NationStates Jolt Archive

We oppose this for the following reasons:

1. It is untimely. In the present economic climate, immediately after expensive labor union legislation reforms, it is not a prudent or feasible move at this point

2. It is not in our interest. We have an economically important but vulnerable auto production sector

3. It is unfair. Car producers do not create a public problem, they provide a public neccessity. The problems connected with fossile fuel consumption pertains to everyone. It is therefore unfair that Car producers specifically should cover the cost of research into alternative fuels.

4. It is unwise. It will weaken the very business that must inevitably be relied upon the IMPLEMENT any results this research produces.

5. We declare our intention, in the event of this resolution passing, to accompany its implementation with a corresponding reduction in taxes for the Car manufacturing industry, or other pro-business steps to the same effect.

Try this on for size. Oil is made of hydro carbons. To call it fossil fuels is false and leads people to believe that there is a finite amount. The earth as not stopped producing hydro carbons. The Romania example is one example of how oil can be pumped quicker then the earth can make it. The United States is a perfect example of how the earth is still making hydro carbons. Many oil wells went dry in the United States 30, 40 or even 50 years ago. But yet today many of the thought to be dry oil wells are pumping again. Why, because the earth has not stopped making hydro carbons. Hydro carbons are not finite. There is more oil reserves today then there were 30, 40 or 50 years ago, because our technology in finding them is getting better, and because the earth is still producing hydro carbons. Unlike what the environmentalist wackos want us to believe, that the earth is running out of oil, in another 10 years the oil reserve will probably grow by 1/3 or more.
There have been no alternative fuels now that can compete with the price of oil, or the energy production from oil for the cost. Only government subsidies makes alternative fuel prices compete with fuel from oil. If there is a market for alternative fuels, then allow the capitalistic system bring it in. If there is money to be made in alternative fuels then someone will do it without being forced to, and without government subsidies. Tax payers should not be forced to pay for something that they don't want. The oxygenated fuels are not as effecient as regular fuels and it is proven everytime someone fills up the vehicle with this mess. It is hard on the engine seals and the engine uses more of it to go the same distance.
Alternative fuels legislation should not even have come to vote because it is full of false hoods that can not be backed up with any good sceintific data.

After the Labor Union resolution, I will have to vote against anything that has the potential to negativly impact my economy at this time, no matter how small an impact.

I'm still asking... Is it The UN's job to police private business? Or shouldn't the sovereign Government set the policies and mandates of which a private business can operate within their borders?

OOC: I'm from norway, so I know a bit about oil.....

IC:
Yes, the earth is producing hydro carbons, but not nearly fast enough. Something has to be done about the entire greenhouse problem, this is a small step in the right direction. I'm more than willing to sacrifice some of my economy if it means less oil being pumped up and used. Stop being so americanly selfish and only caring about your own economy. About oilwells, some scientists predicted that the norwegian sea would be empty of oil in 2010. But we keep finding new wells and old ones don't dry out. There is ahellofalot of oil on this planet, but sometime it will run out.
We need alternative fuel sources. NOW!

Right now I feel like I have to oppose this as some of the others above me. My economy has been crushed by a few of the last issues, and although I do support moving to a hydrogen industry I simply can't do it now. I won't have an economy to speak of.

Firstly, this proposal does nothing to resolve environmental issues. It merely forces automotive manufacturers to pay for R & D of alternative fuels. The cost of which, would be passed on in the form of price increases to the average consumer. And that, prior to any fix of environment issues and perhaps fixes that will never be made.

I would add an adendum to this resolution stating: "No manufacturer, regardless of their level of participation in AF solutions, can lay claim to any or all Copyrights and/or Patents to any technology that actually creates and solves the AF question", as the question of Alternative Fuels is a universal issue and not a local issue.

I would also suggest the UN resolution brought forth by the Good Peoples of Kibombwe and enacted June 16th of 2003 have taken the first steps of R & D to alternative fuels, even though it is not a mandate upon nations and voluntary in nature.

We, of the Commonwealth of Treeonia will go negative on this resolution.

Regards,

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwelath of Treeonia

Psylos will vote against the resolution as well because we already spent much more than 1% of our budget for the environment and this would be an additional 1% which we can not afford for the moment, especially since we have banned cars in Psylos and are not using so much fosil fuels and therefore are not conserned by this particular research.

Note that the environment in Psylos is in excellent shape and that we are willing to protect it even at high cost but that this particular resolution would not produce the desired result in a car-free country.
Also note that 1% of our budget is a really huge amount of money since it is equal to 1% of our GDP since we have 100% tax rate.

We encourage every nations to vote against this resolution but also to commit to protect the environment in a responsible way. Especially, we would like others nations to use more sustainable energies already available and we don't see the point in researching more sustainable energy when those available are still not widely used in the world.

OOC: I'm from norway, so I know a bit about oil.....

IC:
Yes, the earth is producing hydro carbons, but not nearly fast enough. Something has to be done about the entire greenhouse problem, this is a small step in the right direction. I'm more than willing to sacrifice some of my economy if it means less oil being pumped up and used. Stop being so americanly selfish and only caring about your own economy. About oilwells, some scientists predicted that the norwegian sea would be empty of oil in 2010. But we keep finding new wells and old ones don't dry out. There is ahellofalot of oil on this planet, but sometime it will run out.
We need alternative fuel sources. NOW!

OOC: I'm American....

IC: For one, Americanly selfish is a bit of a stereotype taken way to out of hand. Secondly, I agree with you full on. The economy will be just fine. It's only ONE PERCENT that is being requested to go to finding a new source. That leaves 99% to the government's economy. I'm not seeing how this is going to have a chaotic effect and apocalypse an economy. Cars are the leader of producing a lot of the worlds pollution, and the world has a pollution problem. Look at Los Angeles. Do we want the whole world to look like that? I sure don't. We live in the age of information and technology, both can save us from ourselves - the human race. Its time to use that and clear our heads of pollution. We have the power to make cleaner fuel for not only cars but other things - I say go for it!

Could somebody please educate me on how the earth is producing hydrocarbons unerdground? I have a MS in civil engineering, specializing in hydrogeology, and the concept of "making hydrocarbons" does not on first thought make sense to me.

If the "making hydrocarbons" argument is based solely on the evidence that formerly dry oil wells are now pumping again, then I have trouble accepting that.

You can pump a water well dry if you pump it hard enough or if the rock or soil is tight enough. Stop pumping, the water flows back in, a simple matter of the equalization of water levels with the local groundwatre level. Seems to me that this example could be the same for oil. The mechanism of pumping oil is essentially the same, except that oil is much much more viscous and would therefore take longer to flow through the ground. Could it be that rather than "producing hydrocarbons," that already existing oil is seeping slowly (could take dozens of years for the "oil level" to stabilize) back into a well that had been pumped dry?

So if there is something more to the continuing generation of hydrocarbons, please let me know, it would be interesting to learn more.

[quote="Rebel Grots"]OOC: I'm from norway, so I know a bit about oil.....

IC:
Stop being so americanly selfish and only caring about your own economy.

Oh, from Norway, didn't your country go along with the rest of Europe and sign the Kyoto treaty? But the last report on air quality showed that the air quality in the US is getting better, but you holyer then thou Europeans are getting worse, plus your economies are tanking. Look, your right, I am an American, and damn proud of it. I am proud to be in a country where the government doesn't own all the businesses, and I am free to start my own business if I want to, without the government telling me what type of business I can open. I am proud to say that the US is not a socialist country, yet, like Germany, France and many of the other great European nations. I don't want a government hand out, nor do I ask for one. I also oppose our politicians who think we need to bend over for the UN.
Now, I would guess from your comment that Norway's economy wouldn't be hurt at all if oil production stopped. It sounds to me like it would. It also sounds to me that the proof of what I said is right in front of you, you totally agreed with it, but don't want to see it. Do you realize that in the US the air quality has improved to the point where there are not enough chemicals coming from the air into the ground to help crop growth? Farmers are now having to by sulfur and put sulfur into the ground to help their crops because not enough of it is coming out of the air. I guess we still haven't done enough though for the rest of the world. If oil is finite, it will not run out in our life time, or our childrens lifetime, or our grandchildrens lifetime. Even if you continue to increase the amount of use by the world at the pace that it is increasing now, there is more then enough oil that has been found right now to last well past that. Doomsday scientist will always be around predicting all kinds of stuff from short term studies. But none of these short term studies hold up in the long term. If you remember, doomsday scientist said that we would be dieing off by now from the hole in the ozone, back in the 1980s. They were predicting that the hole in the ozone would continually get bigger, and the sky was going to fall or something like that. Anyway, the hole is smaller now then it was. The earth is producing more natural scrubbers of the air now then it ever has, and the air quality is getting better. In the US, cars produce over 85% less pollution then they did in the 1970s. But the down side to that is that to get better mileage the weight of the cars had to come down. Now here is a legacy the envirnmentalist don't want you to know, over 7,700 American lives have been lost for every 1 mile per gallon saved through the CAFE standards that were put into effect by the push of environmentalists. Boy, that's a legacy that I would hang my hat on. This could also say that 780 Americans die for every 100 pounds shaved off of a vehicles weight. Another environmental legacy. With the record the environmentalist have, who is worried about global warming or any of the other crap that they pedal? If they keep passing thier laws, we will all be dead or living in huge aparment buildings without heat or AC, and all be riding on the ole horse and buggy again.

We have plenty of oil for the time being, why should the economy suffer for something that'll be a concern 60 years from now. I say NO to this proposal

I'm with Feichmest who says: I'm still asking... Is it The UN's job to police private business? Or shouldn't the sovereign Government set the policies and mandates of which a private business can operate within their borders?

Also Treeonia added: Firstly, this proposal does nothing to resolve environmental issues. It merely forces automotive manufacturers to pay for R & D of alternative fuels. The cost of which, would be passed on in the form of price increases to the average consumer. And that, prior to any fix of environment issues and perhaps fixes that will never be made.

For both of these obvious reasons I OPPOSE this specious legislation! You should too!

The World as a whole must Deal with Problems that concern it. Oil contrary to prior posts is not gaining and is most definately losing in amount. Will we push for no plan of action and wait until it is to late. Will the world wait until our people lose heat, the ability to be mobile. The economies will fail if we do not plan for the future. Yes this could be along ways away or it could be just around the corner. The question is will we prepare for the worst or let it find us unprepared.

Psylos will vote against the resolution as well because we already spent much more than 1% of our budget for the environment and this would be an additional 1% which we can not afford for the moment, especially since we have banned cars in Psylos and are not using so much fosil fuels and therefore are not conserned by this particular research.

Note that the environment in Psylos is in excellent shape and that we are willing to protect it even at high cost but that this particular resolution would not produce the desired result in a car-free country.
Also note that 1% of our budget is a really huge amount of money since it is equal to 1% of our GDP since we have 100% tax rate.

We encourage every nations to vote against this resolution but also to commit to protect the environment in a responsible way. Especially, we would like others nations to use more sustainable energies already available and we don't see the point in researching more sustainable energy when those available are still not widely used in the world.Wait, it seems this position was based on an error from our translation services. It appears that actually the resolutions states that only the automobile industry would give 1% of their profits and not the government. Therefore we are unaffected by the resolution and will stay neutral.

This resolution looks good at face value, but I ask the UN representatives to think of the implications if this issue is passed.

Many countries are already on their way to solving the "alternative resources" question. They are doing this by implementing Capitalism. This need is not for the government or UN to dictate. This need is for private business to solve. Governments should provide a nudge in the right direction in the form of grants and incentives to both the automobile industry and automobile consumers that will speed up the transfer of fuel reliance from coal and oil to renewable energy.

In addition, automobile manufacturers should not be the only one targetted in this type of issue. Tax credits should be issued to residents incorporating solar energy into the use of their home cooling and heating. Natural gas companies should begin R&D measures. Power plants using non-renewable resources should be phased out. There are many business's and industries that attribute to the depletion of fossil fuels.

But this is a problem that can and will be solved with Capitalism. Once public demand for hybrid cars and alternative fuels get higher, industry will cater to those demands on their own. There is no need, reason or excuse to have an institution like the United Nations twist their arm and force them to do it now.

The nation that put this resolution does not know what he is on about... he says that the evaporatio (not possible.. ozone layer is not a liquid) of the ozone layer will cause global warmong..... rubbish, ozone layer has NOTHING to do with gobal warming. If you dont even know what your talking about in a resolution how can you make a resolution on the topic?
I encourage you to all vote against this uninformed resolution.

-Greetings from Atha Cliath

The Honorable Folks @ Atlantios wrote:
"The World as a whole must Deal with Problems that concern it. Oil contrary to prior posts is not gaining and is most definately losing in amount. Will we push for no plan of action and wait until it is to late. Will the world wait until our people lose heat, the ability to be mobile. The economies will fail if we do not plan for the future. Yes this could be along ways away or it could be just around the corner. The question is will we prepare for the worst or let it find us unprepared."


Absolutely. The peoples of the world must find the answer to this riddle of Alternative Fuels. However the resolution as written, does not do anything for anything other than raise the cost of an automobile which in turn becomes a "psuedo-alternative-fuel-tax" on the consumer. And this is where we part ways.

To date we only have one question. How to implement AF. Creating an Alternative Fuel is not the problem. We have already done that. The problem arises in the prohibitive costs of implementing such AF programs. And to Red Flag only one industry is not the answer. There are numerous other industries contributing to the universal fossil fuel depletion.

AF is a universal issue, therefore, in the humble opine of Treeonia, the scientific community should and must be at the forefront of discovery. Having the scientists, and not manufacturers, at the helm, will result in unbiased comment, creditable output and eliminate monetary foul-play.

We, of Treeonia, will not remain neutral and will pursue a more effective path of resolution. Treeonia will and already has voted Nay on the current resolution.

Regards,

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

Could somebody please educate me on how the earth is producing hydrocarbons unerdground? I have a MS in civil engineering, specializing in hydrogeology, and the concept of "making hydrocarbons" does not on first thought make sense to me.

If the "making hydrocarbons" argument is based solely on the evidence that formerly dry oil wells are now pumping again, then I have trouble accepting that.

You can pump a water well dry if you pump it hard enough or if the rock or soil is tight enough. Stop pumping, the water flows back in, a simple matter of the equalization of water levels with the local groundwatre level. Seems to me that this example could be the same for oil. The mechanism of pumping oil is essentially the same, except that oil is much much more viscous and would therefore take longer to flow through the ground. Could it be that rather than "producing hydrocarbons," that already existing oil is seeping slowly (could take dozens of years for the "oil level" to stabilize) back into a well that had been pumped dry?

So if there is something more to the continuing generation of hydrocarbons, please let me know, it would be interesting to learn more.

Here is a quote from the article link below:
Fossil fuels, once thought by many to be nearing depletion, are in fact becoming more abundant and environmentally sustainable, according to a recent Cato Institute policy analysis.

"Fossil-fuel resources are becoming more abundant, not scarcer, and they promise to continue expanding as technology improves, world markets liberalize, and investment capital expands," writes Robert L. Bradley Jr. in "The Increasing Sustainability of Conventional Energy. Bradley is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, and a Cato Institute adjunct scholar.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13011

This is a quote from the next article listed, debunking the early predictions of environmentalists:
While fossil fuels appeared in short supply during the “energy crisis” of two decades ago, studies and reports about energy and energy technology were abundant. In turn, those reports were rife with predictions about the world’s energy future.

In his Competitive Enterprise Institute report, “Getting It Wrong: Energy Forecasts and the End-of-Technology Mindset,” Mark P. Mills includes a number of failed predictions that were made circa 1979 for the period 1990 to 2000.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12994

The Republic of Leialand recognizes the soverignity of the member nations yet points out that, in regards to this matter, the actions of a single member nation do not only affect that nation but all nations both within and without the United Nations. As such, the United Nations is the proper forum at which to adress this matter. We have a responsibility to ensure that no member nation infringes upon the rights of another nation to live in a healthy environment. One percent is not an undue burden upon industry and is a positive step toward reaching our common goals. We urge the member nations to vote YES on this proposal.

We Need More Fuel So the World Can Be A cleaner Place. :lol:

If these companies do not provide for R&D into new fuels, those companies will either cease to exist when finite fuels run out (that's bad for your economy), or they will coast by into the next generation of fuels based on research carried out at the taxpayer's expense (that's bad for society - haven't we had enough of footing the bill for corporate screw-ups?).

The plain reality is that the automotive industry doesn't seem to realize that failure to develop non-hydrocarbon fuels will doom them to failure within not the lives of their great grandchildren, but probably within THEIR OWN lifetimes.

Regards,
Sir Michael Moore, KBE
Department of Social Affairs
The Confederation of the Missouri

The reality is, an industry will not allow itself to be sunk if it is at all possible. Why would the automotive manufacturers let fossil fuels run out and just give up? That isn't the nature of a true capitalist. Alternative sources of fuel are not profitable at this juncture, but when they are (read: when oil supplies are getting low and environmental concerns abound), they will bust out with noise and confusion.

:?


Fossil fuels, once thought by many to be nearing depletion, are in fact becoming more abundant and environmentally sustainable, according to a recent Cato Institute policy analysis.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13011


http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm



In his Competitive Enterprise Institute report, “Getting It Wrong: Energy Forecasts and the End-of-Technology Mindset,” Mark P. Mills includes a number of failed predictions that were made circa 1979 for the period 1990 to 2000.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12994

http://www.prwatch.org/improp/cei.html
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=CEI200

Here is a quote from the article link below:
Fossil fuels, once thought by many to be nearing depletion, are in fact becoming more abundant and environmentally sustainable, according to a recent Cato Institute policy analysis.


So in other words (please correct me if I am misinterpreting), you are saying that the 1970's estimates of world petroleum reserves was significantly below today's estimates because of advances in our ability to find and extract petroleum from locations that would not have been possible 30 years ago?

To further paraphrase, youre not saying that the world is actually creating NEW petroleum, rather that the RESERVES are increasing due to technology?

Yeah I can go along with that. I generally believe that even today there are many more untapped resources than we currently have technology to exploit, such as methane clathrate deposits along the edges of the continental shelf in most of the earths oceans.

However, that still leaves the environmental impact of the use of petroleum derived fuels...

We oppose this for the following reasons:

1. It is untimely. In the present economic climate, immediately after expensive labor union legislation reforms, it is not a prudent or feasible move at this point
By the time the proposal has passed (if it passes), aeons will have gone by in NationStates time. Our economy went down three levels (from Very Strong to Good) when the Labor Unions proposal passed; we have already regained two of them.

2. It is not in our interest. We have an economically important but vulnerable auto production sector

This strikes us as fairly selfish, and extremely short-sighted.

3. It is unfair. Car producers do not create a public problem, they provide a public neccessity. The problems connected with fossile fuel consumption pertains to everyone. It is therefore unfair that Car producers specifically should cover the cost of research into alternative fuels.

Automobiles consume a vast proportion of the fossil fuels, and produce a vast proportion of the polution, worldwide. By their nature, point-of-use gasoline-burning engines are inefficient. While it is debatable whether car producers provide a public necessity (many people have cars in Gurthark, but many people do not and rely on our excellent public transportation system), the current breed of gas-guzzling polluters is certainly not necessary.

4. It is unwise. It will weaken the very business that must inevitably be relied upon the IMPLEMENT any results this research produces.

The business in question has shown very little will to do anything like this voluntarily.

5. We declare our intention, in the event of this resolution passing, to accompany its implementation with a corresponding reduction in taxes for the Car manufacturing industry, or other pro-business steps to the same effect.
I don't see how anyone can stop you from doing that--it's your national budget. At least that money will go towards improving the environment and the maintainability of our energy system, as opposed to the Kristinuria's military and the suppression of medical research.

We in Gurthark do not think that this is a perfect proposal. We prefer a version of Rational Self Interest's results-based approach, and our environment minister, Frogbottom Washington, is annoyed that the proposal repeats the canard that hydrogen can be used as a substitute for other means of energy production (hydrogen is properly considered a storage medium--it requires as much energy to produce as it can provide--but hydrogen engines are superior to gasoline engines, even if the hydrogen is created with fossil fuels, because large centralized power plants are more efficient than point-of-use engines). However, this isa reasonable proposal, and it is one that is far better than nothing. The Pluralistic Community of Gurthark votes AYE.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Pluralistic Community of Gurthark

The repubic of Kazaakisthan has voted no to alternative fuels... though we will be leaving the UN (probably) it does more harm than good... everyone votes yes on everything and don't think about the possible outcomes. Meaning most nations don't actually get a say.

A couple more thoughts-

1. Why focus on automobiles? Seems like I have seen statistics showing that industry and power generation contribute far more toxics and greenhouse gases than automobiles. I understand that if a person is able to go to the garage and get into their electric car, they feel as though they are personally doing something to help the environment. Even though its not as much of a "feel-good", "hands-on" issue, wouldnt efforts be better spent to help limit industrial emissions?

2. The reason that we use petroleum is because it is a cheap, concentrated form of energy. If in fact we begin to deplete resources, prices will go up, and the market will shift to support alternative fuels anyway. The economic incentive to developers of alternative fuel seem to be pretty significant in terms of future profits. I understand that we need to make sure that we have a replacement energy source ready to go before petroleum runs out, to avoid global economic collapse. So what we maybe really need is a measure to ensure that petroleum interests are not able to interfere and quash current alternate fuel research.

/hopes that rambling mess makes sense

Automobiles consume a vast proportion of the fossil fuels, and produce a vast proportion of the polution, worldwide.

Just a point of clarification - in the US, transportation accounts for 68% of OIL consumption. This does not account for coal or natural gas usage. From the point of view of emissions, transportation accounts for only 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Just FYI, to keep things in perspective.

How many of you flunked third grade science? C'mon, raise your hands, don't be shy....

The real world isn't like Star Trek, people. You don't just make up something you want, in defiance of the laws of physics, and buy it with "research". Reality has limitations.

Free hydrogen doesn't occur in nature. We can't pump it from a well or dig it from the ground. We have to make it, and that requires energy. Where will we get that energy? From the same damn place we're getting it now, fossil fuels! Developing a car to run on hydrogen could easily be done, but it's a waste of time without an abundant alternative source of energy.

Biofuels also require an energy input - solar. For plants to turn solar energy into organic chemical energy (which we can process into fuel), they need room - a lot of it. To meet our current energy needs for transportation alone with corn-derived alcohol, we would have to use ALL of the Earth's agricultural land to produce fuel.

We don't need alternative fuels research - we already know how to use several alternative fuels. What we need is energy to make them, and that's not so easy to get - there's this little problem, the conservation of mass-energy. You can't just drop a few dimes in a slot and expect the laws of nature to be violated.

There are many theoretical sources of energy on Earth (and presumably on NS-Earth), but most of these are irrevocably limited by inalterable laws of physics. You can't recover more energy than is there in the first place, and the less dense the energy source is, the less of it is recoverable - guaranteed by the laws of thermodynamics. We can only extract so much energy from hydroelectric, biomass, windmills, or whatever.

For large scale energy production, our only real options, even in theory, are fission, fusion, solar, and deep geothermal. The last is too far beyond our capacity to consider. The first three remain infeasible despite decades of very extensive research. In view of the many billions already spent, we don't suppose that the few hundreds of millions raised by this resolution would be sufficient to solve our energy problems, even it was spent where it was needed - on energy research - instead of on alternative fuel development.

A couple more thoughts-

1. Why focus on automobiles? Seems like I have seen statistics showing that industry and power generation contribute far more toxics and greenhouse gases than automobiles. I understand that if a person is able to go to the garage and get into their electric car, they feel as though they are personally doing something to help the environment. Even though its not as much of a "feel-good", "hands-on" issue, wouldnt efforts be better spent to help limit industrial emissions?

2. The reason that we use petroleum is because it is a cheap, concentrated form of energy. If in fact we begin to deplete resources, prices will go up, and the market will shift to support alternative fuels anyway. The economic incentive to developers of alternative fuel seem to be pretty significant in terms of future profits. I understand that we need to make sure that we have a replacement energy source ready to go before petroleum runs out, to avoid global economic collapse. So what we maybe really need is a measure to ensure that petroleum interests are not able to interfere and quash current alternate fuel research.

/hopes that rambling mess makes sense

Excellent observations. We would like to add that, since increases in electrical output mean increases in fossil fuel consumption, electric cars actually mean increased pollution (there are more stages of transformation of energy, with energy lost at each stage).

I must once again plead with the UN members that haven't voted to vote against this proposal.

Look at this proposal for what it is--an unfair tax. This is possibly the worst way to go prompting the discovery and implementation of alternate fuel sources. As many others and myself have already pointed out, a free market society already has this problem in its thoughts.

To vote Yes on this proposal is to unfairly burden the automotive industry--which merely contributes a fraction to the use of fossil fuels--and create a bad precedent that will soon be followed by more invasive proposals by the UN.

Please convince others that this is the wrong way to go about helping the enviroment, and certaily the wrong way to go about helping our nations--both now and in the long run.

A couple more thoughts-

1. Why focus on automobiles? Seems like I have seen statistics showing that industry and power generation contribute far more toxics and greenhouse gases than automobiles. I understand that if a person is able to go to the garage and get into their electric car, they feel as though they are personally doing something to help the environment. Even though its not as much of a "feel-good", "hands-on" issue, wouldnt efforts be better spent to help limit industrial emissions?

2. The reason that we use petroleum is because it is a cheap, concentrated form of energy. If in fact we begin to deplete resources, prices will go up, and the market will shift to support alternative fuels anyway. The economic incentive to developers of alternative fuel seem to be pretty significant in terms of future profits. I understand that we need to make sure that we have a replacement energy source ready to go before petroleum runs out, to avoid global economic collapse. So what we maybe really need is a measure to ensure that petroleum interests are not able to interfere and quash current alternate fuel research.

/hopes that rambling mess makes sense

Excellent observations. We would like to add that, since increases in electrical output mean increases in fossil fuel consumption, electric cars actually mean increased pollution (there are more stages of transformation of energy, with energy lost at each stage).

aretha Franklin described it first:

Chain chain chain,
Chain chain chain,
chain chain chain,
Chain of fuels!

Not sure the point that Bistro is trying to make. Are you saying that the reports we used were paid for by big corporations? I would believe them before a study paid for by the environmentalist groups. Even the study done for the Kyoto treaty doesn't support what all the environmentalist groups say it does. Most of the environmental studies that are put out to the public by the major media are studies that have been paid for by environmental groups, it supports their agenda, so it gets air time. The most recent long term study done by an independent group, Havard University, with no funding by big corporations or environmental groups does not support global warming or the reports by the environmental groups. And Havard isn't known for their conservativeness.
Those that say nuclear power is a replacement for "fossil fuel" or coal, need to understand that they have to have water pumped to the cooling towers, and the pumps are usually run by one or two methods, and that is large deisel engines, or gas turbines. Not saying that there are some doing it differently, but this is how most of the pumps for the cooling towers are run.

The reason why the resolution is levying the mandatory research upon automobile manufacturers and not other businesses is because of the way the game works.

The reason why the resolution is levying the mandatory research upon automobile manufacturers and not other businesses is because of the way the game works.

LOL that's your response you could say that about anything " you literally ruined all of our economies" "That's how the game works" think of something better than that!

You must understand what this would do to all economies. It is somewhat feasible to the larger nations with stronger economies. However to smaller nations, such as mine, with building economies, this will have a devastating effect. The economic logic behind this proposal is lacking. The environment is important, but so is not having every person in a nation poor.

To expand upon this point, I do not believe it is the United Nation's place to tell sovereign governments how to best balance their economies and environments. If a nation so chooses to worry about their economy before their environment, such is their own choice, and vice versa. I do not see the pollution caused by fossil fuels as such an imminent threat to the global environment so that the world body has a right to act.

Environment is not a national issue, but an international issue. When ozone layer dissapears it won't simply be the problem of nations with automobile industries.

Simultania, you're missing the point. I'm talking about how the game literally works. As in when you write the proposal you have options fomr which to choose and the only fitting option would be automobile industry.

The Commonwealth of Treeonia is appalled at the lack of foresight being displayed concerning this 'particular' resolution.

The Commonwealth of Treeonia has absolutely no argument with the necessity of and the expeditious solution to curbing and/or eliminating the dependancy our universe has on fossil fuels. However, as mentioned in other government releases, this government deems the current resolution does not show a concerted effort to resolve any Alternate Fuels crisis what so ever.

This legislation explicity portrays the Automobile Manufacturing Industry, across the board, as the sole contributor to universal pollutants and sole consumer of universal fossil fuels. And in this respect, is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. This legislation also explicity "demands", the Automobile Manufacturing Industry" pay ALL costs of R & D of theoretical solutions to AF concerns. This is a seriously flawed piece of legislation.

This legislation, for the betterment of all species, is now being laid squarely on the shoulders of makers of automotive transportation. While some contend that a mere 1 percent of profits of Automobile Manufactures can solve the problem of fossil fuel depletion, in reality, the entire user base is, in fact, responsible and the Automobile Manufacturing Industry in only but a partial contributor to the problem. A totally unfair prospect.

The Commonwealth of Treeonia must insist this absurd resolution be revised to include, in a fair manner, ALL depletion sources of fossil fuels.

Again, the Commonwealth of Treeonia counsels all participants to deposit a vote of Nay to this ridiculous resolution. Let this government also reiterate, the need for fair, concise, clear and affirmative resolutions to the Alternative Fuels concern.

With all due respect,

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

Since you're repeating your attacks I'll repeat my rebuttal.

Within the realm of the game the automobile industry is the ONLY industry that can be affected logically. The only other options were Uranium mining and woodchipping and I don't think they apply.

Judaicland,

Where you perceive Treeonia is attacking, is beyond our thoughts. We can only surmise Judaicland feels it may be compromised by our actions, which is far from reality. We are merely stating a fact, that you, as a government, do not agree with. So be it.

This resolution unfairly finds the Automotive Manufacturing Industry as the problem and solution to "our" Alternative fuel problem. Indeed, this is not the case.

We stand steady and are not swayed by your feeble argument..

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

To force us to accept these outrageous, economically inept, proposals which keep rearing their nasty little heads makes me boil with rage.

Keep your retarded projects to yourselves, and your own regions, so the economic screwed-upedness is at least limited to those who goofily chose a leftist route.

OOC


" Look, your right, I am an American, and damn proud of it. I am proud to be in a country where the government doesn't own all the businesses, and I am free to start my own business if I want to, without the government telling me what type of business I can open. I am proud to say that the US is not a socialist country, yet, like Germany, France and many of the other great European nations. I don't want a government hand out, nor do I ask for one. I also oppose our politicians who think we need to bend over for the UN. "

I'm not making a comment on America, but you certainly have some very strange ideas about Europe. There's not a single accurate point in that pareagraph, AFAICS.

"Now, I would guess from your comment that Norway's economy wouldn't be hurt at all if oil production stopped. It sounds to me like it would. "

This, on the other hand, is entirely true :)

cheers

Dear Ms Googleplex

"Kristinuria wrote:
We oppose this for the following reasons:

1. It is untimely. In the present economic climate, immediately after expensive labor union legislation reforms, it is not a prudent or feasible move at this point

By the time the proposal has passed (if it passes), aeons will have gone by in NationStates time. Our economy went down three levels (from Very Strong to Good) when the Labor Unions proposal passed; we have already regained two of them."

Nevertheless, we are disinclined to accept this proposal currently.


"Quote:

2. It is not in our interest. We have an economically important but vulnerable auto production sector


This strikes us as fairly selfish, and extremely short-sighted. "

It may be selfish, but legitimately so. We see no good reason why car-producers in particular should be levied with this burden. Why not oil-producers? Car consumers?

Quote:

"3. It is unfair. Car producers do not create a public problem, they provide a public neccessity. The problems connected with fossile fuel consumption pertains to everyone. It is therefore unfair that Car producers specifically should cover the cost of research into alternative fuels.


Automobiles consume a vast proportion of the fossil fuels, and produce a vast proportion of the polution, worldwide. By their nature, point-of-use gasoline-burning engines are inefficient. While it is debatable whether car producers provide a public necessity (many people have cars in Gurthark, but many people do not and rely on our excellent public transportation system), the current breed of gas-guzzling polluters is certainly not necessary."

Then why are some of your people buying them?

"Quote:

4. It is unwise. It will weaken the very business that must inevitably be relied upon the IMPLEMENT any results this research produces.


The business in question has shown very little will to do anything like this voluntarily."

Whoever does or pays for the research (and our argument is not with the neccessity for such research), it will hopefully eventually produce results. And when it does - who will transform the technology into actual means of transportation by investing in development of applied technology, amrketing and so on? And by use of what means? The car industry will, and the means they will use is their own accumulated profits.


Quote:

"5. We declare our intention, in the event of this resolution passing, to accompany its implementation with a corresponding reduction in taxes for the Car manufacturing industry, or other pro-business steps to the same effect.

I don't see how anyone can stop you from doing that--it's your national budget. At least that money will go towards improving the environment and the maintainability of our energy system, as opposed to the Kristinuria's military and the suppression of medical research."

Suppression of medical research? We happen to believe human cloning does not deserve such an epithet.

"We in Gurthark do not think that this is a perfect proposal. We prefer a version of Rational Self Interest's results-based approach, and our environment minister, Frogbottom Washington, is annoyed that the proposal repeats the canard that hydrogen can be used as a substitute for other means of energy production (hydrogen is properly considered a storage medium--it requires as much energy to produce as it can provide--but hydrogen engines are superior to gasoline engines, even if the hydrogen is created with fossil fuels, because large centralized power plants are more efficient than point-of-use engines). However, this isa reasonable proposal, and it is one that is far better than nothing. The Pluralistic Community of Gurthark votes AYE."

By all means. The sensible and fanatically moderate republic of Kristinuria will however reply with a resounding NAY!

cheers

Does the UN even have power to impose regulations on business? Perhaps we can encourage businesses to designate a percentage of their budget on R & D, but The Disputed Territories of Lower Slopdovia believes that it is outside our charter to do this. Correct us if we're wrong.




EVERYTHING WAS BEAUTIFUL, AND NOTHING HURT

Treeonia, I responded to your attack on my resolution. I already explained how the blame IS fairly placed on the automobile industry because of the game.

The UN does have a right to impose regulations on business when we're dealing with international issues.

The Pure Apathetiacs see only two problems with this proposal.
One being the fact that only 1% of profits is being reserved for this agenda. We are talking about 1% of profits of an industry that absolutely pushes the monopolization and the suppression of choice in the fuel market. This measly 1% is of profits, not total sales. That means it is 1% that goes directly into the fat men's pockets. Why not tax their selfishness, for is it not only an insubordination on anti-monopoly regulations. For this we Apathetiacs declare this levy meniscule yet necessary for developing the steps in creating a much needed and procrastinated market of alternative and cleaner fuels. To go in dissent of other arguments is that this one percent does not take away from GDP at all, it actually creates jobs and the money is still put back into the economy. It will also develop the steps necessary to expand the fuel industry in turn actually developing growth in the economy and in GDP.
The other inconsistancy with this proposal is the fact that only the car industry is being taxed. For this monopoly of fuels is a problem not only created by auto makers, but also the refiners, the drillers, the distributers, and the contractors to name a few. This tax should be levied across the board to not only make it more fair but to speed the development of the market of these fuels so the tax can eventually be dropped.
On a closing note we Apathetics implore all to think deeper than the surface of this issue. We too believe that taxes can and do create problems in the econmoy, but sometimes the implementation of definite term taxes can fix some problems that would only grow if not intervened upon. In this case the lack of choice in fuels is a larger problem than apparent, and can only be fixed by government intervention. For the stagnation in the development of more and better fuels in the last 80 years is a problem. Economics 101, technology stimulates growth, and it is as simple as that. So, we Apathetics, urge all to vote For this resolution for the better of not only our environment but also the deveopment of a stagnant industry and the promotion of a larger economy.

One percent was chosen in consideration of two things. First, that some economies are too small to afford more than a 1% cut of their profits. Second, that the large industries make so much money that 1% will not really hurt their profits and at the same be more than ample to fund to alternative fuel research.

support alternative fuels or I will declare war on your nations.

Lets see, how about....

NO!

Our decision is our descision If you want to declare war on our nations because we don't support a bill that will hurt us then you got some serious problems.

At this point I am forced to agree that we can not force nations to go for alternative feul scorces, right now many economies are on the verge of collasp because of the labor union purposal, these purposals must be less radical or all member nations will collasp.

We of Rikal choose to oppose this resolution. If only to be uniformed in our refusal of all non-communism supporting resolutions.

The Dominion of NeoNauru wishes to bring the attention of its colleagues to several points:

"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. If the destruction of the ozone layer continues global warming will become an issue even if it isn’t as of now." - UN Proposal

1. The destruction of the of the ozone layer has been halted. The hole is shrinking and has split in two.

2. Use of fossil fuels does not contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons and other compounds of chlorine, not compounds of carbon such as those in fossil fuels, attacks the ozone layer.

3. The depletion of the ozone layer does not contribute to global warming, despite the proposal's claims to the contrary.

4. The Dominion of NeoNauru predicts greater then expected growth in the automotive sector, as a result of our refusal to associate with the United Nations and its unethical restraints on free trade.

Respectfully yours,
NeoNauran United Nations Observer

The ozone hole wasn't split in two, there are two holes! That's why its so bad. Not only is the Antartic ice cap melting, but so is the Artic.

Alternative Fuels will not kill economies because I have designed it so that it will have a large effect on research but cannot kill the automobile industry. It only takes from profits so if the industry isn't making money it can't lose money.

The Dominion of NeoNauru wishes to respond to the points of its esteemed colleague Judaicland:

<"The ozone hole wasn't split in two, there are two holes!">

In October of 2002, the Antarctic ozone hole was observed to split in two. There are a total of 3 holes now, two antarctic and one arctic. All are shrinking.

<"Not only is the Antartic ice cap melting, but so is the Artic.">

The ozone layer lets in ultraviolet light, not heat. It does not contribute to global warming or shrinking of the ice caps.

<"Alternative Fuels will not kill economies .... It only takes from profits so if the industry isn't making money it can't lose money.">

The profits of all automotive companies will suffer by 1% to pay for R&D under the terms of the proposal. They will not run deficits, however the corporations will lose money. This is a fact.

Respectfully yours,
NeoNauran United Nations Observer

Edit: To elminate confusion, the phrase "two antarctic and one arctic" was added.

Lol I'm against this and all but this isn't a topic that needs THAT much debating

Pollution does not limit itself to just a local area, it affects everyone. Therefore a nation has no right to take the rights of another nation to protect themselves. Nations cannot think just about their economy and well being, that is a selfish and thoughtless act. Nations need to think about what consequences result from their actions.

"Pollution does not limit itself to just a local area, it affects everyone. Therefore a nation has no right to take the rights of another nation to protect themselves. Nations cannot think just about their economy and well being, that is a selfish and thoughtless act. Nations need to think about what consequences result from their actions."

My sentiment exactly. Which is why the cost of this research should reasonably be spread among all nations using cars, rather than the ones producing them.

cars why do we even need cars we could ride bikes to get everywhere we needed. That would solve this whole problem no gasoline needed at all. Besides, our little people need excercise.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth are a little unsure about this, but has it been mentioned that as of



Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing Proposed by: Kibombwe
Description: We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars. We have polluted the air for too long -- it needs to stop. By passing this resolution we will be able to accompish these three things. 1. Less acid rain. Acid rain a problem that we feel should be stopped. It is especially a problem in the Northeast corner of the U.S.A. The Northeast is a place rich in historical buildings which acid rain damages. We passed a "PROTECT HISTORICAL SITES." This would only furthermore protect historical sites. 2. We wouldn't have to use as much oil. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we only have so much of. By passing this resolution we would only prolong the time that we have oil on earth. 3. We would have cleaner air. Does anyone remember the days when "fresh air" was actually fresh? When it was a pure thing, without chemicals and other junk mixing in the air. With cleaner air, everyone would live longer, happier lives. I hope that anyone and everyone who reads this agrees with us. PLEASE MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!

Votes For: 12533

Votes Against: 3280

Implemented: Mon Jun 16 2003

we already have a resolution that forces us all to develop alternative fuel vehicles. Even though our country has banned the automobile from cities we going to be forced to spend more money on the development of inefficient single occupant transportation. We feel that developing an efficient and relatively convienant mass transportation system would be a option that seems to be routinely overlooked? Please vote against this resolution...

sure I voted against this. Keep in mind though that in a democracy your vote doesn't matter! It'll be voted for and become efficent oh well whatchya gonna do?

One percent was chosen in consideration of two things. First, that some economies are too small to afford more than a 1% cut of their profits. Second, that the large industries make so much money that 1% will not really hurt their profits and at the same be more than ample to fund to alternative fuel research.


First, not all large insudtries are profitbale. Those that are profitable are not always profitable in all instances. If you loo kat real-world automobile manufacturers, we're looking at three major auto makers who didn't even turn profits most of the past 2 years. What happens in those years? They just "stop" researching?!?

Often, a company that turns a profit in one quarter doesnm't actually "get" any of that money. A huge part has to be returned to shareholder sin the form of stock dividends (your 1% is going to be taken directly away from those who rely on stock dividend income to live on FIRST). Second, this proposal will hamper the long-term survivability of these comapnies that are so precariously subject to market and ecohnomic fluctuations.

Ford, for example, is in dire straits. Though they are currently profitable (barely) for the quarter, their past 2 years of losses and porblems with their retirement pensions required them to issue billions of US Dollars in bonds (this means, for those of you who don't understand finance) that though they tuirn a tprofit, they owe BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to retirees, workers, pension plans, investors, and more. Without the profits, they will be remarkably strapped to pay the interest on those bonds (usually in the 6-9% per year range), let alone redeem those bonds when they mature.

If you don't understand finance, I suggest you consider such problems before submitting flawed and naive proposals.\

Lastly- Automobile companies are not evil entities destroying the environment. They make cars. Period. They use existing technology to provide a necesarry product to consumers. They are NOT in the business of power supply and shouldn't be forced to ENTER a field of business (alternative energy research) that is not part of their core mission or even part of their expanded business plan. They're CAR PRODUCERS, not ENERGY RESEARCHERS.

That's like asking alcohol distillers to research liver treatments...they're DISTILLERS, not DOCTORS.



It's high time naive and ignorant individuals stop looking at companies that provide legal products in a legal manner as evil entities who should be punished for providing legal and important products in legal and ethical ways.

The following statement was issued earlier today by the President of the Republic of Rixtex:

Regarding the current resolution before the United Nations, Alternative Fuels, the Republic of Rixtex cannot support this resolution and intends to vote no.

Rixtex always supports alternative fuels. In fact, our very own Singing Hills Institute has been at the forefront in developing the hydrogen economy. Its Hypercar initiative has been designing the transport of the future; fuel cell-powered vehicles that use clean, reformed hydrogen for fuel and emit only clean water. Our natural gas industry has been re-tooling its assets in order to deliver reformed hydrogen to distributed energy centers and auto refueling stations. Our nation, through entirely private innovation, is at the forefront in the quest for alternative fuels. Fossil fuels are the fuels of the last century. Hydrogen shall power this one.

Nevertheless, all of this progress has been made through the application of private enterprise, as is the case for all progress in human history. There is no need for a tax. Those nations who want to use public funds for alternative fuels research and development are welcome to do so without any interference from the outside world. They should recognize another nation’s right to spend their money as they see fit, or not spend it, as the case may be.

Regardless of the philosophical arguments in favor or against the resolution, it is inherently unfair. It taxes one industry. Nations with well-developed automobile manufacturing will suffer a burden that others will not. It is apparent from the voting that those for this resolution understand that, as none are known auto manufacturing powerhouses. Arguments by some that it is only “1% of the profits” are either ignorant or disingenuous as to how such a tax would be paid for.

Our nation is a new member of the United Nations. We joined immediately before the passage of the “Rights of Labor Unions” resolution and immediately suffered its devastating effects. It is unclear what the present effects of the current resolution will have, but, like all of them, there will be effects. For some more than others to be sure, but the fact there will consequences for all is certain.

The Republic of Rixtex casts a no vote for the Alternative Fuels resolution.

Rix Wax, President of the Republic of Rixtex

(im not even going to bother reading all four pages so bear with me if i repeat anything already stated)

Ok first of all the enviorment is not that bad to the point where you must destroy foreign trade to a point that this will. Think about it countries depend on trading fossil fuels for their income because they have nothing else to trade. It is also how countries reconize if a country exists or not, thats how important it is. I dont mind if you want to switch fuel sources but to cut it off before even the slightest hint of a new fuel source coming doesnt exist thats just plain irksome. Extreme Left Wing Liberals need to get their faces out of the tree they are fondling and realize that the enviroment is not so important to risk the bankrupting of several countries which depend on the fossil fuel trade. I vote no against this.

This proposal is an outrage! Protecting the ecology is a wonderful thing, but to destroy the economy in doing so is terrible! Economy and Military might go hand in hand, and if we have to spend millions, even billions more just so we can protect the ecology and drive our economy down, we shall become much more vulnerable. Then what will we do when the nations not in te UN have constructed super ICBMS and hold the very world itself to their own will? We won't have the military to stand up to them, because we'll still be building tha solar collector. The very fabric of world security is in danger here! :shock: The Armed Republic of The Spartan States hereby condemns this Resolution, and we shall vote against it. of course, I'm sure it will be passed anyway...Sigh... :( If the current economic situation was better, I'd be all for this resolution, but lo, my economy is still trying to improve after that accursed Labor Unions resolution! Grr...

On another note, I love the great forests of Sparta, and do not wish to damage the ecology, but to suddenly shut down any and all Fossil Fuel factories immediately, and then spend all our hard earned money so suddenly shall cause great economic instability. Please, my good nations! Rally behind me, and free the economy! The very fabric of the world is beginning to become untangled, and Sparta does not wish to see another World War... :cry: