Sustainable Efficiency Resolution
This is the first think tank idea put up for discussion. We like to refer to our resolution methods (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1681673#1681673). Of course, we at Walt Dixie are in no position to dictate you how to act in a NSUN debate, however, we just wanted to inform you how we will act, and how we believe we can all work together to have stronger NSUN voting.
On to the resolution:
Sustainable Efficiency
Preamble
We live in a society of waste. Many basic services could be organised in a manner which is much more efficient, thereby aiding both economy and environment, both our surroundings and ourselves. Speaking in the long term, this sustainable management is a win-win situation; only in the short term there are costs to be made. We, the members of the NationStates United Nations, hereby declare to keep our eye to the future, and invest in projects that are profitable in every way.
Sustainable efficiency
Article 1
If, in a case study approved by the NSUN, a sustainable energy source proves to gain more profit than it costs, it shall always be preferred above any unsustainable energy source.
Article 2
Sustainable solutions are solutions that put a minimal burden on the environment, of which the human race is a part.
Implementation
Article 3
If a new governmental structure is built, its infrastructure will have to obey the principle declared in Article 1.
Article 4
An advising organisation, whether privatised or governmental, should give civilians the opportunity to inform themselves about sustainable efficiency and implementations thereof.
Article 5
Civilians should have the possibility to invest in sustainable efficiency and implementations thereof. A system of temporary loans to implement sustainable efficiency, paid by instalments with output of those implementations, should be developed.
uhm sounds happy but the term "sustainable efficiency" doesn't seem to make much sense.
uhm sounds happy but the term "sustainable efficiency" doesn't seem to make much sense.
Fine, here are some examples:
1) For lighting, you can use light bulbs that use a fourth of the energy a regular light bulb uses. However, there's even a more interesting proposal recently: instead of light bulbs, use LED's. They take less efforts to replace, use less energy, and are thus more sustainable AND more efficient.
2) The rules of Rational Energy Use. These rules are basically good guidelines not to waste more energy than is necessary. Basic rules are stuff like: Shut down appliances you are not planning to use in the next few hours; unless of course, they need a longer period to 'warm up'. Don't turn appliances on and off more than necessary. Avoid the stand by function (of course, the turn on/off rule is prior to the standby rule). When brushing your teeth, keep some water contained in the sink or a glass, instead of just turning on the faucet and let water flow down the sink.
These rules are both sustainable AND efficient.
3) Preserving the heat in housing. A good isolation is less common in houses than it should be. Isolation is crucial. Also, one could consider initiatives like double glazing, dark glazing, etc.
These things are both sustainable AND efficient.
But, of course, usually it's a trade off. That's what Article 1 is for. In terms of heating, renewable energy sources usually are very efficient. I've heard of housing where renewable energy sources were used in the heating. Sun boilers were profitable after 8 years (meaning: they paid off everything they have 'costed' in the mean time), solar panels after 30 years (don't quote me on those figures, I should double-check them; but it doesn't matter, just think of them as paying off in 40 years, both). Fossil fuels might be profitable, but firstly, they will be around for something between 40 and 120 years (dependant on the sources) and secondly, they still cost money on a regular basis, while renewable sources cost close to nothing after a certain time (close; you have to think about maintenance costs; if these costs are too high, the source should not be considered efficient).
I'm saying that something is sustainable AND efficient if it doesn't burden the environment, and if it pays off. In a sense: if it is socially, ecologically, and even economically beneficial. However, a sustainable source is preferred over an unsustainable source. Even if it's less efficient? I don't think such a decision can be made by the NSUN. I'd like to stress that this resolution says absolutely nothing about that.
The reason for that is that this resolution sees itself as a compromise between social and economic actors. This is a socially inspired resolution. But it doesn't ask anything special form the economically inspired. It merely asks to be sensible, and do the thing that is better for both those viewpoints.
Hrmm perhaps that could have been phrased better. I know what you mean by sustainable and efficiency and how something can be sustainable and efficient etc. It was the term "sustainable efficiency" that seemed strange. Maybe it was just me.
"Article 3
If a new governmental structure is built, its infrastructure will have to obey the principle declared in Article 1."
By this do you mean that, if the NSUN approves solar energy as a preferred sustainable energy solution, though a new country may be rich in coal, it must build its infrastructure utilizing solar power as the primary energy source? Just looking for more clarity.
"Article 3
If a new governmental structure is built, its infrastructure will have to obey the principle declared in Article 1."
By this do you mean that, if the NSUN approves solar energy as a preferred sustainable energy solution, though a new country may be rich in coal, it must build its infrastructure utilizing solar power as the primary energy source? Just looking for more clarity.
More or less, though let me nuance things.
Suppose the coal resources of this country would last another 100 years. Suppose the NSUN calculates that solar energy would be 'profitable' after 60 years. Then this means the nation should implement solar energy, even if the profit of the coal energy is higher. Why? Because you have to think of things in the long term.
Suppose the profit of coal energy is higher. Then, at least for 100 years, a nation taking the coal approach would be better off. However, since there is a depletion of the unsustainable energy source that coal is, after these 100 years things will start to turn in favour of solar energy. At a certain point, say 120 years, there will be a break-even point. After this, the solar approach will be more profitable.
Because unsustainable energy comes to an end, sustainable energy is always the better solution.