has accepted the name change, I don't believe that there are any other amendments, so I am calling for a final vote as soon as possible on this bill.

[RI]

Aye.

[RI]

This is passing now as well.

[RI]

I've changed the name to reflect the current status. It would be nice if the thread was retitled too. Please.