NationStates Jolt Archive

While much good lies in the principle of this resolution...let us consider the impacts of this bill what, and what negativity will result from it.

1-MAny people already spend far more than 1% beefing up alternative fuel research...
2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture
3-Not all nations have automobile economies.
and finally
4-It is not the responsibility of the automobile manufacturors to do this, it is the governemtn's if it is anyone's.
5-This is an intrusion upont he soverignty of nations and the auto-makers. We as nations, have a right to regulate them, not the UN.

for these reasons I urge, no DEMAND your negative ballot on this abhorrant piece of legislation.

if you have any other negative parts please post them here.

However each state has a responsibility to look after the planet so all the other nations are able to continue to exist

I wholeheartedly agree that each country should have the option of doing whatever they want on this subject no use arguing though, it's gonna be passed

The nation of Gulgothir speaks volumes in few words.

However, the Alternative Fuels "tax" in reality, should never have been submitted to the UN. Whilst the concern for improvements and refinements of AF's are of paramount interest to all, the UN has absolutely no business what so ever in mandating taxation, for this resolution as written is exactly what it is, taxation.

Treeonia, as one of many, counsel our esteemed neighbors to vote against this resolution.

As well, Treeonia cannot abide apathy in such a resolution. It is the duty of all UN nations to speak their piece in an educated manner prior to being taxed out of existence.


Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

For generations the people of bruntingthorpe have supported the sports car industry, striving to create cars that offer the ultimate driving experiance. The internal combustian engine has, over the years evolved and become as close to enginearing perfection as is humanly possible. The introduction of alternative fuels such as hydrogen will produce cars that are slow and, as most of the attention will have gone on the fuel, terrible to drive. This resolution will have a detrimental effect on not only my nation but the entire world.

While much good lies in the principle of this resolution...let us consider the impacts of this bill what, and what negativity will result from it.

4-It is not the responsibility of the automobile manufacturors to do this, it is the governemtn's if it is anyone's.


Freedom and Pride, although we agree with your position, please be more careful with your arguments. It is the view of a great many U.N. members that the U.N. is the government. They would argue that since the Auto manufacturers are not resposible, the U.N. is responsible. They believe that the best way to solve many problems is through superceding national sovereignity. This viewpoint has already caused a great deal of damage to many world economies. Let the free market economy sort htis issue out without unneccessary governement influence

1-MAny people already spend far more than 1% beefing up alternative fuel research...

Good - see point 2.



2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture

Your economy can afford the venture, because this measure requires a tiny percentage of a company's profit - it's profits, not its revenues be directed towards ensuring their long-term survival. If companies that rely on fossil fuels do not diversify, then they will falter and die as the cost of fossil fuels rises and ultimately becomes prohibitive. Any comapny that relies on fossil fuels that is not ALREADY spending more than 1% of its profits on R&D into alternative fuels is substantially and needlessly risking its long term future - and your economy. The measure will actually be of immense BENEFIT to your economy long-term, and of no detriment short- and medium-term.



3-Not all nations have automobile economies.

In which case, they will not be affected in any way by a resolution requiring automotive companies to use a % of their profits - I again stress profits not revenues to fund such research. Since heavy industry economies contribute disproportiontely to the problem, it seems only fair that they contribute disproportionately to the solution.


4-It is not the responsibility of the automobile manufacturors to do this, it is the governemtn's if it is anyone's.

Nowhere does the resolution state that governments cannot and should not contribute to the effort to develop long-term replacements to finite fuels.



5-This is an intrusion upont he soverignty of nations and the auto-makers. We as nations, have a right to regulate them, not the UN.

Oh please. The environmental damage caused by burning finite fuels is global, and failure to find and implement alternatives to finite fuels before they run out will plunge the entire planet into the dark ages. There are few issues that are more clearly in the purview opf the global community than climate change and finite fuels.

Missouri wrote:

"Oh please. The environmental damage caused by burning finite fuels is global, and failure to find and implement alternatives to finite fuels before they run out will plunge the entire planet into the dark ages. There are few issues that are more clearly in the purview opf the global community than climate change and finite fuels."

**

However, placing the burden upon ONE industry and ultimately "psuedo-taxation" upon citizenry, is folly at best.

This resolution will have no affect upon any nation except to extort monies.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

[quote=Freedom and Pride]2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture

Your economy can afford the venture, because this measure requires a tiny percentage of a company's profit - it's profits, not its revenues be directed towards ensuring their long-term survival. If companies that rely on fossil fuels do not diversify, then they will falter and die as the cost of fossil fuels rises and ultimately becomes prohibitive. Any comapny that relies on fossil fuels that is not ALREADY spending more than 1% of its profits on R&D into alternative fuels is substantially and needlessly risking its long term future - and your economy.

Although you are arguing for the resolution, you have made a great point against it. Let the markets sort this out! Most companies are already spending more than 1% of profits on alternative fuels research Please do not enact legislation where it is not needed. This resolution has been rendered irrelevant by past U.N. resolutions and the current actions of Auto Manufacturers. Although this resolution probably won't effect most national economies very much, it is not necessary. Let this resolution die, leave the matter to the market forces that are already correcting the issue.

For generations the people of bruntingthorpe have supported the sports car industry, striving to create cars that offer the ultimate driving experiance. The internal combustian engine has, over the years evolved and become as close to enginearing perfection as is humanly possible. The introduction of alternative fuels such as hydrogen will produce cars that are slow and, as most of the attention will have gone on the fuel, terrible to drive. This resolution will have a detrimental effect on not only my nation but the entire world.

Heh,that is true,so no to alterantive fuels!!!!! only alternative is new Diesel (in euro-land)

The current UN proposal is once again ludicrous, and once again i feel i must encourage you to vote no! theyre are some good solid arguments in the UN forums, but also theyre is a huge terrible mistake in the Proposal. The proposal claims that the hole in the o-zone layer is growing, this is untrue it is widley accepted that the hole is currently shrinking at a rapid rate. This mis information alone is anough to have the proposal removed.

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.

thank you that someone realizes the truth about the ecology of earth, teh ozone layer is shrinking while pollutants are increasing in size, which onyl DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING theories and proves the idea of treands that already exsist, and have exsisted for milinia.

come on! the fossil fuels r the biggest polution threat known.. If in the next years we desire to sunbath in the beach, or even to go out to the streets without a radiaccion suit and a gas mask we must do something for that not to append. besides that,the oil develops big economical unfare unballances betwen the countries who have cheap access to it and the ones who don't..... hydrogen it's much more fare! everyone can producce it! if everyone started to use hydrogen sooner or later it would be much cheaper than oil and it would make the world markets to get more close to eachother...

If companies that rely on fossil fuels do not diversify, then they will falter and die as the cost of fossil fuels rises and ultimately becomes prohibitive. Any comapny that relies on fossil fuels that is not ALREADY spending more than 1% of its profits on R&D into alternative fuels is substantially and needlessly risking its long term future - and your economy.



Point taken,throughout history,it is proven time and time again that the faster we find better,cleaner choices for fuel,food,air, etc... The better off we are. Many say that this is needless. But the more nations that are working together to find a better future,the longer these same nations can enjoy a clean,safe,and longer,stronger life.

The free land of the elecric monks say's pah in your face, you cant tell if global warming exists untill its happens

come on! the fossil fuels r the biggest polution threat known.. If in the next years we desire to sunbath in the beach, or even to go out to the streets without a radiaccion suit and a gas mask we must do something for that not to append. besides that,the oil develops big economical unfare unballances betwen the countries who have cheap access to it and the ones who don't..... hydrogen it's much more fare! everyone can producce it! if everyone started to use hydrogen sooner or later it would be much cheaper than oil and it would make the world markets to get more close to eachother...

Heh oh yeah, i can't wait till you rear end a car with hydogen and go ala pinto

Heh oh yeah, i can't wait till you rear end a car with hydogen and go ala pinto


Just because the person you're mocking doesn't have his facts straight is no excuse for you to make an equally foolish mistake.

Hydrogen doesn't explode, by and large. It combusts, yes. But it also rises, limiting the damage a hydrogen fire can *cause*.

If you're thinking of the Hindenburg, keep in mind the biggest problem was that the bag itself caught on fire, and even then it didn't *explode*. It merely burnt.

Thanbk you Brix.

I believe people fail to realive that 90% of ossil fuel emmissiosn do NOT coem form automobiles. On teh contrary, industry, controlled burning, and even tree's emmissions of CO@ at night cause far mreo than cars. WHy nto focus on CHina and other devloping natiosn who are burign God KNows what and put scrubbers every where. the Auto Manufacutrors in most natiosn spend on average 27.3% (BEsnon economics gazette) of their profits on research, and most of that into fossil suel research.


and let us no forget that the UN is ntoa trade power, hwo in the world can it regualte trade...it makes no ssese. Let individual nations decide their course, already through Kyoto and other agreements fossil fuel emmissions are greatly reduced. But again, Automaker witchunts and violations of rights and soveringies are not the way to go.

exactly why should the car folks have to pay, this sucks for capitalists

Although you are arguing for the resolution, you have made a great point against it. Let the markets sort this out!

I don't trust the market to sort this out, and it is too important too the survivial of our race (that's ours, not just mine or yours) to falsely assume that the market is capable of regulating itself. Events throughout history have given lie to that concept, and most rational men would agree that the concept of a "free market" is, in point of fact, false.

I don't doubt that the more far-sighted companies will realize that they need to develop alternative fuels in order to ensure their survival. However, I believe that they will realize this far, far too late (as others have pointed out, in order to get the ball rolling on alternative fuels, we still need to use finite fuels in the first instance). If you wonder why I would say this, you have only to read the comments of opponents of this motion in this and other threads. There are people out there who legitimately (if inaccurately) believe that global warming is a Green Party plot against corporations, that oil is not going to run out any time soon (if at all, some incredibly argue), and so on and so forth. In my opinion, it would be foolish for us to assume, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the people who make decisions in big business are not also of those opinions.

We cannot, in short, commit the future of our race to a blind faith in a mythical ability of markets to self-regulate, and to trust in the foresight of a group of CEOs who may or may not recognise the danger to their share prices and to our race in time to do something about it.



this sucks for capitalists

Although you are arguing against the resolution, you have made a great point for it.

The Automobile Industry will simply raise its prices and make up for the tax at everyone else's expense. Anyway, hydrogen fuel has already been developed. It doesn't need some mass injection of funding to get working. It's just too expensive for anyone to want to use it.

This proposal is unfair to the auto industry. Many industries use fossil fuels as well as houses that burn fossil fuels for heat.

Why should the auto industry foot the bill on this one? They do not even use the majority of fossil fuels.

The arguement behind this proposal is also strange. It is the equivalent of declaring that there is a limited amount of fresh water in the world and one day we will run out so we had better start looking for something else to drink!

All resources are limited. that is what makes them resources. Please somebody go take an economics class.

Rather than the environmental or economic reasons for supporting this bill - both of which are very good reasons - also consider the fact that by this time in on technological development it is about time that scientists and automobile developers came up with something more modern. The cumbustion engine has been in existence for over 100 years already.

By voting yes to this bill, you will be helping the environment and forcing developers to come up with something new. Something more appropriate for the modern age.


Angus McAlpine, Prime Minister of Tannstaafal.

I think its necessary to respond to the first person's post. He said:

"1-MAny people already spend far more than 1% beefing up alternative fuel research...
2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture
3-Not all nations have automobile economies.
and finally
4-It is not the responsibility of the automobile manufacturors to do this, it is the governemtn's if it is anyone's.
5-This is an intrusion upont he soverignty of nations and the auto-makers. We as nations, have a right to regulate them, not the UN. "

1. Then it won't affect them, the 1% is a minimum. Even if if people some people don't murder we should still outlaw murder even if it doesn't affect everyone.
2. They will, 1% is small but able to make an impact.
3. Then it won't affect those countries, read #1 again.
4/5. UN jurisdiction does exist for one main reason. The first is that the environment, political stability, and energy availability are international issues because they affect everyone.

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

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.

Please take a look at an alternative resolution here and post comments:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2220385#2220385

Thanks.

And so the Uranium as well as the 'woodchipping business' should be included to absord their respective cost of such an idea.

In truth, we deem your remarks, Judaicland, as shortsighted and not conducive to a fair balance of responsibility.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

I think its necessary to respond to the first person's post. He said:

"1-MAny people already spend far more than 1% beefing up alternative fuel research...
2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture
3-Not all nations have automobile economies.
and finally
4-It is not the responsibility of the automobile manufacturors to do this, it is the governemtn's if it is anyone's.
5-This is an intrusion upont he soverignty of nations and the auto-makers. We as nations, have a right to regulate them, not the UN. "

1. Then it won't affect them, the 1% is a minimum. Even if if people some people don't murder we should still outlaw murder even if it doesn't affect everyone.
2. They will, 1% is small but able to make an impact.
3. Then it won't affect those countries, read #1 again.
4/5. UN jurisdiction does exist for one main reason. The first is that the environment, political stability, and energy availability are international issues because they affect everyone.

HOLY CRAP!! Have you learned nothing from the last (union) resolution??

You say:

"1. Then it won't affect them" ya, just like the union resolution wouldnt affect anyone? :roll: moderate states got screwed over on their economies, so frankly I dont trust what you say

2-Our economies might not be able to afford this venture
R: "2. They will, 1% is small but able to make an impact."
= oh ya, just like our economies took a nose dive we should believe this one? :roll:

3-Not all nations have automobile economies.
R: "3. Then it won't affect those countries, read #1 again."
= what planet are you on? the 'union resolution' showed that it WILL affect any economy! :evil:

QUOTE: "4/5. UN jurisdiction does exist for one main reason. The first is that the environment, political stability, and energy availability are international issues because they affect everyone."
= how is that an answer to the concern of "This is an intrusion upont he soverignty of nations and the auto-makers. We as nations, have a right to regulate them, not the UN."??? It is not

Honestly, it seems the lemmings will vote 'yes' simply because they see a "feel-good" resolution without discerning the actual wording.

When we look at the Kyoto Agreement, there are a number of states that ratified it but never implemented it. One big concern I have with the existing voting format is the 51% takes all.

Given the fact that:

(a) there is a proven leftist agenda with voting (see the Union Resolution proposer belongs to an established leftist clique, aimed not at fair play or honest discourse, but a leftist takeover of the UN: Anticapitalist Alliance
World Factbook Entry: The ACA aim to build a region strong and united enough to bring down the capitalists' unfair, dictatorial rule over our world. All non-capitalists who share our ideals are free to join. Important regional debate and announcements as well as the ACA set of principles can be found at the ACA General forums
So we have a 'hard-core' leftist group voting en masse for their agenda that totally defeats the intent of the UN; namely, free and open discussion between States.)

(b) an apathy of voting (only 35% of the entire UN approved the last resolution and yet it passed under the 51 % rule)

I suggest that for a true and authentic vote, changes need be made.

Democracy! One nation...one vote. End the 'blocs' voting. End the 'delegates' voting (a politically motivated delegate having a muliple of votes)

(c) For a real and binding vote on all members, I suggest a 2/3 majority vote for binding resolutions. If less that 2/3 then a resolution may be enacted by any nation that so chooses, but not binding on those who voted against it.

I say this because following the last resolution, I have noticed a number of left-wing states "gloat" and be absolutely gleeful in that " ha ha now you must follow it" mentality. Surely such childish actions were never the intention of the UN. It seems that the UN has become something where certain people get their jollies "enforcing their agenda" on other people. And that is just plain wrong.

Lol, this last post sounds like something that was said during the French Revolution. "Voting by head, not by order!"

Anyhow, I for one, see the points that everyone makes here. I voted yea, however, because I am not capitalist :D I have no private sector (what private sector that does exist is minimal) so the government foots the bill.

Also, in regards to the UN's jurisdiction, this resolution IS within the UN's power. Pollution caused in this Fiefdom could easily end up in our neighbour's country. Therefore, this expands ALL environmental issues to one of a global nature and thus should be discussed in a global forum.

And Serro Maroo, fresh water is a renewable resource, fossil fuel is not. Go take a geography class.

Duch Land, we disagree. Ads have begun running in this country for the hydrogen car (OOC: I've seen ads on TV advertising the hydrogen car by Honda.)

And Freedom and Pride, the fact that automobiles only emit 10% of the emissions doesn't change the fact that it still emits pollution. Why are cities so smoggy on summer days? Because of the pollution in the air. The heat exacerbates the problem I suppose (which is why I like Canada in the winter), but cars are still a big pollution problem. You do have a point though that the resolution should have been more broad and taken into account power plants as well.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

One big concern I have with the existing voting format is the 51% takes all.

Whoa....51% isn't enough for important issues? Cool. *recalls Bush* :D

(a) there is a proven leftist agenda with voting

Translation: "There are more leftie voters than rightie voters and that makes me mad! *cry*"

So we have a 'hard-core' leftist group voting en masse for their agenda

AND? They have a right to vote, "en masse" even, if they want to.

(c) For a real and binding vote on all members, I suggest a 2/3 majority vote for binding resolutions. If less that 2/3 then a resolution may be enacted by any nation that so chooses, but not binding on those who voted against it.

For a real and binding result to (insert your favorite sport here), I suggest a minimum 10-score margin of victory for binding scores. If less than 10 scores, then a team may choose to recognize the higher-scoring team as the champions, but it is not binding. Ya know, just in case my team ever loses. :roll:

Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances. Join the UN, and you get to vote on UN business....BUT you have to accept the results of said business whether you like 'em or not.

One big concern I have with the existing voting format is the 51% takes all.

Whoa....51% isn't enough for important issues? Cool. *recalls Bush* :D

(a) there is a proven leftist agenda with voting

Translation: "There are more leftie voters than rightie voters and that makes me mad! *cry*"

So we have a 'hard-core' leftist group voting en masse for their agenda

AND? They have a right to vote, "en masse" even, if they want to.

(c) For a real and binding vote on all members, I suggest a 2/3 majority vote for binding resolutions. If less that 2/3 then a resolution may be enacted by any nation that so chooses, but not binding on those who voted against it.

For a real and binding result to (insert your favorite sport here), I suggest a minimum 10-score margin of victory for binding scores. If less than 10 scores, then a team may choose to recognize the higher-scoring team as the champions, but it is not binding. Ya know, just in case my team ever loses. :roll:

Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances. Join the UN, and you get to vote on UN business....BUT you have to accept the results of said business whether you like 'em or not.