Atlasia National Energy Act (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:46:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Atlasia National Energy Act (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Atlasia National Energy Act  (Read 6363 times)
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
« on: September 15, 2004, 07:38:51 PM »

Why should we strip the EPA of some of its power, and then give that power to the Treasury, which doesn't know as much about Oil Refinery Construction as the EPA.

For us, oil that is too expensive would be classified as about $2.25. In Europe, a good price is $5.00. We have it easy. Just because gas is expensive now, we shouldn't make it cheaper at the expense of the environment. We should learn to get by on less oil, we will be forced to do it soon, we should learn how to now.

This is bill only focuses on the short term, it doesn't take into account the long term picture. (Yes, I know you included the billion for research, but as far as oil is concened, this bill does not take into account long-term effects)
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2004, 10:16:58 AM »

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2004, 05:35:53 PM »

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.

This is why we have the ethanol tax credit expansion and research for hydrogen fuel.

Whether anyone likes it or not the world is dependent on oil for now.  We better make sure that its price doesn't cripple our economy or we'll never be prosperous enough to develop new ways of doing things.

Western European countries live and prosper with oil at $5.00 per gallon, why can't we?

We can't keep adjusting our laws to make it easier and cheaper to get gasoline just because it may be a little expensive at this time, eventually the oil will run out, and then our economy will suffer a huge blow. When that time will be, no one can say for sure, except that it will come soon, and it will come.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2004, 06:17:02 PM »

I think numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are good.  

However, the basic problem I have with the bill is the general idea that we need to make oil easier for people to get and cheaper for them to get. What we need to do is get people off oil. Not just middle eastern oil, but oil in general. There is not enough oil to go around, and soon we will realize this the hard way.

This is why we have the ethanol tax credit expansion and research for hydrogen fuel.

Whether anyone likes it or not the world is dependent on oil for now.  We better make sure that its price doesn't cripple our economy or we'll never be prosperous enough to develop new ways of doing things.

Western European countries live and prosper with oil at $5.00 per gallon, why can't we?

We can't keep adjusting our laws to make it easier and cheaper to get gasoline just because it may be a little expensive at this time, eventually the oil will run out, and then our economy will suffer a huge blow. When that time will be, no one can say for sure, except that it will come soon, and it will come.

Europeans live a different style of life than we do.  They have more condensed communites, for starters, making auto travel less necessary.  How would someone in Los Angeles make a living with gas at $5 a gallon?  There is no meaningful public transit, and even if there was busses run on gasoline and rising gas costs will drive up bus fare.  In Europe, and even on some East coast cities, subways and walking are reasonable.  However, in the suburb heavy sunbelt, this is impossible.  Cars are a necessity.

There is nothing that a reasonable person could say beyond that point.  I have allocated over a billion dollars for alternative fuel research and tax credits.  25% of this bill is provisions for weaning us off oil in the future (ethanol and hydrogen) and another 25% (the CAFE provisions) is a conservation effort.

What would assuage your concerns?  Subsidies to companies or localities that build windfarms?  Tax credits for individuals that install <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=solar%20panels" onmouseover="window.status='solar panels'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">solar panels</a> on their houses to heat their homes?  Name something we can add to get your vote, because I think a bill with either of those amendments would easily get signed.  But this bill does no good if it doesn't give consumers direct relief (in the form of the gas tax cut) and long term relief (in the form of new regulations) for high gas prices.

There is a chance I would vote for this. I agree with Hughento that we should keep the tax at 18 cents, but require states to use 9 cents of that to fund public transportation, which in many states is a mess. Before I vote to slash that tax, I want to know what that 18 cents goes to, and whether only giving 9 cents would hurt some vital social program.

I can live with the rest of it, except #2. I think it is a short-term action that will endanger the environment. I would consider supporting it, if the regulations were to be put back in place at a set date, maybe in a few years when the current oil crisis abades.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2004, 03:18:35 PM »


You would need to change it to yea, to help get this passed, and then get to not veto the FPA.

I will vote YEA on this, with the President's word that if I vote yea and it passes, he will allow the Family Planning Amendment to become law.  
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 11 queries.