Vote to Override Veto on Env. Protection and Intermodal Transportation Act

[Gabu]

As Nym has called for this vote, here it is.

All senators in favor of overriding the Presidential Veto on the Environmental Protection and Intermodal Transportation Act, vote "yea"; all senators against, vote "nay".

[12th Doctor]

I am sorry for not voting on the original bill.

Aye

[??????????]

Nay

[Gabu]

Yea.

I am sorry for not voting on the original bill.

Not a problem.  My concern is mainly just that bills get enough votes in a reasonably short time period to either pass or fail, not that every senator votes on them.

[The Duke]

Rereading the bill, I have to vote nay.  The CAFE increase is too steep, though I really like the rest.

Nay

[Bono]

A big NAY.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

AYE

[Sam Spade]

Are we all now going to vote by "SCREAMING"? 

[Sam Spade]

I also hope that my senators (or senator) succeed in overriding this veto.

[Gabu]

Are we all now going to vote by "SCREAMING"? 

YES

[WMS]

Aye.

[Nym90]

Yea

[The Duke]

I can't believe we're two votes away from effectively ending the auto industry in this country.

[King]

Yea

I think Al should color in Wayne County, MI as Naso now...regardless of how liberal, I don't think the people of Detriot are very happy!

[DanielX]

I stongly urge all of you to vote NAY .

Since both my senators voted (one yea, one nay), i guess i'll have to urge Senators Siege40 and Defarge to vote nay.

[Jake]

This is very sad.  Hopefully Siege and Defarge will show common sense and vote Nay on this.

[The Duke]

40 mpg is way too strict.

[Defarge]

Aye

[Gabu]

I'm currently on the fence here... would increasing the mile per gallon standard by 1 per year really hurt the automotive industry that much?  I agree that it'd be way too strict if the 40 mpg rate was thrust into place immediately, but 1 mpg per year for 20 years?

Honest question; I'll admit that I don't really know much about this stuff.

[Nym90]

40 mpg is way too strict.

Even 20 years from now?

If I were proposing an immediate increase to 40 MPGs, I'd agree with you. But with the proliferation of hybrids and other technologies, I don't think a 40 MPG average is at all unrealistic in 2025.

In any event, since it IS being phased in so slowly, if there is evidence, say, 5-10 years from now that the auto industry is being wrecked by this, it can be repealed before we go all the way with it.

[The Duke]

I don't think its responsible to assume that companies will be able to meet the standards we set.  We should instead set the highest possible standard we know can be met.  Maybe we can do it, maybe we can't.

Five years from now, the standard will already be 27 mpg, 7 miles higher than it is in real life (because we just raised the mpg a few months ago).  Will hybrids have replaced traditional engines by then?  Will we have hybrid pickup trucks by then?  The only way the auto companies will be able to meet the standard in five years, forget twenty years, just five years, is to reduce weight on the vehicle, and that means having an unsafe vehicle in many cases, and in not producing that class of vehicle at all in other cases (because weight cannot be reduced significantly).

Its simple physics.  A combustion engine can produce only so much power, so to move the vehicle at a certain fuel efficiency, weight must be reduced so the vehicle can meet mpg standards.

Another consideration is practical.  The car companies don't redesign their cars every year.  They only overhaul the design every few years.  A fuel rating that changes every year will impose a tremendous cost on the auto companies, forcing them to spend more money and hire more people to meet mpg standards that will change every year for twenty years.  They simply won't be able to keep up without exorbinant costs to their operations.

[Siege40]

Aye.

Siege

[Jake]

Wow, I'm ashamed at all the senators who voted aye on this.  Absolutely pitiful show.

[DanielX]

Disturbing. Hopefully, the next senate will repeal this act.

[Gabu]

Eh... I hate to do this, as I'm generally very environmental, but I generally am against changes unless I'm fairly sure that they'll be good ones, and John Ford's argument against section 1 have convinced me that the current version of that section has too many risks associated with it for it to pass that level of certainty that I like to have.

Therefore, I reluctantly change my vote to nay.

To be fair, I'll give the "nay" voters 24 hours to change their votes to "yea" in light of this if anyone may be having second thoughts.

We really need a senatorial procedural resolution about vote-changing...