Environmental Policy Bill of 2007
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:46:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Environmental Policy Bill of 2007
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Environmental Policy Bill of 2007  (Read 8812 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 24, 2007, 02:00:16 PM »

Environmental Policy Bill of 2007

Section 1: Energy Standards
1. CAFE standards will be raised in the following ways.
     a. Cars: Raise to 37 mpg by 2009, 47 mpg by 2011, 57 mpg by 2014
     b. Light Trucks: 27 mpg by 2009, 37 mpg by 2011, 45 mpg by 2014
     c. SUV: A standard of 25 mpg is instituted effective 2009, 38 mpg by 2011, 50 mpg by 2014
2. All companies must have 30% of all their cars being sold in the US by 2010 be hybrids; 45% by 2014; 55% by 2017, and 75% by 2021.
3. 15% of all fuel used for cars used must be ethanol by 2015, 40% by 2018, and 65% by 2020.
4. 15% of cars must be flex-fuel cars by 2015, 40% by 2018, and 65% by 2020.

Section 2: Snowmobiles in Public Parks
1. It shall hereby be illegal to use a snowmobile in any publicly protected national area.
2. Any person using a snowmobile in a publicly protected national area will be fined a minimum of $1,000 or a maximum of $5,000 per violation.

Section 3: Water Purity Standards
1. No person shall supply for drinking any water that he knows does not meet the primary drinking water regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Any person who violates clause 1 of this act shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or fined not more than $10,000, or both.

Section 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Policy
Subsection 1: Light Bulbs
1. The production and/or sale of incandescant light bulbs will be illegal effective January 1, 2010.
2. Persons wishing to switch from incandescant light bulbs to more energy-effecient light bulbs will be reimbursed in whole for all related expenses effective immediately upon the passage of this act into law until January 1, 2012.
Subsection 2: Electric Water Heating Systems
1. Effective January 1, 2010, the sale or production of electric water heating systems in all newly constructed homes, or those in the process of initial construction, will be illegal.
2. An exception will be made for:
a.) Components of solar water heating systems which rely on electricity.
b.) Multiple-storey apartment buildings.
3. The federal government will reimburse in full the costs of all citizens switching to a different water heating system until January 1, 2012.

Section 5: Double Glazed Windows
1. Effective January 1, 2010, all newly constructed homes, or those in the process of initial construction, must have double glazed windows in all instances where the window is facing an outside area.

Section 6: Sustainable Development in Forestry
1. For every tree cut down by any company, co-operative, or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative, or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2007, 02:01:36 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2007, 04:31:00 PM by Sam Spade »

Considering the obvious deficiencies of ethanol, I motion to strike Section 1, Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

I would also motion to strike Section 2.

Maybe more later...
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2007, 07:54:07 PM »

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.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2007, 07:58:15 PM »

I can agree to strike parts of Section 1 not relating to CAFE standards.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2007, 11:03:57 PM »

I can agree to strike parts of Section 1 not relating to CAFE standards.

And hopefully the friendly amendment spelling correction too.  Smiley
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2007, 01:09:52 PM »

I move that section six be amended as follows...

Section 6: Sustainable Development in Forestry
1. For every tree cut down by any company, co-operative, or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative, or individual must plant a tree of the same species in the same forest or other woodland environment.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2007, 02:22:02 PM »

Section one seems pretty drastic, but I can live with most of it, Just not the part about 75% hybrids by 2021. I agree with Senator Moderate's assertion that by then, Hybrid technology will simply be less efficient than the leading technologies, but it will be propped up by word of law. I agree to strike those portions.

I agree to strike Section 2

I have to say that I think Section 3 is a good idea. It would go a long way to prevent what is left of water-borne illness in Atlasia.

Section 4... "Illegal" is pretty harsh, but It's a good idea, fundamentally speaking.

Section 5 is all right as is

Section 6 should be "one or more trees of the same species"
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2007, 02:33:52 PM »

I move that section six be amended as follows...

Section 6: Sustainable Development in Forestry
1. For every tree cut down by any company, co-operative, or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative, or individual must plant a tree of the same species in the same forest or other woodland environment.

Ah, excellent catch.  Certainly, I support this.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2007, 05:30:49 PM »

I would like to motion for the adopting of an amendment striking Section 2 from this legislation as a friendly amendment.

Senators shall have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2007, 06:25:57 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2007, 04:28:05 PM by Senator Sensei »

No objection
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2007, 07:31:54 AM »

I would like to motion for the adopting of an amendment striking Section 2 from this legislation as a friendly amendment.

Senators shall have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment.

I support removing it, but I doubt you'll be able to get it accepted as friendly.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2007, 04:29:46 PM »

I would like to motion for the adopting of an amendment striking Section 2 from this legislation as a friendly amendment.

Senators shall have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment.

I support removing it, but I doubt you'll be able to get it accepted as friendly.

Technically, I was rechanging my first amendment to strike Section 2 to an amendment to strike Section 2 as friendly.  Tongue 

But, according to the rules, there is no time space to discuss friendly amendments (only 24 hours is given from when I declare so) and there is actually no need that friendly amendments be taken in order like other amendments.  If I had would have drafted the legislation, I would have addressed to two issues, but no one else did.

Anyway, the motion to strike Section 2 is adopted as friendly.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2007, 04:32:00 PM »

We are now voting on this amendment.

I motion to strike Section 1, Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.



Aye.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2007, 04:41:20 PM »

Based on a consultation with the VP, I have decided to rescind the striking of Section 2 of this legislation, and will be introducing it as an amendment to vote on after this present amendment vote has concluded.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2007, 04:46:47 PM »

Aye
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2007, 07:45:39 PM »

Aye on the amendment regarding Section 1
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2007, 05:58:59 AM »

Tally on Amendment (Sam)
Aye: 3 (Sam; Sensei; Ebowed)
Nay: 0
Yet to Vote: 7 (afleitch; Brandon; Earl; Lewis; Moderate; Rob; Verily)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2007, 06:45:47 AM »

Aye.

I'll reintroduce Clause 2 with a minimum company carpark size fitted in in a moment, though.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2007, 09:01:56 AM »

Aye on the amendment.

Personally, I'd rather see Section 2 stricken and reintroduced as a separate bill to be considered.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2007, 01:14:07 PM »

Aye
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2007, 01:15:31 PM »

Result on Amendment (Sam)
Aye: 6 (Sam; Sensei; Ebowed; Lewis; Verily; Brandon)
Nay: 0
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 4 (afleitch; Earl; Moderate; Rob)

The amendment passes.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2007, 03:11:38 PM »

We are now voting on the following amendment:

I would also motion to strike Section 2.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.



Aye.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2007, 03:30:58 PM »

Nay
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2007, 08:16:13 PM »

Aye; see my previous comment on the issue. I'd rather the debate on this bill not turn into a brawl about snowmobiles.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2007, 11:38:47 PM »

Aye.  I agree with Verily here: Snowmobiles should be considered in a separate bill.  It seems out of place in this one.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 11 queries.