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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

In theory, I agree that we shouldn't really be rewarding behaviour like Barnes's. But I think there's a lot here to work with. We could do some real good with this bill.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My issue is with what's supposed to be included in the report. I have a feeling that $15,000,000 won't be enough to retrofit and upgrade every government building. We could up the funding, but I'm not really in favour of continuously throwing money at problems. Instead, what if we loosen the requirements for the report and actually trust the regions?

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I could support your amendment, Ben, but I think we should also denote a time when the money runs out. After a certain amount of time, these new technologies will have paid for themselves and will start generating net positive savings. Those savings could be put to use on green projects. They'll need to take on the burden at some point... and they'll have the resources to do it.

Ignore this. I misread part of the bill.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

Over time, $15,000,000 will grow, even if it seems small now. I can't remember if I posted it here or just did the calculations for interest's sake, but the savings in electricity expenses for a "greenified," hospital-sized building are actually pretty damn impressive. If $15,000,000 converts even one building, you could afford to convert another building in, say, five years, and after that, another building in two and a half. It's an investment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if you are going to write an amendment, I do recommend that you consult with Hagrid on it

Yep, I'm up for whatever. The tricky thing is that it's a bit difficult to tell the regions exactly how they should deal with their savings, as it's money that grows from federal investment, but never actually "belonged" to the federal government. I think it'd have to be a suggestion as opposed to a mandate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Getting provided any funds should hardly be considered "getting shafted." I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's a problem to offer money to regions on the condition that they spend it on green building technologies. If it's so problematic, let's include an opt-out (and in the months I've been here, no region has yet opted out of an "opt-outable" program... so they can't be that bad). We're not specifiying which buildings to improve or when to begin the improvements, so the level of short-term inconvenience this bill will cause is negligible. All we're doing is saying "use this money for this type of project"—the regions can figure out the rest.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, but I'm going to object to this one.

Honestly, I much preferred the idea of giving funds directly to the regions and trusting them to decide exactly how they should be used.

Setting requirements and penalties, as this amendment would do in Section 2, isn't something I'm interested in doing here. It's combative, and it totally changes the connotation associated with what it means to go green.

Also, why are we completely stripping away the provisions that would have helped government buildings reduce their carbon footprints? That was basically the main thrust of the original bill, and now it's completely gone. I liked it because if there's one thing the government has uncontested authority over, it's its own property. There was no stepping on toes or carrots and sticks in the original bill, because they were changes that could easily be made. Now we're dealing with an entirely different ball game.

I don't mean to be combative, but this is just an entirely different bill.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll admit that this amendment does run roughshod over the original bill. But I didn't like the original bill; on the other hand, I did like your suggestion:

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

This could easily be incorporated into this bill if my amendment passes.

I'm also open to making Section 2 more flexible. Nudging behaviors in the right direction might be more effective than the cudgel-like approach behind setting strict requirements.

That said, I'm a lot more interested in passing this amendment and continuing from there than I am in doing otherwise. A couple of days ago I was very close to tabling this uninspiring bill, but I think that by expanding its scope to embrace one of the administration's major initiatives we'll be able to accomplish something significant.

I liked my original suggestion too. But I appreciate your support here. If this amendment passes, I'll certainly move to add something similar to the idea you quoted. I'll also support making Section 2 more flexible.

Still, I guess we just disagree, because I'd prefer to work off the original bill. What makes it imperative that this legislation needs to have a big scope? You say we'll be able to accomplish something significant, but the only significant accomplishments I see resulting from this bill are higher electricity costs and layoffs. Sorry Nix, but I'm still going to enter my objection. I could pretend I was happy with it, but I think that'd be doing the process a disservice.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I object.

(Just in case it got missed by Duke or Yankee. )

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Fair enough. I was just afraid it was missed because it was kind of hidden amongst a bulk of text.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Oh, okay. Thanks for that. Disregard my comments on the lightbulbs.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's fair, but I guess I just don't see the provisions in the bill translating to the outcomes you're hoping for. Is a thousand bucks really going to do it? People who live in suburban neighbourhoods that don't have sidewalks aren't living there to encourage the destruction of natural habitats. Many of them may have family ties to the area they live in. Some townships may not even have sidewalks. I think it's unfair to give certain people a tax break just based on where they live. The factors at play aren't limited to environmental concerns. Plus, when we're dealing with such a small amount of money, I feel like it's a bit of a superficial requirement that won't actually help the situation. Instead, it'll cost us money.

Now, I get that the general goal is to have homeowners purchase homes in walkable communities... homes that are close to sidewalks will be "in demand," so market forces will encourage developers to build homes near sidewalks. Walkable, sustainable communities will flourish. I don't see it that way though. I think the forces at play when people decide where to locate their families are much stronger than the pull of a thousand dollars. I see us handing out money to people who happen to live near sidewalks as opposed to people who choose to live near sidewalks. I don't think we'll see people move into certain communities just for the rebate. So I don't think we'll see it influence the market.

Maybe it would be a different story if the rebate was geared at developers, but as it stands, $1000 per household seems like an awful waste of money.

Another thing about sidewalks is that it makes it easy for people to take walks. Otherwise it can be too dangerous, especially if it is dark out. I was very surprised to see most suburban neighborhoods in Nashville do not have sidewalks. I just don't get it. There are sidewalks everywhere in California. It can encourage walkable and sustainable communities, but if nothing else, it promotes good health, which is also very necessary. Sidewalks do cost a lot of money though, and we should reward the communities that have invested in them. I have no problems with that part of the bill.

But do we reward the homeowners? Or the municipalities or developers? I agree that there's something to be said for walkable communities. I just don't agree that the current funding will do much about it. I see the effects being slightly more pronounced if it's an annual tax break (the wording was a bit confusing), but will we see people abandonning rural milieus?

I'd prefer to see the money funnelled elsewhere. If there's some support, I'll probably introduce an amendment to that effect later tonight.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry I lost track of this. Here's a rough amendment that kind of outlines what I've been thinking. The dollar amounts aren't set in stone. I know it was a yearly credit in the original version, so I'm open to upping the amounts if the amendment passes. I also thought it would be better to have larger grants for individual homeowners wanting to renovate their houses. Let me know what y'all think.

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I left it out because I figured most people wouldn't be renovating their homes to make them smaller. If I were to add that clause, it could have the effect of discouraging people from making their homes energy efficient—if their home will end up being too big, they won't get the grant. You know what I mean? I feel like it would be an extra layer of red tape that could actually prevent positive change.

If the only way you'll deem my amendment friendly is by adding in the square footage requirement, I will... but I do prefer the version without it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm good with that. Just trying to think of the best way to fit it into the amendment...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, it's withdrawn.

Thanks Nix. I really had no idea how to word it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye