NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[Regnum Dominae]

Nuclear power is pretty dam safe assuming you dont build it in an earthquake zone and you build a decent structure.

I'm totally aware of that. I'm an advocate for nuclear power, but accidents do happen.

What do you think is a safer form of travel? Cars or planes?

[Regnum Dominae]

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source out there, and I can provide the data to back this up.

[Regnum Dominae]

Also, the safety or lack thereof of various power sources is kinda irrelevant to a tax relief bill that is primarily aimed at helping low income families. In most places there is a virtual monopoly on gas and electric services so it's not like the consumer can really choose where the energy for there house is ultimately being derived from.

[Placenza]

I'm totally aware of that. I'm an advocate for nuclear power, but accidents do happen.

What do you think is a safer form of travel? Cars or planes?

The odds of being in a car crash are a lot higher than plane. Ergo, plane. But, obviously, we can't fly everywhere.

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source out there, and I can provide the data to back this up.

Yeah, and I can prove that accidents happen. Chernobyl and Fukushima.



Look, I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe and shouldn't be used. I'm aware of the safety precautions and protocols they use to try to keep catastrophes from occurring. All I'm saying is that sometimes shit happens.

[Regnum Dominae]

What do you think is a safer form of travel? Cars or planes?

The odds of being in a car crash are a lot higher than plane. Ergo, plane. But, obviously, we can't fly everywhere.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source out there, and I can provide the data to back this up.

Yeah, and I can prove that accidents happen. Chernobyl and Fukushima.



Look, I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe and shouldn't be used. I'm aware of the safety precautions and protocols they use to try to keep catastrophes from occurring. All I'm saying is that sometimes shit happens.

Chernobyl killed 4,000. Fukushima killed exactly two people.

Fossil fuels kill literally millions of people every year. And even renewables have higher death rates than nuclear.

[Regnum Dominae]

Banqiao!!!!!! Therefore hydropower is bad!

No, of course not, that makes no sense at all. But what do you think? DO you agree with this logic or is there a magical double standard for nuclear where it has to be absolutely perfect?

Like it or not, nuclear power is the future.

[Mkuki]

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source out there, and I can provide the data to back this up.

One thing I'd like to point out is that a primary nuclear energy policy has greatly benefited the French.

Specifically:

• France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
• France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

Also, there's been only a single fatality in over 40 years of focusing on nuclear energy. Clearly, if you know what you are doing, focusing on nuclear energy can be safe and profitable.

[People Who Say Ni]

Yeah, and I can prove that accidents happen. Chernobyl and Fukushima.

So we shouldn't use ships because of the Titanic?
I know you're pro-nuclear, I just couldn't help myself.

[Celritannia]

For the Senators who are interested, a focus group has been established to limit burning certain materials in local communities. The results from the focus group will eventually be put in place to construct a piece of legislation on the matter of burning in local communities:

Focus Group

[Pesda]

I just want to know why Liquid Hydrogen, Uranium and Plutonium are included as essential goods under the Fair Taxation Act.

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

Is this cutting VAT on energy sources that do not require fuel, for example wind or wave power?

[The Nihilistic view]

I'd like to speak about the fair taxation act, if I may.

When I first saw this bill, I was very glad. It seemed that the government (and any supporters outside the government) cared about the poor, struggling consumers, and those in our society who need help. Something is being done, finally, to reduce the evil that is the Value Added Tax. This would be great aid to our people.

I was, however extremely disappointed that the main tax reduction in this bill would be taxes on fossil fuels. There was an oppurtinity to cut taxes on clothes, electrionic devices, and so on. Better still, the 10% VAT on secondary goods and services could have been eliminated completely.

I question, why cut taxes on fuel and not other things? Why is saving £400 on heating more important than saving £400 on any other consumer good commonly brought? Did you also consider raising the income tax threshold, which would also help our consumers?

Don't get me wrong, I still commend the intention of this bill. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. I'll probably vote "aye" despite being grumpy, though I am still ready to be conviced otherwise, should someone make a strong enough argument.

Finally, I'd like to comment on the environmental issue that the bill raises. The argument has been made that taxation on consumers will not reduce their demand for fossil fuels. This is only true if there's no alternative in the energy market. What is the government doing to make sure there is an alternative? How soon will there be an alternative? When will people be able to choose to heat their homes with clean electricity, rather than burning gas? How easy will it be to travel without burning petrol or jet fuel, and when? Will you find ways to reduce demand for energy without punishing the poor, for example by insulating homes?

While we realise that the poor are dependent on fossil fuels, and cutting this tax would without doubt help them, this is a short term solution to the long term problem of rising energy prices due to peak oil. We must not let this fool our people into thinking that we've got infinite petrol to burn.

To summerise, I will only support this bill if I am promised that our effots to combat climate change and a dependency on fossil fuels will continue and be redoubled. I will only support this bill if I am promised that the government is interested in other ways to cut the consumer's fuel bill, for example by being creative about reducing our demand for fossil fuels. And despite it not being conditional for my support, I'd be glad if we finally got rid of VAT once and for all.

Thank you.

Plenty as it happens, first there is the Energy ministers bill, Energy for the future act. Secondly the Nuclear building program that myself and the President have asked the Energy Minister to come up with a plan. It is a plan that will see the building of 5 reactors and see the reactors turn a future profit, I profit that we asked to be and that can be continuously re-invested. Both the Treasury and the President endorse the plan and right now we are deciding where is the best place for these stations. Thirdly we have my ministries efforts which consist of two thing's, the main plan is to produce green liquid hydrogen and the second a plan brought to me that I decided was possible involves testing the viability of Bio-fuels from algae. Whilst still producing some CO2 this is both much less than other types of bio-fuels as well as needing nowhere near as much land per barrel produced as say other crops and of course fossil fuels. If this trial is successful then we shall be working out a scaling up program and of course write an amendment to the Fair Tax act to exempt algae based fuels from Tax.

I am also trying to push Minister's to adopt green and more fuel efficient fleet cars. The Environment minister is looking at which consumer product's or materials should be banned from being burned. More plan's are still being formulated and over the next month and a half will come forward.

This government is doing more than any previous in these area's, on top of that the other side is the reduction on consumption taxes. Along with the Fair tax act there is the Custom's Minister's Tariff act that exempt's essential product's such as food from the current taxes on the import's of all goods. Seeing as you mention Cloths and food, these items are already exempt from VAT for the most part and the Fair tax act aims to complete this holy trinity good's that no person can live comfortably without and that represent a massive proportion of the average man's monthly budget.

It must not be forgotten that these taxes were introduced by the Progress coalition, and that the Market protection act that indiscriminately placed tariff's on all imports was written by the current Leader of the Opposition whilst he was a minister in government. Surprising it might seem for the left to be placing consumption taxes on goods and the right to be tacking them away. Never the less it is a course of action I am proud to see the majority of this government are behind and I hope that the opposition backs action that will help the very people they always claim to represent by far the most.

[Ainin]

Yeah, and I can prove that accidents happen. Chernobyl and Fukushima.

So we shouldn't use ships because of the Titanic?
I know you're pro-nuclear, I just couldn't help myself.

Nope.

We also shouldn't use skyscrapers because of 9/11 or buses because of 7/7.

[The Nihilistic view]

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

Is this cutting VAT on energy sources that do not require fuel, for example wind or wave power?

Wind is not a tradable commodity. How does one tax something that can't be bought and is just there to use with the right equipment anyway, you don't buy wind you set up equipment to take advantage of it.

[Pesda]

I'd like to speak about the fair taxation act, if I may.

When I first saw this bill, I was very glad. It seemed that the government (and any supporters outside the government) cared about the poor, struggling consumers, and those in our society who need help. Something is being done, finally, to reduce the evil that is the Value Added Tax. This would be great aid to our people.

I was, however extremely disappointed that the main tax reduction in this bill would be taxes on fossil fuels. There was an oppurtinity to cut taxes on clothes, electrionic devices, and so on. Better still, the 10% VAT on secondary goods and services could have been eliminated completely.

I question, why cut taxes on fuel and not other things? Why is saving £400 on heating more important than saving £400 on any other consumer good commonly brought? Did you also consider raising the income tax threshold, which would also help our consumers?

Don't get me wrong, I still commend the intention of this bill. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. I'll probably vote "aye" despite being grumpy, though I am still ready to be conviced otherwise, should someone make a strong enough argument.

Finally, I'd like to comment on the environmental issue that the bill raises. The argument has been made that taxation on consumers will not reduce their demand for fossil fuels. This is only true if there's no alternative in the energy market. What is the government doing to make sure there is an alternative? How soon will there be an alternative? When will people be able to choose to heat their homes with clean electricity, rather than burning gas? How easy will it be to travel without burning petrol or jet fuel, and when? Will you find ways to reduce demand for energy without punishing the poor, for example by insulating homes?

While we realise that the poor are dependent on fossil fuels, and cutting this tax would without doubt help them, this is a short term solution to the long term problem of rising energy prices due to peak oil. We must not let this fool our people into thinking that we've got infinite petrol to burn.

To summerise, I will only support this bill if I am promised that our effots to combat climate change and a dependency on fossil fuels will continue and be redoubled. I will only support this bill if I am promised that the government is interested in other ways to cut the consumer's fuel bill, for example by being creative about reducing our demand for fossil fuels. And despite it not being conditional for my support, I'd be glad if we finally got rid of VAT once and for all.

Thank you.

Plenty as it happens, first there is the Energy ministers bill, Energy for the future act. Secondly the Nuclear building program that myself and the President have asked the Energy Minister to come up with a plan. It is a plan that will see the building of 5 reactors and see the reactors turn a future profit, I profit that we asked to be and that can be continuously re-invested. Both the Treasury and the President endorse the plan and right now we are deciding where is the best place for these stations. Thirdly we have my ministries efforts which consist of two thing's, the main plan is to produce green liquid hydrogen and the second a plan brought to me that I decided was possible involves testing the viability of Bio-fuels from algae. Whilst still producing some CO2 this is both much less than other types of bio-fuels as well as needing nowhere near as much land per barrel produced as say other crops and of course fossil fuels. If this trial is successful then we shall be working out a scaling up program and of course write an amendment to the Fair Tax act to exempt algae based fuels from Tax.

I am also trying to push Minister's to adopt green and more fuel efficient fleet cars. The Environment minister is looking at which consumer product's or materials should be banned from being burned. More plan's are still being formulated and over the next month and a half will come forward.

Thank you for your answer. You have convinced me that the government is interested in alternative forms of energy. I'm still concerned that this will take some time, however, so in the mean time, will the government support reducing demand for energy by doing things such as insulating homes?

This government is doing more than any previous in these area's, on top of that the other side is the reduction on consumption taxes. Along with the Fair tax act there is the Custom's Minister's Tariff act that exempt's essential product's such as food from the current taxes on the import's of all goods. Seeing as you mention Cloths and food, these items are already exempt from VAT for the most part and the Fair tax act aims to complete this holy trinity good's that no person can live comfortably without and that represent a massive proportion of the average man's monthly budget.

It must not be forgotten that these taxes were introduced by the Progress coalition, and that the Market protection act that indiscriminately placed tariff's on all imports was written by the current Leader of the Opposition whilst he was a minister in government. Surprising it might seem for the left to be placing consumption taxes on goods and the right to be tacking them away. Never the less it is a course of action I am proud to see the majority of this government are behind and I hope that the opposition backs action that will help the very people they always claim to represent by far the most.

I am not pleased about your petty attempt at political point scoring. I voted against the 2013 Aurentine Budget proposal, mainly because of the VAT. Not to mention, wasn't there consumption taxes before that act? Memory fails me.
I do have reason to thank you for trying to cut consumption taxes. When you mention the "Custom's Minister's Tariff act," are you refering to the Tariff Regulation Act, currently at vote? Upon reading that, I believe it deserves my support.
I arleady realise that food is exempt from VAT, and I didn't not mention that, but what act has exempted clothes from VAT? According to the 2013 Aurentine Budget proposal,
"Secondary Goods and Services, defined as foodstuffs not included in "basic groceries" or "restricted products", street clothing, all consumer-targeted forms of gas and oil for commercial and fleet driving, electronics, entertainment devices, media and all other consumer-oriented products not covered by other categories, are taxed at 10% of selling price."
So I ask again, unless there's been an amendment since then to end the tax on clothes, why can't these be included in the Fair Tax act? Why can't non "basic groceries" be included? Why can't electronics, entertainment devices, media and all other consumer oriented products be included? Cutting taxes on those would be far, far more useful to the poor household than making foreign holidays cheaper by cutting tax on jet fuel.

To remind you, my support was conditional on two things:
-Efforts to combat dependence on fossil fuels are increased
-Other things are done to cut the fuel bill of our people, like lowering demand
I'm convinced that the first condition is satisfied. The second, not as much. You have mentioned things that would lower the need for petrol, such as fuel efficient cars, but how long will it take? There are things we could do right now if we wanted. Insulate homes, more public transport, cheaper public transport (especially)... I'm worried we'll be sitting around for years waiting for change. What will you do right now?

[Pesda]

Is this cutting VAT on energy sources that do not require fuel, for example wind or wave power?

Wind is not a tradable commodity. How does one tax something that can't be bought and is just there to use with the right equipment anyway, you don't buy wind you set up equipment to take advantage of it.

You missed my point. The bill would cut the price of coal power but not wind power. You could for example cut taxes on the materials that are needed to produce wind turbines. Is there a tax on metals? I don't know. If there is, cutting it would help all sorts of industry, not just energy industry.

[The Nihilistic view]

Wind is not a tradable commodity. How does one tax something that can't be bought and is just there to use with the right equipment anyway, you don't buy wind you set up equipment to take advantage of it.

You missed my point. The bill would cut the price of coal power but not wind power. You could for example cut taxes on the materials that are needed to produce wind turbines. Is there a tax on metals? I don't know. If there is, cutting it would help all sorts of industry, not just energy industry.

Yes it would, did you not see electricity was included?

[Placenza]

So we shouldn't use ships because of the Titanic?
I know you're pro-nuclear, I just couldn't help myself.

Nope.

We also shouldn't use skyscrapers because of 9/11 or buses because of 7/7.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe and we shouldn't use it. I'm saying that accidents happen.
The problem with nuclear power is that if something happens to the plant, the effects could be devastating. The area around Chernobyl will remain radioactive for the next 20,000 years. And what if there should be a natural disaster or terrorist attack that leads to a catastrophic failure and the meltdown of the plant? I'm not trying to discourage the use of nuclear power, I just want to make sure people know that these things can happen.

The Titanic, 9/11, and the 7/7 incident cannot spread harmful radiation across the continent. Fukushima and Chernobyl are perfect examples. I mean, what would we do if such an event occurred?

[Byzantium Imperial]

Nope.

We also shouldn't use skyscrapers because of 9/11 or buses because of 7/7.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe and we shouldn't use it. I'm saying that accidents happen.
The problem with nuclear power is that if something happens to the plant, the effects could be devastating. The area around Chernobyl will remain radioactive for the next 20,000 years. And what if there should be a natural disaster or terrorist attack that leads to a catastrophic failure and the meltdown of the plant? I'm not trying to discourage the use of nuclear power, I just want to make sure people know that these things can happen.

The Titanic, 9/11, and the 7/7 incident cannot spread harmful radiation across the continent. Fukushima and Chernobyl are perfect examples. I mean, what would we do if such an event occurred?

Only the direct area of Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable, so assuming your not living in the town you should be fine at this point.
Fukushima was mismanagement, terrible circumstances, and not one but TWO major disasters occurring at the same exact time which combined to form the disaster it became. And even with all of this, the damage has been contained to the Fukushima area (if TEPCO had responded effectively early on, then the radioactive water problems wouldnt be an issue).

Nuclear disasters are containable, on the very rare occasion they happen, and it really takes a perfect storm or really appalling management to cause a nuclear disaster bad enough to wreck an area. Three Mile Island is a good example of what the worst case scenario is without super disasters/rampant negligence. Virginia is still inhabitable.

[Regnum Dominae]

I said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe and we shouldn't use it. I'm saying that accidents happen.
The problem with nuclear power is that if something happens to the plant, the effects could be devastating. The area around Chernobyl will remain radioactive for the next 20,000 years. And what if there should be a natural disaster or terrorist attack that leads to a catastrophic failure and the meltdown of the plant? I'm not trying to discourage the use of nuclear power, I just want to make sure people know that these things can happen.

The Titanic, 9/11, and the 7/7 incident cannot spread harmful radiation across the continent. Fukushima and Chernobyl are perfect examples. I mean, what would we do if such an event occurred?

Only the direct area of Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable, so assuming your not living in the town you should be fine at this point.
Fukushima was mismanagement, terrible circumstances, and not one but TWO major disasters occurring at the same exact time which combined to form the disaster it became. And even with all of this, the damage has been contained to the Fukushima area (if TEPCO had responded effectively early on, then the radioactive water problems wouldnt be an issue).

Nuclear disasters are containable, on the very rare occasion they happen, and it really takes a perfect storm or really appalling management to cause a nuclear disaster bad enough to wreck an area. Three Mile Island is a good example of what the worst case scenario is without super disasters/rampant negligence. Virginia is still inhabitable.

And furthermore, it has been proven that Three Mile Island did not kill or even harm the health of even one person.

Yes, what a horrible disaster

[The Nihilistic view]

Only the direct area of Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable, so assuming your not living in the town you should be fine at this point.
Fukushima was mismanagement, terrible circumstances, and not one but TWO major disasters occurring at the same exact time which combined to form the disaster it became. And even with all of this, the damage has been contained to the Fukushima area (if TEPCO had responded effectively early on, then the radioactive water problems wouldnt be an issue).

Nuclear disasters are containable, on the very rare occasion they happen, and it really takes a perfect storm or really appalling management to cause a nuclear disaster bad enough to wreck an area. Three Mile Island is a good example of what the worst case scenario is without super disasters/rampant negligence. Virginia is still inhabitable.

And furthermore, it has been proven that Three Mile Island did not kill or even harm the health of even one person.

Yes, what a horrible disaster

So there is a "magical double standard for nuclear where it has to be absolutely perfect" it seems.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Only the direct area of Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable, so assuming your not living in the town you should be fine at this point.
Fukushima was mismanagement, terrible circumstances, and not one but TWO major disasters occurring at the same exact time which combined to form the disaster it became. And even with all of this, the damage has been contained to the Fukushima area (if TEPCO had responded effectively early on, then the radioactive water problems wouldnt be an issue).

Nuclear disasters are containable, on the very rare occasion they happen, and it really takes a perfect storm or really appalling management to cause a nuclear disaster bad enough to wreck an area. Three Mile Island is a good example of what the worst case scenario is without super disasters/rampant negligence. Virginia is still inhabitable.

And furthermore, it has been proven that Three Mile Island did not kill or even harm the health of even one person.

Yes, what a horrible disaster

Nonsense, there were plenty of cassualties
They made an entire Xmen movie out of it XD

[Aragon-Francho]

And furthermore, it has been proven that Three Mile Island did not kill or even harm the health of even one person.

Yes, what a horrible disaster

Nonsense, there were plenty of cassualties
They made an entire Xmen movie out of it XD

I hope you are kidding...

[The Nihilistic view]

Nonsense, there were plenty of cassualties
They made an entire Xmen movie out of it XD

I hope you are kidding...

No he really is telling the truth........

[Aragon-Francho]

I hope you are kidding...

No he really is telling the truth........

Really...

[The Nihilistic view]

No he really is telling the truth........

Really...

Like I am clicking that