SB 2018-206: Environmental Regulations Act (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Mr. Reactionary

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Putting all else in this bill aside, the carbon tax has been proven to be one the most effective means of reducing emissions where such a tax has been implemented.  That law was negotiated and passed with bipartisan support and signed by our current president.  I see no reason for this government to scrap the law now.

As the original sponsor of the law in question, I urge the Senate reject Section 5.4 of this bill and give the new program a chance.

(Also, on a budget-related note, repealing the law would increase the deficit because a portion of the revenue funds another initiative.  Most of the revenue gained from the law is split and returned to the taxpayers evenly.)

[Mr. Reactionary]

(Also, on a budget-related note, repealing the law would increase the deficit because a portion of the revenue funds another initiative.  Most of the revenue gained from the law is split and returned to the taxpayers evenly.)

If its repealed we just dont fund that initiative right? IIRC the tax was used to fund a new program, not to pay down the deficit.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

(Also, on a budget-related note, repealing the law would increase the deficit because a portion of the revenue funds another initiative.  Most of the revenue gained from the law is split and returned to the taxpayers evenly.)

If its repealed we just dont fund that initiative right? IIRC the tax was used to fund a new program, not to pay down the deficit.

30% of it was used to fund the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidy Act.

The main purpose of the tax is to further incentivize renewable energy and promote conservation of non-renewables.  Pricing carbon reflects the negative externalities borne by those who use less carbon, which is why most of the revenue is redistributed, similarly to Alaska's green check program.  British Columbia enacted the tax in 2008 and it decreased emissions 3.5 faster than the rest of Canada.

(The part that funds RERSA was a compromise.  I had wanted 100% of the revenues redistributed, but the President would not sign unless the tax partially funded RERSA.)

[_]

At the suggestion of Speaker Scott, I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

While I doubt I win this vote, I still do not believe we should be taxing the thing every person exhales, especially when the tax does not help us pay down the deficit or fund pre-existing programs so I find the amendment hostile.

Because the sponsor finds the amendment hostile, we shall now proceed to a vote on the amendment, to last 30 hrs or 12 hrs after everyone has voted, whichever occurs soonest.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[_]

Aye

[fhtagn]

As far as the Carbon Tax, I would be fine with amending it so that the 30% to pay for the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidy Act stays, and allow the remaining 70% to be used for things like paying down the deficit and funding other initiatives, as it's a better use of that money than what it is currently going towards.

I would not support killing the Carbon Tax.

[Mr. Reactionary]

As far as the Carbon Tax, I would be fine with amending it so that the 30% to pay for the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidy Act stays, and allow the remaining 70% to be used for things like paying down the deficit and funding other initiatives, as it's a better use of that money than what it is currently going towards.

I would not support killing the Carbon Tax.

FASCIST!!!!

[Mr. Reactionary]

While we await the votes on the proposed amendment, I will provide my summary. Several of these ideas were originally passed in the South.

Section 2 creates what is known as an audit privilege for enforcing environmental regulations. Basically, potential polluters design a policy of regularly inspecting and auditing their equipment and processes for environmental compliance. In the event that a violation is found, as long as it wasn’t purposeful, is reported, and is fixed, they will not be prosecuted for environmental violations. IRL state policies to this effect have helped reduce total violations, since there is an incentive for potential polluters to monitor and report rather than conceal violations.

Section 3 allows for reusing certain environmental impact studies rather than always requiring new long costly studies before development begins. This saves costs without really sacrificing data, as site specific factors that were not considered in prior studies must still be considered to comply with NEPA.

4-1 protects small farmers from being unfairly prosecuted because of the weather.

4-2 protects hunters and fishers from being unfairly prosecuted for hunting or fishing. Obama attempted a backdoor ban on hunting and fishing on federal land right using the tactic we are prohibiting in this bill.

4-3 protects poor, rural people who have to burn wood for heat from unnecessary efficiency standards that just push up costs.

4-4 eliminates federal regulations which require cars to be less crash resistant/more dangerous.

4-5 actually authorizes the creation of a new regulation (See its not all cuts) mandating acoustic switches on offshore oil drilling platforms. The added cost is outweighed by the added safety in this case.

4-6 keeps the EPA focused on enforcing the Clean Air Act on the statutory 2-fold areas of criteria pollutants and toxic hazardous air pollutants. The statutorily mandated criteria air pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. There are a fair amount of hazardous air pollutants regulated; there are 187 and they are listed here: https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications

4-7 returns the maximum level of ozone to a higher level than it was in 2012 but not quite as high as it currently is, as the costs do outweigh the minimal direct benefits here.

5-1 brings back one of the original funding mechanisms of the superfund, which expired in 1995. Basically it was a tax on certain environmentally detrimental chemicals which were the reason for the contamination of most of the superfund sites the federal government has to pay to clean up. This will cause the cost of goods produced with the chemicals to go up which sucks, but I think this is a good way to ensure the superfund does not draw from general funds. This tax is set to expire at the end of 2022. Im not sure how to guesstimate potential revenue for this.

5-2 increases the tax on imported oil that is specially set aside for oil spill cleanup. It also eliminates a terrible loophole that exempts tar sands oil imports from the tax, even though there is more  of a risk of that type of oil spill.

5-3 increases the tax on gas that is specially set aside for cleaning up damage from leaking underground gas storage tanks.

5-4 repeals the tax on the stuff plants breathe and we exhale.

5-5 increases the user fees on testing and marketing new chemicals.

5-6 fines people for interfering with pipeline inspections.

5-7 permanently extends this thing that gets renewed every 5 years that lets state and local governments pay extra for faster permit processing on clean water act permits.

5-8 eliminates a redundant grant program. $165 Million saved according to this: http://stormwater.wef.org/2017/05/fy2018-presidents-proposed-budget-seeks-to-eliminate-epa-runoff-pollution-grants-memo-says/

6-1 and 6-2 preempt local attacks on plastic shopping bags and fracking respectively.

7-1 - 7-4 are more environmental regulations to help pipeline safety. Specifically:

1. Authority to regulate gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines and liquid chlorine pipelines
2. Minimum safety requirements for tar sands oil pipelines
3. Helps the federal regulators get geospatial data of the pipelines they regulate
4. Requires automatic or remote-controlled excess flow shut-off valve on pipelines to increase safety

[wxtransit]

Aye, I support fhtagn's statement.

[Wells]

Aye on the amendment.

[Lumine]

Aye on the amendment. While there are some good ideas on this, at present I am not prepared to support the bill and believe it goes too far in terms of deregulation of environmental policies.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment passes 4-1-0.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I thank the Senate for voting to keep this important environmental incentive on the books.

[Wells]

I'm not sure why this bill seems to be a little friendly to carbon dioxide in some places. It is still a greenhouse gas and the biggest contributor to climate change. We should make sure that is addressed. I'll make an amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment is extremely hostile. The goal of the clean air act has always been to protect the immediate health of persons. That means from breathing in toxic stuff that will hurt you. Added water vapor in the air and co2 do not hurt you. Its only when you take a bunch of leaps that you get to "well this protects health because the statistical chances of hurricanes may slightly decrease". its the same kind of sham reasoning the Supreme Court struck down in US v Lopez. From that opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am trying to steer us away from a constitutional issue and fighting for the original intent of the law: stuff in the air the either hurts us when we breathe it in or that causes acid rain. Regulating the byproducts of breathing though is a terrifying concept, but that is effectively what continued regulation will ultimately lead to. How long until each individual human has to participate in a cap and trade program for the privilege of living?

Voting on the amendment is now open.

[_]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Wells]

The goal of the clean air act has always been to protect the immediate health of persons. That means from breathing in toxic stuff that will hurt you.

There were ozone layer protections in the bill which aren't struck down in this one, and that seem to be more an example of this:

Its only when you take a bunch of leaps that you get to "well this protects health because the statistical chances of hurricanes may slightly decrease".

And by the way, the effects of climate change are a lot more than hurricanes, and also a lot more than "may" happen.

The Supreme Court case is about gun free zones. This is a little different, because of the strong scientific evidence for climate change. And schools, part of local government, were being regulated by the federal government. I don't see how this is analogous.

stuff in the air the either hurts us when we breathe it in

Carbon dioxide actually does that, but not at any level near where it is admittedly. 

or that causes acid rain.

Water vapor actually does that (with other molecules though).

Regulating the byproducts of breathing though is a terrifying concept, but that is effectively what continued regulation will ultimately lead to. How long until each individual human has to participate in a cap and trade program for the privilege of living?

This argument seems a little ridiculous. Why do you think that breathing is a realistic thing we would try to regulate in Atlasia? The Clean Air Act has been around for decades and that hasn't happened. "How long" is apparently a very long time.

[Wells]

Aye

[Lumine]

Aye.

[wxtransit]

Nay.

[_]

After some thought and rereading of the Arguments of Senator Wells, I am changing my vote to

Aye