NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are a U.N. delegate, please support the Efficient Transportation Act. It will do a great deal to clean the air of many industrialized nations by requiring tougher fuel efficiency standards on motorized vehicles. The citizens of your countries deserve cleaner air. Please support this proposal to make this world a better place.

-- Princess Mandie --

Efficient Transportation Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing Proposed by: Inya
Description: Upon enactment, this resolution would require the fuel efficiency of new small vehicles (cars, motorcycles, SUVs, pickup trucks) to be 19 kilometers per liter and all other vehicles (semis, buses) to be 14 kilometers per liter within two years and would impose large fines on governments and corporations that violate the act, payable to the U.N. for environmental work.

Approvals: 4 (Welcome to Coneria, SatansLoveChildren, Scyphia, New Asky)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 104 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 28 2003

----------
Umm... expecting the fuel efficiency of an SUV or pickup truck to exceed 19km/litre is insane. Even Ford's new hybrid version of its Escape (or something) has a fuel efficiency of 10-15 km/litre.

Also it should be noted that the fuel efficiency of a vehicle depends on how it is used. If you do a lot of stop-and-go driving, for example, your fuel efficiency will drop.

I say ban SUVs.

Anywhen I'll endorse it.

Just as a fair warning.

If you send me a "please endorse this" 'gram more than twelve minutes or so after I endorse something then I go clicky clicity click on the "Withdraw Approval" link.

Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke

We will not approve this proposal.

why would you not it would improve living conditions greatly. you might also wanna check the clean air act. that has alot to do with this.

There are already THREE environmental resolutions on the floor. Why the hell do we need a fourth?

There are already THREE environmental resolutions on the floor. Why the hell do we need a fourth?

Because we want to protect the environment. :twisted:

>clicky-clicky<

Proposal approved.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

There are already THREE environmental resolutions on the floor. Why the hell do we need a fourth?
[/gloat]I was the very first delegate to eapprove the second one.[/gloat]

you ask hy we would want more....uhh lets see unless you wanna walk out your front door and drop dead because there is no oxygen to breath then i think you should want the enviromental proposals. i dont wanna drop dead i have better things to do than lay around.

you ask hy we would want more....uhh lets see unless you wanna walk out your front door and drop dead because there is no oxygen to breath then i think you should want the enviromental proposals. i dont wanna drop dead i have better things to do than lay around.

This is called "hyperbole". Nobody is "dropping dead." US Suburban communities with high SUV ownership usually have much better air than say, in Smolensk, where no one has an SUV.

I say ban SUVs.Then how are people supposed to drive off-road or in inconvenient weather?

I say ban SUVs.Then how are people supposed to drive off-road or in inconvenient weather?

I say ban SUVs in urban areas.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I say ban SUVs in urban areas.Then how will people get their SUVs to the off-road areas? On even less environmentally-friendly, even larger trucks?

I say ban SUVs.Then how are people supposed to drive off-road or in inconvenient weather?

I say ban SUVs in urban areas.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Then how are people supposed to drive uphill on a snowy day? Also what if someone who lives in a city wants to travel to the country?

I say ban SUVs.Then how are people supposed to drive off-road or in inconvenient weather?

I say ban SUVs in urban areas.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Then how are people supposed to drive uphill on a snowy day? Also what if someone who lives in a city wants to travel to the country?

Snow chains?

Umm... expecting the fuel efficiency of an SUV or pickup truck to exceed 19km/litre is insane. Even Ford's new hybrid version of its Escape (or something) has a fuel efficiency of 10-15 km/litre.

Also it should be noted that the fuel efficiency of a vehicle depends on how it is used. If you do a lot of stop-and-go driving, for example, your fuel efficiency will drop.

It's not a crazy idea. Most companies have large teams of researchers and could easily figure a way to implement the tougher standards. The real issue is that money tends to be more important. It is the duty of governments to impose ethical standards on business to protect the people from the problems caused by greed.

Also, I should clarify that the fuel efficiency standards are minimum requirements, not average requirements.

Support for this proposal is a support for clean air and for a better tomorrow.

-- Princess Mandie --

This is the most idiotic of several astoundingly idiotic proposals we've seen recently. The fuel efficiency goals are simply far outside the realm of possibility for anything but motorcycles and compact cars. No research will remedy this. The actual affect would be a ban on virtually all road transport. No way to move freight of any kind by road, and the inhabitants of every major city on earth would starve. All commerce would cease. An even worse idea than the usual lefty irruptions.

Why not just ban cars while you're at it?

Why not just ban cars while you're at it?

Indeed why not? Cars were banned in Wolomy a long time ago.

Or ban people in large amounts of the countries.

There are already THREE environmental resolutions on the floor. Why the hell do we need a fourth?

Don't worr, if nationstates are smart they stop voting for them because to much after each other will kill any economy.

Oh yea you right, that assumes nationstates as smart :P

IRL mix up :D

There is a difference between wanting a perfect world and achieving it. You can't just solve the world's problems with a wave of a wand.

There are already THREE environmental resolutions on the floor. Why the hell do we need a fourth?

Actually I propose an other resolution that is more practical and is definitily more liked by economies.

- The basics should include a subsidy for fuel efficient cars.
- The amount of subsidy is based on how much efficient it is. This removes this stupid boundry thing and other imposibilites. Suppost I should let a tank drive 1 in 19 too right :P. Oh oke maybe you want it under 1:14. Anyways, how about those monster truck to transport earth, do they have that limitiation too?!?!!?
Gosh face it, this is an hopeless unrealistic law.
However just giving a subsidy based on efficiency would help a lot.

There are however two questions that I throw open for debate.
First, where does the money come from.
Second, can it be assumed that one car is one car or one bus or one tank or one monstertruck. Or should it be coupled to size or something.
Couple it to weight or maybe. After all it is much more difficult for a heavy car to be economically friendly then a bus who is much heavier, but then again it transports more people.
On the other hand what you don't want is that to suport a car that carries 2 persons and has I don't know how much unnecassery metal on it, to be subsidesed more than a car that carries 2 persons, but manage to do it without the unnessacery extra metal.

I haven't, well I just feel like not working a solution out on my own right now, so I throw it before a brainstorm session of the public :).