We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Protection of the Eco-System
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sotsial-Demokraticheskaya Partiya
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2099
Description[?]:
| This bill is improve the state of the nation's Eco-systems. We, The Social Democratic Party, wish to protect these systems. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing is not regulated.
Current: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Proposed: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government provides pollution prevention guidelines, but does not enforce them.
Current: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:37:33, August 21, 2005 CET | From |  Sotsial-Demokraticheskaya Partiya | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | This is save the Eco-system |
| Date | 23:52:53, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | We will be voting no, because we do not support the article 1. We were looking into the proposal for Article 2 during the previous parliamentary session, and have come up with some sensible (we think) detailed proposals. If people support Article 2 in principle but not Art 1, vote no for this and TLP will issue a new bill with just the pollution proposal and the detailed recommendations. |
| Date | 23:59:56, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Sotsial-Demokraticheskaya Partiya | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | Act-1 is to protect the eco-system, but i can change it. |
| Date | 00:03:31, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | Could you split the bills? Delete article 1 from this proposal and create it as a separate proposal. Leaving art 2 here? |
| Date | 00:04:27, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | My detailed proposals for art 2 were as follows (warning, it's a bit messy still). Comments/suggestions welcome: Polluter pays legislation Pollution is a real cost. With no regulations at all, pollution becomes a cost borne by society as a whole. This creates the free-rider problem, which is an anathema to liberals and capitalists alike, whereby there is no disincentive to pollute as the cost of the clean-up will fall disproportionately on third parties. The solution is to include environmental clean-up as part of the cost of doing business for the polluter itself. Two specific polluter-pay policies are envisaged and broadly laid out below: 1. MARKETABLE POLLUTION CREDITS Industries are permitted to emit pollutants freely up to a defined 'background' limit (i.e., the amount at which nature can process the pollutants) e.g., a business is freely permitted to output x kg of CO2 pa (say the rate that if all businesses output at the same per capita rate could be absorbed by plants in the region). All output exceeding that level is 'chargeable'. In order to output a chargeable level, the polluter must itself perform actions that negate the pollution to offset the excess pollution generated or purchase credits in either event meaning that the net output does not exceed the permitted level. businesses below the threshold can sell credits to businesses and these credits are marketable (a la Kyoto). The initial pricing of the credits is defined as the best estimate of the environmental cost of the pollution. Similary, if the business outputing CO2 plants trees, they can credit them against their CO2 output at the rate that trees are established as being able to absorb CO2. The effect is that the cost of pollution is factored into the cost of doing business and that net pollution remains at a manageable level. Example, a coal power plant can operate. This plant would generate significantly more pollution than it is allowed. Therefore it is obliged to purchase carbon credits from the market. The price of the carbon credits is linked to the price of removing the carbon from the atmosphere. The impact is a) coal plants (which are cost efficient) can operate, and as they are only workable insofar as they can obtain carbon credits, the total national pollution remains at the predefined acceptable level. b) the cost of the pollution is borne by the polluter (having to purchase credits) c) low and non-polluting businesses are rewarded (they can sell their credits) d) it becomes economical to have businesses whose purpose is to remove pollution (e.g., by growing trees etc) e) it is both capitalistic (people can pollute provide they arrange to remove the pollution or pay for the cost of the removal) (and it encourages business) f) and libertarian (there are no government imposed limits on what businesses can do (viz pollution), provided they take responsibility for the clean-up) 2. SITE RESTORATION LIABILITY ACCOUNTING Businesses that harm the environment (e.g., mining, drilling, quarrying, polluting) must provide at the outset for the expected total costs of returning the site to its natural state at the end of the project. These financial provisions must be included and disclosed in the annual financial statements of the business. These financial statements must be audited by approved auditors. At the conclusion of any project, the site must be returned to its original state. This ensures that businesses are able to operate even if it temporarily disturbs the environment, provided that they take responsibility for the clean-up at the end. Example: Business A owns a piece of land and discovers there is coal in the ground. Having performed a survey, the business determines that the coal seam will support 10 years of mining. It also determines that after 10 years it will cost $1m to return the land to its original state. Assuming that the method of mining causes damage at an even rate over the life of the mine, each year the business charges an expense to its financials of the total cost divided by the number of years of life (i.e., $100,000 in this case). The effect is that the financial statements of the business will show an expense equal to the damage being done each year reducing profits available for distribution to shareholders by the same amount. The balance sheet will also accumulate a liability reflecting the future cash outflow. Each year, the directors of the business must reconsider the life of the mine and the total expected costs. E.g., after 5 years, the directors determine that the mine will continue to be usable for another 5 years, but actually the cost to repair will now be $2,000,000. The company has already accounted for $500,000 (5 x (1/10) x $1,000,000), which means it has a remaining $1.5m to spread over 5 years, therefore will charge $300,000 per year for the remaining 5 years. |
| Date | 00:07:19, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Sotsial-Demokraticheskaya Partiya | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | that sound good, make the rich pay for it. |
| Date | 00:14:06, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | No, my policy isn't about rich-bashing. If you are rich and don't produce any pollution, you don't pay anything. My recommendations simply link pollution (which is a cost) to the economic activity that generates it. |
| Date | 01:36:02, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | I am against both articles. |
| Date | 16:18:18, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Radical Conservative Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | I'm against article 1. I would support 2 if it were in a seperate bill. |
| Date | 19:44:46, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of the Eco-System |
| Message | RCP, if this bill fails, I can introduce Art2 as a separate proposal on its own (in fact I already have, but I can't attach the proposal until this bill is cancelled or fails). |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 115 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 438 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 2 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "All this concern with the effects of global warming is another manifestation of being politically correct." - David Young |