HB 1152 - Carbon Tax Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

I like this policy, but I do think that some of the revenue should go toward funding alternative energy source research rather than solely a rebate check, though perhaps that is better suited for other legislation.

While I am a supporter of a carbon tax, I can't help but feel like I agree with Congressman RFayette on this, and can't seem to find anywhere that this was even addressed.

I know at one point in the Senate it was discussed that this would fund the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidy Act, but it appears nothing ever came of it. Considering that's already something where Atlasia citizens receive a monetary benefit from, it doesn't make much more sense for us to have 100% of the revenue of this act do the same. While I like the idea of holding ourselves responsible for our carbon dioxide emissions, I don't like the idea of the tax not really funding anything. It makes no sense to tax just for the sake of taxing.

That being said, I cannot support this as currently written, and would not be willing to sign if it makes it to my desk as is.

(TL;DR yes, this is a veto threat)

[fhtagn]

The purpose of the rebate is to prevent any negative effects the tax would have on the economy.  A tax on carbon is essentially a price on carbon for its negative impact on the environment, which the market does not recognize in the way fossil fuels are priced.  The "fee-and-dividend" approach sets every individual's carbon tax proportional to their use of fossil fuels, creating an incentive to reduce, but every person's dividend is equal and independent regardless of their usage.

I really want this to pass and I am open to compromising, but certainly most of the revenues generated should be redistributed.

I don't mind some of the revenues generated being redistributed, but I still think that portions of it should at least go to some program(s), be it fund an existing bill signed into law, go towards renewable energy research grants, or something else folks might have ideas on, I'm somewhat flexible. I just cannot agree to 100%.

[fhtagn]

This will spur economic growth by putting money in the pockets of Atlasian citizens. Moreover, it encourages private investment in renewables. I don't think there's a reason to remove the rebate portion or reduce it.

It's already been pointed out that we are going to end up with a large deficit. We cannot just keep throwing out money for amazing programs, and ignoring the opportunities we are given to fund them.

We already have a program where Atlasian citizens are given an incentive to invest in renewables, but it's not going to be sustainable if we can't find a way to pay for it.

[fhtagn]

Can somebody send a link to the legislation regarding subsidies? Perhaps we can find a middle ground here.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.msg5827072#msg5827072

[fhtagn]

Would 30% be enough to cover the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidies Act?

I'm not sure if we have an estimate of how much this would bring in, as the link Scott provided earlier in this thread wouldn't be the best comparison for how it would work here.

[fhtagn]

Has this been forwarded to the GM?

[fhtagn]

Based on the estimates and response from Encke, I would be willing to support the bill in the amended form Scott had proposed.

[fhtagn]

     A final vote is now open on this bill. Representatives have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

A final vote or a vote on the amendment? I don't think a vote on Scott's amendment (that VPH sponsored) was actually done yet. 

[fhtagn]

An amendment vote shouldn't be necessary. I withdrew my objection so the amendment can be declared as passed.

I figured that as I was typing, but it wasn't declared as passed, so that's where my confusion was

It might be good for folks to know which form of the bill they are voting on.

[fhtagn]

     My mistake. The amendment is adopted with no objections.