-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
"Perhaps you'd prefer a more eloquent evaluation, Per President? I'll be happy to deliver. Giving 21 years from compliance, or 18 if Per Tulp has his way, is simply too long. The ECB has signed off on the compliance terms outlined in the revised version of the CEA, which are at most a decade, and often shorter in terms of dumping regulations."
"Secondly, the CEA empowers the MoI to grant extensions to industries and companies that face economic hardship to comply. The MoI is also empowered to create temporary transitory standards during these extentions, so if the fishing and auto industries face such hardships as you say, the MoI only needs to grant them a reasonable extension and perhaps create some sort of transitory measures."
"You are so proud of the fact that the ERA creates higher standards on smokestack emissions? A whopping 10% more in reductions at the cost of an extra eleven years of unrelenting pollution."
"And don't even get me started with the idea of selling permits to pollute. What's next permits to steal? Why stop there? We could sell permits for all sorts of unsavory and criminal acts. We could make a fortune!"
"And going beyond the distasteful notion that its OK to pollute if you pay us, this system helps the larger companies who can afford to buy up the permits and hinders smaller companies. Clearly a breach of the ideals of the free market and fair competition. For a man who hates to see government meddling in the economy, your proposal is doing a lot of meddling."
"Secondly, the CEA empowers the MoI to grant extensions to industries and companies that face economic hardship to comply. The MoI is also empowered to create temporary transitory standards during these extentions, so if the fishing and auto industries face such hardships as you say, the MoI only needs to grant them a reasonable extension and perhaps create some sort of transitory measures."
"You are so proud of the fact that the ERA creates higher standards on smokestack emissions? A whopping 10% more in reductions at the cost of an extra eleven years of unrelenting pollution."
"And don't even get me started with the idea of selling permits to pollute. What's next permits to steal? Why stop there? We could sell permits for all sorts of unsavory and criminal acts. We could make a fortune!"
"And going beyond the distasteful notion that its OK to pollute if you pay us, this system helps the larger companies who can afford to buy up the permits and hinders smaller companies. Clearly a breach of the ideals of the free market and fair competition. For a man who hates to see government meddling in the economy, your proposal is doing a lot of meddling."
"I am more than willing to compromise, you will find, Per Leary. My proposal is just that -- a proposal. It is not final. I did not expect it to be passed untouched.
"The 'pay and pollute' system cannot be realistically implemented. You are very right, Mr. Leary. In my haste, I simply implemented a revised version of a suggest of Mr. Talbott that he suggested some time ago. I hoped my changes might be sufficient, but that is clearly not the case. I will accept a friendly ammendment to remove the respective clause.
"On the time - I must heartily disagree that a decade is ample time. As the ECB has pointed out, even with ten years, the auto industry will no longer be able to function. The automobile emissions portion of the CEA is therefore simply not acceptable. You argue that eleven extra years is too long, and ten extra percentage points do not make up for it. I have already submitted that twenty-one years may be excessive. However, I believe ten years is not sufficient. Eighteen years may also be excessive.
"I do not feel simply giving the MoI the right to grant extensions enough. Leaving the well being of numerous companies up to what the sitting MoI's attitude towards business is folly. My proposal prevents this - the extension enables more companies to comply without these hardship liscences, reducing the risk of an anti-business MoI refusing permits en masse, while a deadline after which no extensions may be handed out included in my bill but not included in the CEA will prevented an overly pro-business MoI from in effect 'vetoing' the environmental standards.
"Here is my suggestion, Mr. Leary. Fifteen years, or until the end of term XIII for the general deadline. Some other deadlines will have to be changed accordingly. I believe this is a fair compromise - enough extra time compared to the CEA, but not epochs into the future."
"The 'pay and pollute' system cannot be realistically implemented. You are very right, Mr. Leary. In my haste, I simply implemented a revised version of a suggest of Mr. Talbott that he suggested some time ago. I hoped my changes might be sufficient, but that is clearly not the case. I will accept a friendly ammendment to remove the respective clause.
"On the time - I must heartily disagree that a decade is ample time. As the ECB has pointed out, even with ten years, the auto industry will no longer be able to function. The automobile emissions portion of the CEA is therefore simply not acceptable. You argue that eleven extra years is too long, and ten extra percentage points do not make up for it. I have already submitted that twenty-one years may be excessive. However, I believe ten years is not sufficient. Eighteen years may also be excessive.
"I do not feel simply giving the MoI the right to grant extensions enough. Leaving the well being of numerous companies up to what the sitting MoI's attitude towards business is folly. My proposal prevents this - the extension enables more companies to comply without these hardship liscences, reducing the risk of an anti-business MoI refusing permits en masse, while a deadline after which no extensions may be handed out included in my bill but not included in the CEA will prevented an overly pro-business MoI from in effect 'vetoing' the environmental standards.
"Here is my suggestion, Mr. Leary. Fifteen years, or until the end of term XIII for the general deadline. Some other deadlines will have to be changed accordingly. I believe this is a fair compromise - enough extra time compared to the CEA, but not epochs into the future."
Last edited:
I discussed earlier that even with an 18 or 21 year compliance deadline, we can make it to show that industries are beginning to comply. My suggestion was that after one term, companies have to show audited documentation showing their longterm complaince plans.
What, I believe, the president is saying is that the original Bill attempted to do too much too soon. My idea is to accept the president's deadline as reasonable, but to force companies to present periodic reports outlining their goals towards complaince.
What, I believe, the president is saying is that the original Bill attempted to do too much too soon. My idea is to accept the president's deadline as reasonable, but to force companies to present periodic reports outlining their goals towards complaince.
The timing and other numbers change, but many aspects of this bill look like what the unlamented emigré Amric Al'Aeshir first proposed. I had suggested, back in the original debate, that we needed to pay more attention to pollution in certain areas, where our health and that of the flora and fauna are being sigificantly negatively impacted, without imposing those Eco-topia costs on other regions, where the situation is relatively acceptable. The bill we passed earlier, while I was serving in cabinet, and this own fail to allow for any regional distinctions. Rather than argue about when it should be applied to everywhere in our nation, which is a pointless argument because there is no single right answer, the new rules (to be determined by this debate) should be applied ASAP in certain areas and perhaps never in others. The Interior Minister should be given the power to designate zones of heighted environmental concern ("ZoHEC") to which the rules, or a subset thereof would apply. Besides tax incentives, which takes care of the business, there needs to be a retraining scheme, so workers put out of work by this law can get into another sector of the economy. Is the President interested in some wording along these lines, or would he not be willing to consider something like that as a friendly amendment? In which case he can readily determine what the likely reaction of the ELP will be.
"A retaining scheme would be redundent and overly difficult to implement, Reverend. The ease of the bill on companies will translate into ease on workers. It is expected that very few workers, if any, will have to be laid off as a direct result of this bill. In some cases where the 5% tax exemption exceeds the cost of adhering to the standards, or for companies already maintaining acceptable standards, there will in fact likely be a improvement of conditions for employees. Plus, this bill will prevent the utter destruction of our automobile and fishing industries, which the CEA would have caused as reported by the ECB. As it stands, the ERA protects workers much more than the CEA would have. Adding in a 'safety net' would increase the costs associated with the bill for little extra benefit. While the idea has merit, it is simply not necssary. One does not need a safety net when they are already standing on solid ground.
"As to specific area appraisal and response: no doubt this is necessary. However, I do not know if it is feasible to include it in this particular bill. This bill simply seeks to reduce trash and emission pollution across the board. The Interior Minister already has the power to exempt operations that are already within acceptable levels. And surely you would agree that just because a factory is in a less densely industrialized area, it should be subject to the same standards as the rest of the country? Please clarify if I am misunderstanding your suggestion."
"As to specific area appraisal and response: no doubt this is necessary. However, I do not know if it is feasible to include it in this particular bill. This bill simply seeks to reduce trash and emission pollution across the board. The Interior Minister already has the power to exempt operations that are already within acceptable levels. And surely you would agree that just because a factory is in a less densely industrialized area, it should be subject to the same standards as the rest of the country? Please clarify if I am misunderstanding your suggestion."
"I'll agree with the President that such programs are redudant and add little benifit for the relative costs. Both bills make efforts to ease the burden on business and therefor the affects on the workforce would be minimal."
"However, Per President, I find your tax incentives go too far, creating a permanent tax break for compliant companies. You're essentially tying a tax cut for business to an enviromental bill, two completely seperate issues. Especially since this cut will only affect certain industries, as not all industries pollute emissions."
"As to the CEA, the ECB mentioned two industries that faced serious jeopardy - the autos and fishing. Both of these industries have been on the economic fringe for a long time. But, I would be willing to introduce a quick amendment to the CEA (providing your veto is successfully overriden) that would allow fishing companies to dump fish waste at sea, provided they are far enough from shore, and to alter the auto emissions section, either reducing the cut or increasing the compliance window, or both. But I do have confidence that the Ministry of the Interior will be able to properly administer exemptions and extensions."
"Again, I find any timeline beyond the ones outlined in the CEA to be too long and simply delaying what we all know must be done, with the possible exception regarding the auto industry. The ECB does not forecast any problems with a ten year window of compliance for smokestack emissions, nor does it for the shorter ones regarding dumping."
"However, Per President, I find your tax incentives go too far, creating a permanent tax break for compliant companies. You're essentially tying a tax cut for business to an enviromental bill, two completely seperate issues. Especially since this cut will only affect certain industries, as not all industries pollute emissions."
"As to the CEA, the ECB mentioned two industries that faced serious jeopardy - the autos and fishing. Both of these industries have been on the economic fringe for a long time. But, I would be willing to introduce a quick amendment to the CEA (providing your veto is successfully overriden) that would allow fishing companies to dump fish waste at sea, provided they are far enough from shore, and to alter the auto emissions section, either reducing the cut or increasing the compliance window, or both. But I do have confidence that the Ministry of the Interior will be able to properly administer exemptions and extensions."
"Again, I find any timeline beyond the ones outlined in the CEA to be too long and simply delaying what we all know must be done, with the possible exception regarding the auto industry. The ECB does not forecast any problems with a ten year window of compliance for smokestack emissions, nor does it for the shorter ones regarding dumping."
There was already a successful retraining scheme for coal miners to prepare them for work in the oil industry.Hyzhenhok said:
That is because your bill, with the far-in-the-future deadlines, doesn't really do much at all. Most companies will maintain business as usual and then lobby for further delays when the imposition of the standards nears.Hyzhenhok said:
It is necessary if you want the ELP, which represents the workers, to switch their support from the prior bill to yours. The ELP and ENP together could pass something, without needing PoL or MRP support. You are willing to compromise with the smallest party, the PoL, but to get something passed, you would also have to count of getting support from the MRP. If you compromise with us, you can get something passed. There may be some defectors from your own party, but I would expect some of the MRP would support anything reasonable.Hyzhenhok said:
"No, I was in fact suggesting that a factory in a less densely industrialized area might be subject to less stringent standards. You vetoed the first bill becuase it would have had too great a negative impact on our economy. Your replacement bill mitigated that by delaying the implementation. This has the drawback of allowing continued high pollution in some of the worst areas for too long, which will result in deaths for people living and working in those areas. The alternative that I am suggesting is much more rapid implementation of the standards, but only in those places that really need it. This will also mitigate the negative impact on the economy, but will begin addressing the most dangerously polluted areas much sooner, thus saving lives. You point out that the Interior Minister could exempt certain businesses, and this is therefore equivalent, but I don't see it that way. With the ZoHEC system, there would be no presumption of needing to comply and then hoping for an exemption. The Interior Minister would name the areas with the severe problems, and only those would be remediated. This will make the cost less than the prior bill and the effects greater than your unamended replacement bill. The concept of Zones of Heightened Environmental Concern is no different than the way businesses, hospitals, or homes are run. Integrated circuits are fabricated in "clean rooms", as any dust might mean that the chip would turn out defective, but another part of the same company that assembles the stereo or PC from the various components doesn't need the same standard of cleanliness. Hospitals have special rooms for those with compromised immune systems, like recent transplant receipients who are on immunosuppressant drugs so their body won't reject the new organ who are very vulnerable to any infection, but it is not cost effective, and quite unfriendly, to impose that same standard on most patients. At home, a higher standard of cleaniness is necessary in the kitchen, where food is being prepared, than in other parts of the house. The same practical, common sense should be applied to the United Provinces of Eutopia as well. There are certain places where pollution has gotten out of hand, here in Eutopia City being the best, or rather, worst example. The problem here is air pollution, so some other parts of the standard might not need to be applied here. NeuWestbaden has had documented problems with water pollution, and might need also need attention to air pollution. I could go on, but I hope this is enough to give you the idea how a non-monolithic, more flexible application of the standard will be much more efficient than either the original bill or your replacement bill.Hyzhenhok said:
As I said before, if you want to see wording to that effect, that you could consider as a friendly amendment (once you see it and it is along the lines I suggest), then I will stay, produce a draft and work to get full ELP support for a suitably modified bill. Your earlier remarks indicated that you were not so inclined. That is your prerogative. In that case, I will hand the seat back my party colleague who so graciously allowed me to take another turn here, and the ELP MGAs will vote appropriately based on what ever form your bill finally takes. As it stands now, I believe they would vote against your bill and vote for the override of your veto. The amendment I would suggest makes the bill better than either the prior bill or your replacement bill, which is why I have stuck around to give this one last try. But if you don't think so, it would have to wait until next term. Thus, it is up to you, Mr. President, are you interested in this deal or not?
"So, Mr. Park, because this bill has been written by the President who is a member of an opposition party, the ELP will demand much more in order to support it? This seems highly partisan on your part. Your ZOHEC scheme seems like it would better belong in a seperate bill. I do not know enough nor do I feel there is time to implement such a large addition to this bill.
"And Mr. Leary, I will admit it was faulty wording on my part. Non-pollutant industries should not get a tax break - only those affected by this bill. My meaning was that those industries who have already voluntarily reduced emissions should immediately be rewarded, just as future compliants will be. The bill says the tax cut only applies to 'parts of industry affected by the bill', but I suppose that should be revised and clarified.
"However, the permanent tax cut for compliant companies I feel is important. It is a major incentive to prevent companies from waiting until the last minute to comply. I feel companies who comply sooner should be more greatly rewarded. Perhaps if the tax incentives ended one term after the deadline for compliance? Then it would not be permanent, but would satisfy most of the reasons why I included it."
"And Mr. Leary, I will admit it was faulty wording on my part. Non-pollutant industries should not get a tax break - only those affected by this bill. My meaning was that those industries who have already voluntarily reduced emissions should immediately be rewarded, just as future compliants will be. The bill says the tax cut only applies to 'parts of industry affected by the bill', but I suppose that should be revised and clarified.
"However, the permanent tax cut for compliant companies I feel is important. It is a major incentive to prevent companies from waiting until the last minute to comply. I feel companies who comply sooner should be more greatly rewarded. Perhaps if the tax incentives ended one term after the deadline for compliance? Then it would not be permanent, but would satisfy most of the reasons why I included it."
Mr. President, I was present in the General Assembly during the debate of Amric's bill and raised the idea of ZoHECs at that time. That bill was withdrawn, so the details were not fleshed out. I was not present in the GA when the bill you vetoed was passed. It is late in the term. Your bill is the one that is on the agenda and can be debated. It is here before us because I raised a point of order. Speaker Leary made it clear that he would have ruled your bill out of order, due to similarity with another bill, if the veto override is successful, which was first on the agenda, passed. Even if the override attempt failed, it is unlikely that we would have had time to consider your bill.
Thus, the fact that we are even discussing your bill this term is thanks to me. I did this because I saw an opportunity to improve on the product, and because, if you, as President, would accept a friendly amendment, it would be irrational for you to veto it. In the past you have hinted about what you would veto or sign, but sometimes changed your mind. Here and now, I am making you a clear offer, for a chance to get an amended version of your bill passed, because it is an improvement on both alternatives. If that is not possible, and it is in your power to decide, then I will not second guess the prior actions my fellow ELP MGAs. They had previously voted for the bill you vetoed and I expect and am fairly confident they will do so again, with or despite anything I might say, unless I can offer them a better alternative. You seem unwilling to go along with that, and spout platitudes like it would be better in a separate bill, but that would be either clearly unworkable or immediately vetoed by you. Thus, it is only your bill, with a friendly amendment to that can serve this purpose. It is not because you are in an opposition party that the terms are what they are. These are the terms that improve the bill sufficiently. The ELP has a choice of which bill to support. At present, the bill you vetoed is preferable to the bill you propose, because the bill you propose waits too long to attack the problem. We have this view because we are concerned about the health of our citizens. What good is a healthy economy if you are dead? You can accept a friendly amendment to make you bill preferable to the one you vetoed, and get it passed, or decline to do so, however graciously, and trust your luck with the others. I have other business to attend to if this is not going to work, so for the sake of clarity, I will let you know that I will take anything other than, "(Please) show me your proposed wording" as a final refusal on your part, Mr. President.
Thus, the fact that we are even discussing your bill this term is thanks to me. I did this because I saw an opportunity to improve on the product, and because, if you, as President, would accept a friendly amendment, it would be irrational for you to veto it. In the past you have hinted about what you would veto or sign, but sometimes changed your mind. Here and now, I am making you a clear offer, for a chance to get an amended version of your bill passed, because it is an improvement on both alternatives. If that is not possible, and it is in your power to decide, then I will not second guess the prior actions my fellow ELP MGAs. They had previously voted for the bill you vetoed and I expect and am fairly confident they will do so again, with or despite anything I might say, unless I can offer them a better alternative. You seem unwilling to go along with that, and spout platitudes like it would be better in a separate bill, but that would be either clearly unworkable or immediately vetoed by you. Thus, it is only your bill, with a friendly amendment to that can serve this purpose. It is not because you are in an opposition party that the terms are what they are. These are the terms that improve the bill sufficiently. The ELP has a choice of which bill to support. At present, the bill you vetoed is preferable to the bill you propose, because the bill you propose waits too long to attack the problem. We have this view because we are concerned about the health of our citizens. What good is a healthy economy if you are dead? You can accept a friendly amendment to make you bill preferable to the one you vetoed, and get it passed, or decline to do so, however graciously, and trust your luck with the others. I have other business to attend to if this is not going to work, so for the sake of clarity, I will let you know that I will take anything other than, "(Please) show me your proposed wording" as a final refusal on your part, Mr. President.
Per President, I think you purposefully misunderstand my colleague. The demand for concessions was due to the manifest unsuitability of your bill. 21 years is a long time to allow the smog to hang over our cities, and the bill misses two entirely necessary criteria, especially considering the long term in which it thinks.
Firstly it fails to propose intermediate targets to ensure that companies are working to reduce emissions throughout the next two decades rather than simply lobbying for extended deadlines in 15 years time.
Secondly, it affords little to the betterment of our citizens. The far-away deadline will hardly aid the health of our workforce and your suggestion that a safety net for workers would bring little benefit is merely more evidence of where your party stands. It benefits the economy not at all if your stinginess causes workers to be laid off and have to subsist on benefits. There is already a shortage of jobs. Let us not worsen the situation.
Firstly it fails to propose intermediate targets to ensure that companies are working to reduce emissions throughout the next two decades rather than simply lobbying for extended deadlines in 15 years time.
Secondly, it affords little to the betterment of our citizens. The far-away deadline will hardly aid the health of our workforce and your suggestion that a safety net for workers would bring little benefit is merely more evidence of where your party stands. It benefits the economy not at all if your stinginess causes workers to be laid off and have to subsist on benefits. There is already a shortage of jobs. Let us not worsen the situation.
"Perhaps, Per Park, if you could write a proposal for an ammendment for your ZoHEC scheme, then it would be considered.
"Mr. Berenguerr, I have already suggested that the deadline could be shortened from twenty-one years to fifteen. On 'intermediate deadlines', I do not feel such a thing would be prudent. Not every company will be advancing at the same pace in compliance, nor should they. Most companies will attempt to comply as soon as possible to get the most out of the tax incentives. We are telling them what we want and when we want it. There is no need to babysit the corporations -- I can assure you they are run by full grown intelligent men just like you and I.
"On your second point, I have to contest your assertion. The CEA would have meant more jobs lost. This bill will cause almost no jobs to be lost. And frankly, Mr. Berenguerr, environmental change will take a long time. It will be decades until there are noticable improvements no matter to what extent the reforms are. I would much rather have a fifteen year deadline that is less hurtful to the economy and better encourages early compliance than a ten year one that will annihilate two sectors of our industry, and encourages last-minute compliance.
"And I cannot believe you are lecturing me on losing jobs for the country. How many times must I say it? The entirety of our automobile and fishing industries would fail under the CEA, which your party supported. That means large job losses. That major flaw has been removed in my proposal. The extended time and increased tax incentive means even less jobs will be lost.
"I understand yours and Reverend Park's concerns for the workers, but this bill is very economy friendly, and is therefore very worker friendly. Extravagant and redundent safety nets are not necessary and will not be included. "
"Mr. Berenguerr, I have already suggested that the deadline could be shortened from twenty-one years to fifteen. On 'intermediate deadlines', I do not feel such a thing would be prudent. Not every company will be advancing at the same pace in compliance, nor should they. Most companies will attempt to comply as soon as possible to get the most out of the tax incentives. We are telling them what we want and when we want it. There is no need to babysit the corporations -- I can assure you they are run by full grown intelligent men just like you and I.
"On your second point, I have to contest your assertion. The CEA would have meant more jobs lost. This bill will cause almost no jobs to be lost. And frankly, Mr. Berenguerr, environmental change will take a long time. It will be decades until there are noticable improvements no matter to what extent the reforms are. I would much rather have a fifteen year deadline that is less hurtful to the economy and better encourages early compliance than a ten year one that will annihilate two sectors of our industry, and encourages last-minute compliance.
"And I cannot believe you are lecturing me on losing jobs for the country. How many times must I say it? The entirety of our automobile and fishing industries would fail under the CEA, which your party supported. That means large job losses. That major flaw has been removed in my proposal. The extended time and increased tax incentive means even less jobs will be lost.
"I understand yours and Reverend Park's concerns for the workers, but this bill is very economy friendly, and is therefore very worker friendly. Extravagant and redundent safety nets are not necessary and will not be included. "
"Per President, I hate to burst your rhetoric bubble, but Eutopia only has one domestic auto manufacturer, and its not exactly booming with business as it stands. In fact, its already weak market position is a major reason why the even mild regulations of the CEA may be damaging to them. Even if the entire auto industry shut down, it would not be a massive loss of jobs, and given the job creation bills like the Infrastructure Renewal Act, and the Shipping, Transportation, and Maritime Construction Stimulation Act, I think the market could easily absorb that loss, and most workers would find better, more stable jobs anyway. And of course, the Minister of the Interior is empowered to grant extensions and temporary reduced standards if the minister feels it is necessary."
"Of course, I understand your reluctance to trust the MoI, given your own party's dismal performance in that role thus far."
"Of course, I understand your reluctance to trust the MoI, given your own party's dismal performance in that role thus far."
"I know our automobile sector is not very large, Mr. Leary. But you are arguing that it is small enough that it would make no difference - could that not also be applied the emissions from its vehicles? And if I understood the CEA correctly, "Manufacturers who cannot meet these standards within 10 years of the passing of this bill will no longer be allowed to do business in Eutopia," meaning, what, we would only have electric cars here? I highly doubt foreign companies will care to adhere to our requirements just for a country as small as ours. If they did, the price increases would be horrendous. Just like the necessary price increase will destroy our one automobile manufactuer. I feel the negative impact of an automobile emissions crackdown is far too great at this point.
"And I would prefer to leave political cheap shots out of this debate, Mr. Leary. Certainly the MoI has not done anything spectacular this term, but nor have there been any spectacular failures."
"And I would prefer to leave political cheap shots out of this debate, Mr. Leary. Certainly the MoI has not done anything spectacular this term, but nor have there been any spectacular failures."
"Sirs, if I may interject for a moment, I believe rather vaguely that all three of the pieces of proposed legislations which have been put forth upon the subject of the environment have been highly redundant in nature. The first was far too radical, but the second would have served to bring Eutopia’s environment up to an merely acceptable standard, not anything remotely Utopian. All that your proposed piece serves in doing is further marginalizing the benefits that the bill will actually have by cutting down on its worth. At a certain point, sir, the state will need to take economic risks in order to ensure that the future is bright. Now, I believe, when our auto-market is relatively small is the time to act by instituting more stringent regulations. In fact, the regulations, coupled with mild tax benefits as you mentioned, might serve to help business by making Eutopia vehicles more appealing on the international level.
Ultimately, I believe that, thus far, we have taken the wrong approach to environmental reform. We have tried to lump everything the hypothetical ‘greenest’ might desire into a single bill. In one package, the bill appears both Utopian and costly to the uninformed. My suggestion is that, should you be truly displeased with what has been proposed we totally scrap the radical template upon which we have been acting. Several weeks ago I spoke with Per Leary about the possibility of putting a piece of modest legislation before the Assembly relating specifically to auto-emissions. It encompassed a proposed tax benefit for companies and proposed fines for uncooperative companies rather than government-mandated closure. The piece was put on the back-burner in favour of what you have vetoed, Mr. President. If the Assembly is obliging I would like to show that piece to the body presently; if not as a piece of suggested legislation, then rather as an example of how I feel we should approach environmental legislation piece by piece, finding compromises to encourage harmony.”
Ultimately, I believe that, thus far, we have taken the wrong approach to environmental reform. We have tried to lump everything the hypothetical ‘greenest’ might desire into a single bill. In one package, the bill appears both Utopian and costly to the uninformed. My suggestion is that, should you be truly displeased with what has been proposed we totally scrap the radical template upon which we have been acting. Several weeks ago I spoke with Per Leary about the possibility of putting a piece of modest legislation before the Assembly relating specifically to auto-emissions. It encompassed a proposed tax benefit for companies and proposed fines for uncooperative companies rather than government-mandated closure. The piece was put on the back-burner in favour of what you have vetoed, Mr. President. If the Assembly is obliging I would like to show that piece to the body presently; if not as a piece of suggested legislation, then rather as an example of how I feel we should approach environmental legislation piece by piece, finding compromises to encourage harmony.”
"I am very interested by your proposal, Mr. Lucescu. I would very much like to hear more of what you have to say on the matter."
“Very well then, sir. The piece was drafted before I knew of the discussion you had with Per Leary regarding the vetoed legislation. Considering such, I designed it as a mild piece that, I thought, would not serve to agitate the right, or any person not explicitly concerned with the environment. When, taken in comparison with the other bills, it appears very lenient. This is, however, the intention. The bill is not meant to be a cure-all, unlike the other works. Its primary purpose is to introduce the country's auto-market to standards which can be built upon. In my mind's-eye, I have imagined the bill serving as the beginning of a series of like-minded, limited legislations that target specific areas of environmental interest and begin to address concerns. With time, the proposed standards might be forced to stricter levels. - I regard the environment as something vital. As such, I feel that legislation is necessary for the future. Only, as an environmentalist who understand the ramification of drastic change, I propose we work gradually toward the ultimate goal."
"A few points if I may, first the President has not been invited here to discuss alternative legislation, rather only his proposal. Secondly, Per Lucescu's proposal does not have a second or an ECB report, and even if it did, it would have to wait its turn. I don't do this because I oppose the bill, though I might offer up a slightly different package, but because I wish to keep the debate focused and moving forward. Per President, if you could present a final version of your bill so the GA members will know precisely what their options are, I think we can move to a vote on the motion to override the veto."
"Ah, of course. I've gotten ahead of myself. The piece I've distributed really is not meant to be up for consideration. Rather, I only meant to offer my view of the direction we ought to be heading. My appoligies for the break with order."
"My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I had assumed he meant that we might add on his bill as an ammendment. Sense that is not the case, we shall return to the matter at hand.
"Here is my proposal, with changes stemming from our discussions here. Changes from original proposal include: Time to comply is 15 years, otherwise known as the end of Term XVIII and the beginning of Term XIX. The clause concerning bought 'pollution' permits has been removed. The tax incentives section has been overhauled, with the tax reductions ending at the end of Term XX."
"Here is my proposal, with changes stemming from our discussions here. Changes from original proposal include: Time to comply is 15 years, otherwise known as the end of Term XVIII and the beginning of Term XIX. The clause concerning bought 'pollution' permits has been removed. The tax incentives section has been overhauled, with the tax reductions ending at the end of Term XX."