The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Dereich]

Is there a reason to assume that the regional government could better handle these parks then the federal government could?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think the feds already maintain many of these parks as it is, am I right? If we want to return control to the region, then we can discuss that, but I am unsure the feds would even want to sell their stake in the parks.

[Donerail]

Y'all could table this... I never got around to refining it and making it nice legislation and suitable and such.

[Dereich]

That works and we need to get through this backlog. I motion to table this bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't think we should bother with a motion to table. I rather like the lack of procedural red-tape that exists in the Imperial Legislature.

[Adam Griffin]

In my occasional updating of the Wiki, I noticed that there have only been three bills come forth in the past two months: one of them was vetoed, and the other two (2013 Budget & Disability Employment Act) were just passed days ago.

CHOP CHOP!



Of course, a lot of this blame can be put on Ben Kenobi's shoulders

[Dereich]

Ok then, motion withdrawn. Zanas?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh, you guys!

[Dereich]

You know, we should do more then one bill at a time. It'd get rid of this backlog faster, and I doubt any of us are unable to handle the stress of doing two things at once.

[Velasco]

Hello, Legislators. I think that Dereich is right. It would be necessary to advance a bit with the processing of these unsolved matters. I hope to be able to get up to date soon.

[Zanas]

All right, I guess we'll just have to say nobody sponsored the Parks We Can Be Proud Of Act anymore, and adjourn it.

So I'm bringing the three other bills that need sponsoring to the floor now. Read them well and if there is a similar situation than with the Parks one, let nobody sponsor them and move on.

-Clean Power Act : needs sponsoring

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Congressional Elections Act : needs sponsoring

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Annexation of the states of Coahuila and Tamaulipas : needs sponsoring

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JerryArkansas]

I will sponsor the clean power act

[Zanas]

Alright, so to begin with, the so-called Clean Power Act doesn't promote clean power at all, because nuclear power is only clean if you look at it with an extremely short-sighted view. What do you do with nuclear waste ? And I mean : 10% of nuclear waste is the actual product of nuclear "combustion" production (yeah, it's rather fission than combustion), but 90% of the waste is all the extra waste coming from the human activity necessary around it, like clothings, protections, and so on.

All this waste, well, we don't really know what to do with it right now. Either we export it to low-wage countries (shame on us for that, right ?), or we're planning on burying it very deep under our ground and keeping track of it. But who can affirm that we are really going to keep good track of it for centuries, even millennia ? And do you, as a Legislator, want to be responsible for a nuclear disaster in 900 years when someone drills right into a nuclear disposal site ? And even if we do keep good track of it for centuries, how are we sure this nuclear waste doesn't leak out and spread and render the whole region uninhabitable ? We have good containment ? Yeah, right... Are you gonna bet on that and bury it right under your home that you're gonna bequeath your children ? Your grand-grand children ?

Unless someone amends it to contain a financing for a fitting containment to ship any nuclear waste right into the Sun (I still think it's the utter best option, if viable), I'll be Ixnay on this one.

[JerryArkansas]

I would offer an amendment that states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Velasco]

I would offer an amendment that states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are kidding, don't you? With the due respect, I think that it's a matter too serious to treat it carelessly. On the other hand, sending nuclear residues to the Dark Side of the Moon would be prohibitively expensive and I don't believe that PiT was ready to sanction it.

[Dereich]

I'm not aware of any movement to create a federal congress, so I'm not sure that we need to pursue the congressional elections act

[Velasco]

I think I'm not ready to sponsor any of these acts, though some touch points that this Legislature should debate thoroughly. I believe that to worry about the state of the protected areas in our region and having sources of clean energy are questions of enough importance and I acknowledge the merit of the Legislators SJoyce and Ben Kenobi in seeing it.

Nevertheless, in the question of the Regional Parks Network exists a potential conflict of competences between us and the Federal Government, as it has been noted. I agree with Zanas in which nuclear power of fission raises more problems than it solves. The potential risks -See Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima- and the unsolved question of the waste are serious inconveniences. Only in the case that Lovelock is right and we're really condemned to return to the Middle Ages in the future due to the consequences of the Global Warming I would consider it, in other case I'm not willing to sponsor new fission plants.

I'd like to know if it's possible to ask somewhere about the state of the protected areas in our region. I think that if the Federal Government manages them well there's no question. Regardless, I'm open to hear proposals to expand our Park network, even if this supposes creating a regional one, besides the National Parks (I think it wouldn't be so expensive after all). As for sources of energy, I think we should promote new legislation on renewables.

I expressed several times my vocal opposition to the annexation of Cohauila and Tamaulipas and I don't see the point in creating a Federal Congress in Atlasia. In spite of my support in general lines to the new administration in Nyman, I will be opposed to the annexation of Canada (don't they even try to ask Canadians?) or any other territory. Our republic is sufficiently extensive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like the Clean Power Act, though the cost of commissioning these reactors is one obvious issue to me. I would suggest decommissioning old reactors and selling off whatever we can (other than the waste itself, of course). I doubt that would suffice to pay for the sheer number of new reactors, though.

[Velasco]

Are you thinking of nominting someone to cover the vacant seat?

[Dereich]

     I like the Clean Power Act, though the cost of commissioning these reactors is one obvious issue to me. I would suggest decommissioning old reactors and selling off whatever we can (other than the waste itself, of course). I doubt that would suffice to pay for the sheer number of new reactors, though.

Well if this act https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Nuclear_Power_Advancement_Act
is still in force (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), the federal government will cover 20% of those replace dirty fuels.

Oh, and to Zanas and Velesco's concerns the federal government agreed here https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Nuclear_Waste_Reprocessing_Act
to cover 75% of the cost of reprocessing as opposed to directly disposing of nuclear waste. So I say we go with that over shooting it to the moon. I see no reason to support this act right now, although I certainly think it could be toned down to help ease the minds of our Labor legislators and the burden on taxpayers.

[Velasco]

I can see the good intention of these dispositions, but unluckily they are not enough. Many of the resultant -and extremely dangerous- isotopes of the process of nuclear fission disintegrate completely in thousands of years. Even if the nuclear waste is well isolated in a secure place, in a so prolonged period of time anything could happen. Material suffer corrosion and conditions may change in a way that the place couldn't be safe anymore. This, besides the radioactive fugues, is the main problem of the energy produced by the nuclear fission of cores of uranium and plutonium. The nuclear reactors of new generation are very safe, it is possible to argue, but when an accident happens, consequences are catastrophic. There are areas around Fukushima that won't be able to be populated in decades and centuries.

On the other hand, the construction of new nuclear plants is very expensive -partly due to the great security measures that are necessary to implement- and I can't see who's gonna want to buy the old plants. It sounds a bit unrealistic to me, honestly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Are you thinking of nominting someone to cover the vacant seat?

     As far as I know, Duke hasn't vacated his seat yet. VP swears in first Friday of the following month.

[JerryArkansas]

I would like to offer this amendment that states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dereich]

Apparently most or all of these are supposed to be built in Texas? And 50 plants seems like way too much. Much of this doesn't make much sense to me so I'm gonna try to amend it.

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I love nuclear power. I certainly think 11 is more feasible than 50, but it all depends on the cost and demand for it. I don't know what the original bill is referring to though - the counties at least. It isn't saying we need 4 power plans in Carson county, right?

Also, I will hold my seat until I swear in unless there is someone waiting in the wings that is ready to take it. It's your call, PiT.