NationStates Jolt Archive

The Grand Duchy of SGWarning, widely regarded as an evironmental paradise, would support this resolution, but we question the need for this resolution. The proposed 1 % of profits is already greatly exceeded by the several percentage points of total revenue that auto manufacturers already devote to alternative fuel research.

Auto manufacturers are, by and large, not stupid they realize that fossil fuel reserves are dwindling. The only reason that there has not been a greater move toward alternative fuel vehicles is quite simple, very few people want to own one. Cars are status symbols (ook at SUV's, gold trim, special and limited editions), and owning a alternative fuel or fuel efficient car does not fit into mainstream society's ideal of cool.

A solution to the problem of fossil fuels should either force auto manufacturers to allocate an even greater percentage of resources to alternative fuels, which would probably have enormous economic consequences, or should attempt to create a larger market for alternative fuel/fuel efficient cars. 1% of total profits for a advertising campaign to promote said cars would probably have a greater impact on fossil fuel useage.

International law is complicated enough. Too much legislation leads to the worldwide problem of too many lawyers. Don not make laws where they are not needed.

Respectfully,

Kiki Von Putz
United Nations Representative
Grand Duchy of SGWarning

I have a question. Why does everyone refer to oil as fossil fuels? This is misleading because it suggests that there is a finite amount. Oil is hydro carbons, and last we checked, the earth has not stopped producing hydro carbons. But if you convince everyone that oil comes from dinosaurs, then you can convince them that there is a finite amount. Oil wells once thought to be dry are full again and producing oil all over the place. Why you ask, because the earth continues to make hydro carbons. The oil reserves in the earth as growth over the years, not shrunk as many environmentalist will have you believe. Plus, the oil reserve is predicted to continue to grow as our technology gets better in how to find oil. The largest oil reserves on the earth have still not even been tapped. A new process has also been found in some of the artic regions that allows for the mining of oil from different sources then just drilling. The earth's oil reserve is only finite in the minds of environmentalist wackos. There is no good sceintific data to back up the claims that oil is finite.

Our Main problem with this resolution, is that this forces a mandate directly upon private business. Since when does the UN dictate policies to private business? This sets a precedent allowing the UN to further delve into the realms of Private Business Management. Malarky! Malarky We say.

Oil wells once thought to be dry are full again and producing oil all over the place. Why you ask, because the earth continues to make hydro carbons

Limbaugh- please refer to the post I made in the other current fossil fuels debate thread - too long to need to posta again. I would like to be edumacated as to recent discoveries in the continuing production of hydrocarbons. Thanks in advance for the info!

I'm with Feichmest who says: Feichmest wrote:
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!

Limbaughtarium,
Your response addressed only one half of the argument against fossil fuels. You have forgotten to include a discussion of the enviromental impact of using fossil fuels. Do you concede that their use is damaging to the enviroment, while several alternative fuels are not?

While we oppose the current resolution, we do support enviromental causes, especially with eco-tourism on such a rise in our nation! Please do not equate our opposition to this resolution as support for the policies of Limbaughtarium and other similar nations.

Also we passed this in the past:

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

So this resolution is somewhat redundant.

So this resolution is somewhat redundant.

Thank you, even we got a bit off topic. We intended this thread not to address the alternative/fossil fuels debate, but to address the need for a U.N. resolution on this matter. This resolution is redundant and not needed, please do not vote for it.

Your nation might agree with the ideals, and your conscience might urge you to vote for it, but it is not neccessary.

Help us keep international government small, and focus the U.N. efforts on matters that really need our attention!

On the current UN issue of Alternative fuels. The Allied States of Whac is greatly in favor of research into more environmentally friendly energy sources that fossil fuels. Hydrogen, as is mentioned in the UN issue, is one such possibility.

However, there is a major pitfall along the way of using hydrogen as a energy source. The hydrogen has to be generated somehow, and the most common way is to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. But therein lies the problem. A great deal of energy must be added to cause this breakdown. More energy, in fact, that the resulting hydrogen will produce.

Fossil fuels can be used to heat water to create hydrogen, or electricity can be used, but much of our electricity is from oil and coal burning power plants. If the energy to generate pure hydrogen is created from the burning of fossil fuels, we are making the situation worse, not better, due to the fact that you'll have to burn more fossil fuel energy to create the hydrogen than the hydrogen will provide as a motor fuel.

There are, however, other ways to generate hydrogen. Solar power is one method, and research using algea to create hydrogen is also underway. Whether either of these methods would be practical to produce hydrogen on the scale needed for the worlds automobile demands has yet to be seen.

On the issue of fossil fuels being renewable. Technically, you could say yes, since in theory the earth will continue to have more plant and animal matter buried deep beneath the earth at tremendous heat and pressure for millions of years and create more fossil fuels. However, the annual rate at which those new fossil fuels are being created is so tiny as to be insignificant compared to annual fossil fuel usage.

Creation of more fossil fuels is not the reason known reserves keep increasing, it is because the fossil fuels that have been there all along are being discovered. More will likely continue to be discovered for quite some time, but at some point the end will be reached. The fact that the earth may create a few thousand more gallons of oil each year would be little consolation in such an instance.

This most recent resolution is overstepping the bounds of the UN. It should not impose restrictions on private enterprise, but instead focus on issues that nations cannot decide on their own (basic human rights, naming the world of Nationstates, et cetera). In short, get the UN out of my gas tank!

This most recent resolution is overstepping the bounds of the UN. It should not impose restrictions on private enterprise, but instead focus on issues that nations cannot decide on their own (basic human rights, naming the world of Nationstates, et cetera). In short, get the UN out of my gas tank!

That seems to be a topic that is at the core of many of the debates on this board - "What is the role of the UN". That is a much larger issue than alternative fuels.

There are nations that view the UN as an all-encompassing governing body with a relationship to its members similar to a nation's roles relative to individual states or counties

Then there are those who prefer to envision the UN similarly to the "real-world" UN where its position is not one of sovereignty over member governments.

Seems to me there are threads devoted to that topic, and probably proposals also?

*off to re-read the current UN mandate*