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: Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223
Details
Submitted by[?]: Growth and Prosperity Party
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: April 2225
Description[?]:
| This bill will change the funding for renewable energy research from being subsidized to decided on a local level. Significant portions of our population are quite skeptical as to the actual benefits from this research. By devolving energy policy to the regional level, citizens would have a larger say on how THEIR tax JELs are spent. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Renewable energy sources (eg. solar power, wind power).
Old value:: Government subsidies are provided for research and generation of energy through renewable sources.
Current: The government does not take any position with regards to renewable energy.
Proposed: The decision on renewable energy sources is left up to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:28:12, May 06, 2006 CET | From |  Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | I like it. |
| Date | 18:44:08, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | OOC: Correct me if i'm wrong but since when has our currency been the dollar? This is yet another perfect, prime example of the last response of ours on the guns debate. No wonder the FCP likes it! Can we remind you again that this is not a simulation of how to govern the U.S IC: We oppose this populist rhetoric, we have a responsibility to research renewable energy sources for our future generations. Just because some of our parties adopt self-interested, laissez-faire stances on the economy does not mean that they can do so on everything. |
| Date | 20:57:17, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | First, thank you GMP for the correction (ooc: blame the late night boozing) Who determines that we have this responsibility? And furthermore, what proof is there that government subsidies actually improve the development at all? Energy policy should not be based on a broad, one-type-fits-all decisions. Renewable energy can be both the correct solution for one region (for example a place with lots of wind) while being a waste of money in others. Finally, the statement "we have a responsibility to research renewable energy sources for our future generations" Implies that without policy set on a national level, the regions will choose to completely abandon renewable energy subsidies. This can be only because 1) The GMP feels that there actually isn't any popular support for renewable energy subsidies, or 2) The GMP does not trust the regions to make the correct decisions therefore requiring interference from the central government. The idea that devolution is suitable for energy regulation but NOT for deciding subsidies is contradictory. if regional governments can not be trusted to decide whether or not to invest in renewable energy, then they can not be trusted to decide energy policies as a whole. |
| Date | 21:22:41, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | Responsibility is given by the electorate. It is not a question of trust, the GMP is a firm believer that a centralized government provides the most effective way to ensure equality for all of its citizens as explained in our manifesto. Ensuring equality is the primary role of government, and until this truly exists we will not forget or hide from our responsibility to fight all that hinders the path. |
| Date | 23:34:00, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | "OOC: Correct me if i'm wrong but since when has our currency been the dollar? This is yet another perfect, prime example of the last response of ours on the guns debate. No wonder the FCP likes it! Can we remind you again that this is not a simulation of how to govern the U.S" What are you talking about?!?!?!?! "Responsibility is given by the electorate. It is not a question of trust, the GMP is a firm believer that a centralized government provides the most effective way to ensure equality for all of its citizens as explained in our manifesto." NO! It provides the most effective way to make sure 49% of people do not get what they want. Having HUGE central gov, as you suggest, is NOT democracy. That is a REPUBLIC. That is the big people pushing around the little guy! |
| Date | 01:13:33, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | OOC: To put it in terms that the FCP might understand Exodus 32: 4 - The term democracy is being bantered around and worshipped as if it is the golden calf, a false god in itself that somehow ensures righteousness just by being used. IC: The GMP believe that the term democracy has become such a cliche in its usage that it is now largely a hollow myth used as a cheap populist weapon. (OOC: If the FCP would like real world examples of hypocritical democracies then we can give plenty, but we really don't think it is necessary). We are not going to explain our whole theory behind centralization to the FCP but we will point them in the direction of Rousseau's 'Le contrat social' or, failing that, the general sentiment of "when equality exists there will be no state". The electorate each have a vote. The party that they give this vote to is entrusted with the responsibility to act on their behalf, if the party then neglects this mutual contract then its exponents have been let down. The GMP believes in the values of the Jelbanian motto - equality being the primary one - we would not let our supporters down in our efforts to uphold them. |
| Date | 03:43:51, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | "Exodus 32: 4 - The term democracy is being bantered around and worshipped as if it is the golden calf, a false god in itself that somehow ensures righteousness just by being used. " So, the real god is communism??? No. And I really do not like that comparison. "...we would not let our supporters down in our efforts to uphold them." Why not just give them choice on their own? |
| Date | 04:31:51, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | a) we're atheists. b) it's commonly called an election. |
| Date | 14:39:34, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | That does work, but only for the majority. The little guy would have almost no say in the matter. |
| Date | 19:56:33, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | The little guys ultimate say is called a vote. The GMP certainly isn't the majority party but we support the interests of our voters - "the little guys" in this case. |
| Date | 21:20:45, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | A single vote is hardly much of a say. If everyone in the country elected one person to make every law, the country would be VERY one-sided. |
| Date | 21:51:03, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | We're not sure we know what the FCP are getting at (?). There are no perfect systems, not every single citizen in Jelbania wins all the time. Thus they vote for parties that best reflect their own beliefs and parliament therefore comes down to several sides (at the moment it appears to be 6 active sides) constructively debating and upholding the views of their own supporters. |
| Date | 21:58:58, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | ooc: btw, too many of these bills are going off tangent, seemingly in favour of a capitalist v non-capitalist ideological argument between the FCP and GMP. I think that you might be therefore pinning other associations on us and turning it into a capitalist v communist/sovietist/maoist argument. For the record, we don't let using too many labels because we believe that they become cliches of themselves and breed misunderstanding, but one thing we certainly don't believe in (though we feel it is being implied) is totalitarianism. |
| Date | 23:57:44, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | The GPP would like to appeal to the GMP over the benefits of this bill, namely that regions that want to spend MORE on renewable energy if they want to do so. Also, it allows regional goverments to craft renewable energy solutions that are best suited for their region. This bill is not about cutting funding for renewable energy; it's about matching supply and demand so that those who are most likely to benefit from it will have a direct say in funding. For example, some renewable energy sources such as geothermal and wave-generation are extremely location-dependent, and under a federal policy is likely to be neglected. In addition, imposing the same standards across all regions is inefficient as well. Money spent on implementing renewable energy in areas where it is difficult to do so (i.e. places with little sunshine or wind) would be much more beneficially spent on generating renewable energy in places with lots of sun or wind. Devolving policy to the local level allows this type of policy-making to be possible. |
| Date | 03:08:40, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | We oppose. |
| Date | 03:49:00, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | We agree and support the logic of GPP's argument but we feel that another side to the proposal is not being addressed; the fact that this proposal also allows for a complete rejection of renewable energy which we see as unacceptable. We must all work together to provide for Jelbania's future on this subject, and if one region decides not to adopt the former policy then the work of the others is negated. |
| Date | 04:43:52, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | Just think about the fact that research will only be effective where there is an active need and popular support. The GPP feels that overall there will be MORE progress if renewable energy decision are made on a local level than on a national one. |
| Date | 20:38:15, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | OOC: FCP- The term Republic means a country without an hereditary head of state. I've no idea what you were talking about earlier. IC: We are unsure. We are willing to trial this, if we see a fall in renewable take-up, we will try to repeal it. |
| Date | 21:54:06, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | ooc: is the renewable take-up rpg talk or is there some way we can actually check this? |
| Date | 06:12:23, May 09, 2006 CET | From | Centre Démocratique | To | Debating the Energy Policy Devolution Act 2223 |
| Message | Environmental devastation is a global problem, one that needs to be tackled by the larger community. As a proud member of the International Greens, we support federal assistance in the research and generation of alternative energy. We oppose this. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 507 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 118 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
| Random quote: "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." - H. L. Mencken |