HB 26.15 No Subsidies for Fossil Fuels Act

[Left Wing]

Aye

[Rep Jessica]

Aye

[OBD]

Aye.

I object. Simply put, this seems like far too much money to use for subsidies.

Could you clarify the issue?

[The Dowager Mod]

Aye.

[Poirot]

aye
The goal was to propose a reallocation and that does it. We could always tweak it afterwards if there are issues.

[SevenEleven]

Aye.

I object. Simply put, this seems like far too much money to use for subsidies.

Could you clarify the issue?

Direct fossil fuel subsidies are in excess of $20 billion annually. These subsidies should be eliminated, of course, but using it to further subsidize energy costs for households that are likely already subsidized is both wasteful and counterproductive.

As a general rule, subsidizing something creates more of it, so reducing energy costs can lead to wasteful habits.

[OBD]

Aye.

I object. Simply put, this seems like far too much money to use for subsidies.

Could you clarify the issue?

Direct fossil fuel subsidies are in excess of $20 billion annually. These subsidies should be eliminated, of course, but using it to further subsidize energy costs for households that are likely already subsidized is both wasteful and counterproductive.

As a general rule, subsidizing something creates more of it, so reducing energy costs can lead to wasteful habits.

Ultimately, I don't think the marginal decrease in efficient energy use among lower-income families outweighs the benefits of a reduction in energy costs or at the least, a maintaining of affordable energy prices. It's also a compromise that I think can bring some representatives who might not otherwise support the bill into the fold - it provides support for working-class Atlasians, while also sending needed investment to renewable energy.

[Mike Thick]

Kind of see both sides on this one. If you are interested in reducing the deficit, though, getting rid of this seems like basically the perfect place to start

[OBD]

Kind of see both sides on this one. If you are interested in reducing the deficit, though, getting rid of this seems like basically the perfect place to start

Ah yeah, budgetary concerns might play a role here. If necessary, I'm willing to cut out the renewable energy subsidies and a part of the energy cost subsidies if it's needed to balance the budget, though IDK where other reps stand on this.

[Rep Jessica]

Kind of see both sides on this one. If you are interested in reducing the deficit, though, getting rid of this seems like basically the perfect place to start

It's weird to see the left go on and on about the budget and argue for less for the poor and little guy. I say lets go after the people that outsource jobs and screw over Atlasia first for once I say.

[Mike Thick]

Kind of see both sides on this one. If you are interested in reducing the deficit, though, getting rid of this seems like basically the perfect place to start

It's weird to see the left go on and on about the budget and argue for less for the poor and little guy. I say lets go after the people that outsource jobs and screw over Atlasia first for once I say.

Do we have to pick? If we're spending $20 bil on this now, $10B in continued spending on different things probably helps Atlasians more than the $20B did when it was going straight into oil executives' coffers.

I would probably eliminate part of the subsidy entirely, and dedicate the remaining half to something that helps ordinary people more than corporate welfare.

[Joseph Cao]

Ted hasn't closed the amendment vote, so: by a vote of 5-1-0-3, the amendment is adopted.

Kind of see both sides on this one. If you are interested in reducing the deficit, though, getting rid of this seems like basically the perfect place to start

Ah yeah, budgetary concerns might play a role here. If necessary, I'm willing to cut out the renewable energy subsidies and a part of the energy cost subsidies if it's needed to balance the budget, though IDK where other reps stand on this.

Generally speaking, I think that would depend quite a bit on the state of our renewable-energy sector and whether it's currently in a position to transition to providing energy for millions of Atlasians who would previously have relied solely or primarily on fossil fuels. If they need the subsidies to support this transition, I'd opt for that but phase the subsidies out after a few years.

[SevenEleven]

Unless we can justify these subsidies, I think it's best to go with the original Senate Bill that passed unanimously. There are already a lot of local, state and regional subsidies.

[Mike Thick]

Ted hasn't closed the amendment vote, so: by a vote of 5-1-0-3, the amendment is adopted.

Ack, good catch. Thanks.

Generally speaking, I think that would depend quite a bit on the state of our renewable-energy sector and whether it's currently in a position to transition to providing energy for millions of Atlasians who would previously have relied solely or primarily on fossil fuels. If they need the subsidies to support this transition, I'd opt for that but phase the subsidies out after a few years.

I guess the question is how much this is going to actually affect prices. If we're going to be forcing the energy sector belly-up, it would probably be good to have some kind of transition in place. If it's only going to move the needle a little bit (which I think is more likely) you probably don't need to do as much.

Maybe we could eliminate some of the subsidies, and shift the rest to a cost support that sunsets out over a period of a few years.

[SevenEleven]

Instead of subsidies (or in addition to a reduced amount of), why not a scaling tax rebate for households that reduce energy use year to year?

[Poirot]

I guess the question is how much this is going to actually affect prices. If we're going to be forcing the energy sector belly-up, it would probably be good to have some kind of transition in place. If it's only going to move the needle a little bit (which I think is more likely) you probably don't need to do as much.

Wasn't there a law passed to take control of energy companies (red green deal)? With that it mind, it would be good for the state for the value of energy companies to go down. It would then cost much less for the state to buy a majority control.

[Mike Thick]

Any new thoughts, guys? Since we just adopted the RGND, may want to consider how that impacts this bill.

[Poirot]

I guess the question is how much this is going to actually affect prices. If we're going to be forcing the energy sector belly-up, it would probably be good to have some kind of transition in place. If it's only going to move the needle a little bit (which I think is more likely) you probably don't need to do as much.

Wasn't there a law passed to take control of energy companies (red green deal)? With that it mind, it would be good for the state for the value of energy companies to go down. It would then cost much less for the state to buy a majority control.

Does this bill have an impact on the value of energy companies ? I don't want the value to go higher since some energy companies will have a majority of public participation. If there is no impact, my questioning is not relevent. If the value goes down it will cost less to take control is some companies.

[Rep Jessica]

Fossil fuels are literally one of the greatest economic drivers on this planet for wealth creation and betterment of nations. It is a shame that we have to put a knife through the heart of what has driven human progress for the past 300 years.

Hopefully with the support of nuclear, fusion and other tech we will be able to maintain our civilization with high standards in the future. It is my hope we can continue to do so.

[Mike Thick]

I guess the question is how much this is going to actually affect prices. If we're going to be forcing the energy sector belly-up, it would probably be good to have some kind of transition in place. If it's only going to move the needle a little bit (which I think is more likely) you probably don't need to do as much.

Wasn't there a law passed to take control of energy companies (red green deal)? With that it mind, it would be good for the state for the value of energy companies to go down. It would then cost much less for the state to buy a majority control.

Does this bill have an impact on the value of energy companies ? I don't want the value to go higher since some energy companies will have a majority of public participation. If there is no impact, my questioning is not relevent. If the value goes down it will cost less to take control is some companies.

I think any impact on the value of the companies will be pretty marginal.

That aside, would be nice if someone who knows more about this than me could explain whether subsidizing something we already own makes sense.

[OBD]

I guess the question is how much this is going to actually affect prices. If we're going to be forcing the energy sector belly-up, it would probably be good to have some kind of transition in place. If it's only going to move the needle a little bit (which I think is more likely) you probably don't need to do as much.

Wasn't there a law passed to take control of energy companies (red green deal)? With that it mind, it would be good for the state for the value of energy companies to go down. It would then cost much less for the state to buy a majority control.

Does this bill have an impact on the value of energy companies ? I don't want the value to go higher since some energy companies will have a majority of public participation. If there is no impact, my questioning is not relevent. If the value goes down it will cost less to take control is some companies.

I think any impact on the value of the companies will be pretty marginal.

That aside, would be nice if someone who knows more about this than me could explain whether subsidizing something we already own makes sense.

I'm no expert on this issue, but wouldn't that be basically tantamount to providing more funding for it? And as I don't think the RGND explicitly abolished fossil fuel subsidies doing so here might be a good idea.

[Mike Thick]

Okay, this has been sitting on the floor for more than one full Congress now. Time to you-know-what or get off the pot.

[Rep Jessica]

Maybe it should be tabled.

[OBD]

At the very least, the original version of the bill should be passed. The RGND has not yet eliminated fossil fuel subsidies and it is a good idea to do so.

I remain open to changing the specifics of the reallocation of subsidies - perhaps it might be wise to consider that the RGND puts a lot of funds into reducing renewable energy costs, which may or may not defeat the purpose of said subsidies - but we should try to pass this. Any comments?

[Poirot]

We adopted a reallocation of funds. I've accepted it but could go with different percentages, like 5-10% between categories.