SENATE BILL: Clean Carbon Communities Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you to hear that a link is broken on the wiki.


Surprisingly, I haven't watched Casablanca in months, so don't assume that I have based on the fact that this is the second time I have used it in two days (fourth time in three days if you count the IRC ).

[Napoleon]

I actually remember posting here! Wtf! I object to indexing the gas tax to inflation. I think lawmakers should be able to be held accountable for tax increases. We don't tie our income tax brackets to inflation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So is the amendment going to be offered at some point?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Friendly

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the above amendment.

[Napoleon]

I don't see any reason to eliminate the Go Green Fund. Why should we?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't see any reason to eliminate the Go Green Fund. Why should we?

This.  I also have the same problem with Section III, why should we eliminate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards?  I'll admit to not being an expert on the issue, but I'd at least like to hear Senator Nix's argument for doing so before voting on this.  However, those are my only two issues with the bill.

[Napoleon]

I'm inclined to disagree with that argument. We've established fuel economy standards because we place a priority on our environmental well-being. I don't believe that wealth allows one an opportunity to pollute at will. I despise excise taxes but am willing to keep the gas tax because it helps fund our transportation infrastructure. In that sense, its more of a user fee than a tax. But the idea that its okay to use all the gas you want because you have the money to pay for it doesn't sit well with me.

I'd prefer to maintain the Go Green Fund and related standards, if other Senators agree I will offer an amendment.

[Napoleon]

I don't think its at all fair to compare our modest standards to 55 mpg standards. I'm not suggesting we remove the gas tax, so it isn't as if we don't get the immediate impact your link refers to. I think its just as important to focus on the long term as it is the short term. I don't believe that 35 mpg can compare to 55 mpg, and hopefully my fellow Senators agree. We can keep the gas tax, and keep our fuel economy standards. The only people who will be deterred by a high gas tax are people who have to micromanage their budgets- the lower and middle classes.

[Napoleon]

Are you also proposing that we lower the gas tax?

No. I didn't intend to give that impression.

[Napoleon]

The article I've quoted implies that given our current fuel tax, we're already achieving substantial reductions in carbon emissions, reductions equivalent to what we would have achieved if we had actually implemented the 57 mpg standard that the Environmental Policy Act of 2007 had originally called for. It's not clear that re-implementing CAFE standards would have any significant effect.

Snowstalker suggested earlier that we should be careful about how this law affects Atlasian automakers and their employers. Re-introducing CAFE standards would be a substantial regulatory burden for the auto industry. Unless there's some tangible benefit to reintroducing these standards, I cannot support this policy.

I'm willing to cap the standards at current levels. Perhaps we could get the GM to describe how compliance with CAFE standards has affected automakers? If the gas tax and the fuel economy standards have the same desired effect, why not use both? If the gas tax is supposed to dictate to the market that more fuel efficient cars are used, the standards shouldn't be a problem. If all it does is discourage driving the car one already owns, which your link doesn't mention, it still has an effect on the economy because a family paid however much money for a vehicle that they are now getting less value out of.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted unless I missed an objection.


Doesn't having Cafe standards, push technology that improves on energy efficiency and such of the car that reduces the amount used? And considering that even with all the spending on high speed rail and such in Atlasia, cars are still a necessity in many areas and for those who drive only way necessary (namely the poor) a sky high gas tax as an alternative seems a bit unfair to them. One of the reasons that the tax is more effective is because it hits all cars and forces people to use them less, whereas Cafe standards only make future and new cars better.

[Adam Griffin]

Assuming the National Energy Act is the most recent relevant piece of legislation and that this is the status quo:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both policies have roughly the same effect on gasoline consumption over the long-term when used exclusively. The main difference is in the short-term: gasoline tax affects consumption immediately, whereas CAFE standards take much longer (CBO estimates it takes 14 years for policy changes to fully be felt and to be on par with reducing consumption in a similar manner as gasoline tax).

A balanced plan (CAFE + Gas Tax) is not inherently punitive to auto manufacturers and is demonstrably no better or worse for consumers than either solely a (larger) gasoline tax or (higher) CAFE standards. However, raising the gasoline tax by a relatively large amount while also preserving CAFE standards could have a negative impact on overall consumption. The same goes for a marked increases in CAFE standards when combined with a reasonable gasoline tax.

Small increases in CAFE like the ones outlined in the National Energy Act have no negligible impact on manufacturers. If CAFE standards were suddenly revised to be double (6% MPG increase every seven years as opposed to 3%) but the gasoline tax were left unchanged, then the automobile industry could see a 4-6% drop in sales over a five-year period. There would not be, however, any immediate benefit in revising the CAFE standards in terms of gasoline consumption. Increases of the gasoline tax, however, would result in immediate reductions in gasoline consumption while having virtually no impact on manufacturers, but could have unforeseen consequences on other sectors of the economy as lower-income individuals are disproportionately impacted by the tax increase.

Again, assuming that the current gasoline tax is $0.12/gallon: raising it to $0.43/gal while keeping CAFE as-is will impact consumers handily, but will not hurt the automobile sector as a whole in the long run. Pegging the tax around $0.30/gal coupled with current CAFE standards would significantly reduce any likelihood of widespread consumer detriment.

[Adam Griffin]

After inspecting the details of the Environmental Policy Act of 2007, with particular focus on Section 1 in the 2007 edition and its subsequent amending in 2009, I'll lay the following information out for consideration.

The revised CAFE standards that went into effect in 2011 (43 mpg) decreases projected car and light truck sales by 6.9% over five years when compared to the 2009 revised standards (33 mpg), adding approximately $1,300 to the cost of an average vehicle in this category.

Maintaining current CAFE standards would result in a 3.2% decrease in car and light truck sales over a five-year period when compared to its repeal. Maintaining current CAFE standards would result in a 8.7% increase in car and light truck sales over a five-year period when compared to previously repealed 2014 CAFE standards (57 mpg by 2014).

I'm assuming that since I did not see a specific reference, these CAFE standards are sans trading.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My sole objection to this was in terms of the fuel tax- then I was informed that these are the current rates in Atlasia. If Napoleon or any one else would like to look with me at ways to lower this- I'll be doing so...

As the bill stands- I find it good legislation. Encouraging good decisionmaking of private citizens by using free market incentives- to me- seems like good policy...I will be supporting this

[Napoleon]

My sole objection to this was in terms of the fuel tax- then I was informed that these are the current rates in Atlasia. If Napoleon or any one else would like to look with me at ways to lower this- I'll be doing so...

As the bill stands- I find it good legislation. Encouraging good decisionmaking of private citizens by using free market incentives- to me- seems like good policy...I will be supporting this

Im fine with the fuel tax as is. I could maybe get behind a lower one but im not going to advocate for it. We have to keep in mind that fuel economy and mass transit are all superior in Atlasia to the US. Plus with our alternative energy investments, the price of oil is likely lower due to less demand.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

It would help if information such as the price of oil would be readily available.... or is it?

In the meantime- excuse my mistakes as I transition back into the Fantasy world and all of its alternate reality :-)

[Adam Griffin]

It would help if information such as the price of oil would be readily available.... or is it?

Here

[CLARENCE 2015!]

It would help if information such as the price of oil would be readily available.... or is it?

Here

Thank you, Adam!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Working through all the coding and stuff for your ornate amendment structuring is a bit difficult at times. Is this the current text or is something missing?

[Napoleon]

Yankee, are we going to add the fuel economy standards back in? I think we should.

[Sbane]

Why is there a maximum value on how much energy households can sell to utilities?

[Sbane]

I didn't quite get that from the language. We should tighten it up a bit. We should explicitly mention the utilities are required to purchase up to $150k/year and then it is up to them whether or not they wish to purchase more.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My mind is consumed with pot roast... can some one please explain in lay man's terms what this amendment does that makes it different from what is being crossed out?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What is the current gas tax in Atlasia?

Also, is there any hope that Section VII could be eliminated? The business is slowly falling apart on its own. Why make a sweeping ban that could lose us jobs and affect people's careers?

I'm also not really a fan of what's set out in Section VI, subsections A and C... to me, this is a little bit discriminatory to people who live in rural regions. I seriously doubt that a home's proximity to the sidewalk will play much of a role at all in whether or not a person buys a certain house. I don't really see the connection to the environment here, and even if I did, I don't really see how this credit would actually help the situation.