NationStates Jolt Archive

//EDIT: The most recent draft for the proposal discussed here is found in a later post within this thread.
//EDIT END.

A review of adopted UN resolutions regarding the issues of environment and energy has revealed that some these resolutions are contradicting, overlapping, or contain factual errors. In an initial attempt to address this issue by repealing redundant the Federation of Temurdia therefore proposes the following resolution to repeal UNR39. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029854&postcount=40)

Repeal Alternative Fuels (UNR39)

We, the United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDING the harmful consequences of the widespread use of fossil fuels,

KNOWING that such fuels account for a very significant part of global energy output in the form of electricity, heat, and transportation fuels,

COMMENDING the intention of United Nations Resolution 39 (Alternative Fuels, UNR39), to reduce emmission of and economic dependence on such fossil fuels,

ENCURAGING the research into and use of non-fossil fuels including renewable energy sources and nuclear energy,

NOTING that a number of resolutions adressing the above mentioned issues have been adobted by the United Nations,

FUTHER NOTING the presence of several factual errors and references of questionable relevance in the formulation of UNR39,

FURTHER NOTING the narrow target of UNR39,

CONCERNED that the very specific target formulation and the absence of descrimination with regards to the nature the corporate operators affected may jeopardize the economy of lesser automobile manufactures, such as those common in several developing countries,

FURTHER CONCERNED that this might set back the economical development necessary for large scale implementation of non-fossil energy sources,

FURTHER CONCERNED that UNR39 is unlikely to make the intended environmental impact,

Hereby REPEALS United Nations Resolution nr. 39, Alternative Fuels.

A review of adopted UN resolutions regarding the issues of environment and energy has revealed that some these resolutions are contradicting, overlapping, or contain factual errors. In an initial attempt to address this issue by repealing redundant the Federation of Temurdia therefore proposes the following resolution to repeal UNR39. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029854&postcount=40)

Notwithstanding the spelling and format errors, my biggest concerns are these sections:

FURTHER NOTING the presence of several factual errors and references of questionable relevance in the formulation of UNR39,

Like what? Which ones? (OOC: If you're referring to RL references, then this argument is invalid. You can't repeal a resolution for being against the current rules.)

FURTHER NOTING the narrow target of UNR39,

Like how? Just because it applies to automobile manufacturers? Sounds fine to me, in both that this is a valid argument [if that's what you mean], and that the target is, in fact, fairly broad.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Like what? Which ones? (OOC: If you're referring to RL references, then this argument is invalid. You can't repeal a resolution for being against the current rules.)


(OOC: While I've read the rules for proposing repeals, I seem to have overlooked the RL-rule. I would not propose a repeal based solely on such references, however.)

I'll give a few examples of questionable statements found in UNR39:

Despite the virtual elimination of the use of CFCs the ozone layers continues to evaporate due in large part to the continued use of environmentally damaging toxins such as fossil fuels.

CFC breaks down ozone, it does not cause "evaporation". Fossil fuels are not toxins (unless you apply a very broad definition of such), and they do not break down ozone. The depletion of the ozone layer and the increased greenhouse effect (caused e.g. by carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels) are two completely separate things.


Alternative fuels can be developed by any nation with the economy to do so and in fact even small nations with small economies can contribute due to the fact that they will only need as much to supply their population.

Firstly, the wordings "any nation with the economy to do so" and "even (...) small economies" appear to contradict each other.

Secondly, just because you only need so much energy does not mean that it gets proportionally cheaper to develop the technology. Also, the above paragraph implies that developing nations have lower energy consumption. This is not necessarily so, since a less advanced economy often means older technology, which again means lower energy efficiency.


With regards to the narrow scope, it is the facts that only car manufactures are targeted, and that 1% of the profit of a single industry is a rather limited amount.

By targeting only car manufactures, other fuel-consuming industries, e.g. power generation, will experience a technological drag.

(OOC: While I've read the rules for proposing repeals, I seem to have overlooked the RL-rule. I would not propose a repeal based solely on such references, however.)Mentioning the rules themselves is a metagaming reference. They exist "above" the game, and are an external construct. It would be like submitting a Repeal base on violations of the FAQ. Not only can you not base a Repeal "soley on such [a] reference," but you cannot mention it at all.

Mentioning the rules themselves is a metagaming reference. They exist "above" the game, and are an external construct. It would be like submitting a Repeal base on violations of the FAQ. Not only can you not base a Repeal "soley on such [a] reference," but you cannot mention it at all.

Hence, the word "draft" in the name of the thread :)

Indeed. Just wanted you to be aware of how the rules worked to save you the heartache.

Hmm, I'm not convinced by all the arguments in this repeal, but #39 is pretty bad. A couple of suggestions:

1. Spell out the scientific errors, don't just hint at them. It is ok, I'm sure, to say 'Resolution #39 talks about carbon dioxide emissions depleting the ozone layer, whereas ozone depletion is in fact not linked to carbon emissions' (or, to cover yourself, 'is primarily caused not by carbon dioxide but by CFCs, which are of no relevance to automobile emissions'), all worded a little more intelligibly. Otherwise, you will have a chorus of people asking 'what's wrong with the science'?

2. Be consistent. Either it's too narrow in scope, or it's economically crippling; it would be difficult to be both, wouldn't it?

Another thing would be the rather arbitrary nature of the investment requirement: you could say that there might be other systems for promoting research, not to mention that it seems a little pointless for every single car company to be obliged to conduct research in the same area.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison
Quintessence of Dust

2. Be consistent. Either it's too narrow in scope, or it's economically crippling; it would be difficult to be both, wouldn't it?

It is narrow in scope towards the environmental goals, which must be considered its primary purpose, but it might have disproportional economic consequences. It would be difficult to be both only if the target and the effect were the same.

Another thing would be the rather arbitrary nature of the investment requirement: you could say that there might be other systems for promoting research, not to mention that it seems a little pointless for every single car company to be obliged to conduct research in the same area.

I agree!

The comments given in this thread are appreciated, and have been considered during the preparation of a second draft for the proposal discussed in this thread. Some elements have been removed, some have been added, and some have been thoroughly rewritten.

Repeal Alternative Fuels (UNR39)

We, the United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING the harmful consequences of the widespread use of fossil fuels,

KNOWING that such fuels account for a very significant part of global energy output in the form of electricity, heat, and transportation fuels,

COMMENDING the intention of United Nations Resolution 39 (Alternative Fuels, UNR39), to reduce emission of and economic dependence on such fossil fuels,

ENCOURAGING the research into and use of non-fossil fuels including renewable energy sources and nuclear energy,

NOTING that a number of resolutions addressing the above mentioned issues have been adopted by the United Nations,

FURTHER NOTING the presence of several factual errors and references of questionable relevance in the formulation of UNR39,

CONCERNED that the very specific target formulation and the absence of discrimination with regards to the nature the corporate operators affected may jeopardize the economy of lesser auto mobile manufactures, such as those common in several developing countries,

FURTHER CONCERNED that this might set back the economical development necessary for large scale implementation of non-fossil energy sources,

FURTHER CONCERNED that due to the narrow scope of industries targeted and the limited severity of the obligations laid upon these industries by UNR39, the resolution is unlikely to make the intended environmental impact,

Hereby REPEALS United Nations Resolution no. 39, Alternative Fuels.

Please, do not hesitate to bring further comments. Gratitudes are extended to all contributors.