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: Nuclear Power
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertad y Justicia
Status[?]: passed
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: June 2176
Description[?]:
A bill that encourages the use of Nuclear Power, a clean and efficient alternative to Coal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Current: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Proposed: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 01:17:55, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Power |
Message | We already encourage renewable sources, arguably cleaner still than nuclear power as it does not come with deadly nuclear waste. While nuclear power is preferable to other fossil fuels, it is not preferable to renewable sources and a nuclear industry would be more than capable of standing on its own than a renewable industry. While it may not make economic sense, it certainly makes ecological sense, which is far more important. |
Date | 05:45:24, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Libertad y Justicia | To | Debating the Nuclear Power |
Message | Nuclear Power is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy ever invented. Akin to the tragic Air-Ship crash, one disaster has ruined a near perfect track record. There have been no reported cases of Nuclear fallout from Nuclear plants. It certainly makes economic sense, which is much more important than ecological sense. |
Date | 08:20:36, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Power |
Message | "Nuclear Power is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy ever invented." Never said otherwise. It still doesn't stand up to renewable sources for safety or cleaniness. Regardless, as nuclear power is safe, clean and cheap, then the nuclear industry will have no trouble continuing to establish itself, thus not requiring any subsidies or benefits. Renewable resources are expensive but safer and cleaner, hence their need for subsidies. We will benefit more from renewables than from nuclear power. "It certainly makes economic sense, which is much more important than ecological sense." How? Do you think that when the air and water is destroyed that you'll be able to buy your way out of the mess you've gotten yourself into? Do you think money can balance an ecosystem overrun by a pest? Does money scrub CO2 from the atmosphere? Will money prevent Terra from being flooded when the polar ice sheets melt? Will money make previously arable land now desert, arable once more? Will money restart ocean currents that keep nations northern warm? Idiots like you stop effective action from being taken to prevent idiots like you from ruining the planet. Get your priorities right. |
Date | 16:58:48, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Libertad y Justicia | To | Debating the Nuclear Power |
Message | "Renewable resources are expensive but safer and cleaner, hence their need for subsidies. We will benefit more from renewables than from nuclear power." I agree with this. But it is also my view that diversification of energy sources is the best and safest way for us to have a strong, vibrant, and independent energy market. If nuclear power is clean and safe, and can provide us with a seemingly limitless supply of energy, and can be produced on our own, in our own country, my question is: why not? "Idiots like you stop effective action from being taken to prevent idiots like you from ruining the planet. Get your priorities right." There are two issues here. 1.) The most ecologically destrucive regimes have always been, throughout the entire history of Terra, tyrannical and absolutists regimes that are developing. First world nations are the cleanest and most ecologically friendly nations. This is a byproduct of Capitalism's ability to look towards the future. Capitalists nations know how to handle their resources in a manner that they will not be destroyed forever, thus leaving the company broke. I do not think it's fair or just to say that us following our economic goals will lead to a destroyed world. 2.) There is not a single shred of evidence that wide-spread ecological damage has happened. In fact, the opposite evidence is abundant. Who are you to event hint that our planet, which has existed for billions of years, and out of which has evolved a highly advanced and dynamic weather system, can be altered in 100 years by a few human beings? Until I see evidence, I'll dismiss this as a hoax. |
Date | 03:36:42, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Power |
Message | "I agree with this. But it is also my view that diversification of energy sources is the best and safest way for us to have a strong, vibrant, and independent energy market. If nuclear power is clean and safe, and can provide us with a seemingly limitless supply of energy, and can be produced on our own, in our own country, my question is: why not?" I'm not against nuclear power in a diverse energy market. Renewables, no matter how good they can be, will never fully satisfy the demand for energy. My problem is spending tax money on encouraging what should largely be successful without government help. So as to not start yet another side debate, I will respond to your second statement as one block. It is blind not to recognise a coming/present ecological crisis in human-induced global warming (which is what we seem to both be dancing around). Regardless of whether humans are responsible now is irrelevant. It is inevitable, however, that with the continued decline of rainforests and other lungs of the planet and the increase in production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that we will eventually outpace the planet's ability to recycle the carbon. That is, unless we do something about it now and there are two possible solutions. The first is ultra-laissez-faire capitalism, which you alluded to. It would primarily involve privatising all land, air and water. The social and ecological ramifications are unforeseeable and have the potential for a massive fuck-up, possibly even accelerating the problem. It could also be a saviour but, quite frankly, I don't want to risk death in twenty years time because, for example, the oceans have been poisoned and there's mass starvation. This is not to mention that rapid movements in an economy always have a negative effect (OOC: One only has to look at post-Soviet Russia to see this is true). On the other hand, there is the socialist solution. Where reasonable, the government puts the environment before the economy, which is what Baltusia has been doing for the last 140-odd years and everyone invests in sustainable development. While it may not be perfect, it sure beats having to pay to breathe. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 178 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 160 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 23 |
Random fact: When you join the game, you will find yourself with only zero seats. That's because your party's representatives haven't been elected yet. You need to establish your party's position on issues by proposing several bills that your party wants passed and sending them to vote. This raises your visibility and if you do it enough, you will win seats at the next election. |
Random quote: "Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools." - Napoleon Bonaparte |