NationStates Jolt Archive

WITHOUT A EARTH, WITHOUT PEAPLE THERE WOULD BE NO- AUTOMOBILE FACTORYS.


POLLUTION DESTROYS-- EARTH DESTROYS-- PEAPLE---- THUS DESTROYING NATIONS--- REGIONS.


AUTOMOBILES- CREATE POLLUTION-- THERE FORE THEY DESTROY THE PREVIOUS!


FUEL ALLTERNATIVES- THAT ARE NOT POLLUTING DONT!!!!!!!

SO THE OBVIOUS CHIOCE IS FOR VOTEING YES, "SAVE THE EARTH".

BUT YES I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A "IMAGINARY WORLD" FOR SOME?
WHY? :evil: :evil: :evil:

That's getting ahead of yourself. Cars cause pollution. People drive the car. If people did not drive the car, no pollution. People are bad. People should be banned. (or destroyed)

That's getting ahead of yourself. Cars cause pollution. People drive the car. If people did not drive the car, no pollution. People are bad. People should be banned. (or destroyed)



BUT you fail to see my point which is if peaple-- make the right decision--and vote for alternative fuels there would be no pollution.

but yes haha most peaple are "i want to do what hes doing"

ROBOTS who dont know about the consequences.

(OOC) People have been arguing that since pollution is a global problem, the the U.N. is the only governemtnal organization that can control it.

This is true, and the U.N. has already acted on this matter!



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


Since the U.N. in this world actually has power, I must implore all of you to use it wisely. Do not argue and vote for resolutions without doing the necessary research. Your knee-jerk reactions ("ENVRIONMENT...hmmm...GOOD!") are leading you to support a redundant resolution.

Furthermore this resolution says a lot about the environment, and then does virtually nothing to benefit it. Automakers must allocate 1% of total profits to R&D on alternative fuels, that's nothing, they already do that! Once again this resolution is redundant, the proposed actions have already been taken!

Let's move forward and work on more important proposals. Let's not cover the same ground and then pat ourselves on the back for doing something good! (ENVIRONMENT....YEAH!)

That's getting ahead of yourself. Cars cause pollution. People drive the car. If people did not drive the car, no pollution. People are bad. People should be banned. (or destroyed)

A bit extreme, but I must admit it would solve all the problems in the world.

[quote="JaCK stUDs"]point which is if peaple-- make the right decision--and vote for alternative fuels there would be no pollution.
[quote]

Not to nit-pick- okay it IS to nit pick - but REGARDLESS of whether we use alternative fuels for cars, we will have pollution. What about industry? What about power generation? Not so simple to get rid of petroleum in those. For example, how about that keyboard you aere typing on? Thats made from plastic. The factory that makes the plastic uses petroleum to make the plastic. A by-product of that process is POLLUTION, toxic solids liquids and gases, as well as "greenhouse gases".

Oversimplification and generalization take away from the cogency of your argument.

SGwaring, I agree that this may be redundant, but seeing how many delegates voted for it without doing the research themselves, I say we should still go ahead and vote for it- never a bad thing to remind the populace of how progressive we are.

But on the other hand, is this resolution actually worsening our impact on the world? Doesn't the older resolution actually seem more strongly in favor of the environment? I think making every nation start building hydrogen powered cars is a lot more favorable than only using 1% of the car companies profits for research. For example, my nation doesn't even have car companies. We would like to have hydrogen powered vehicles- so how does this resolution help us?

Spokesperson for the people,

Shayn

[quote="JaCK stUDs"]point which is if peaple-- make the right decision--and vote for alternative fuels there would be no pollution.
[quote]

Not to nit-pick- okay it IS to nit pick - but REGARDLESS of whether we use alternative fuels for cars, we will have pollution. What about industry? What about power generation? Not so simple to get rid of petroleum in those. For example, how about that keyboard you aere typing on? Thats made from plastic. The factory that makes the plastic uses petroleum to make the plastic. A by-product of that process is POLLUTION, toxic solids liquids and gases, as well as "greenhouse gases".

Oversimplification and generalization take away from the cogency of your argument.

have you ever heard of magnetic engines--- there is obsoulutely no pollution in that alternative car.


i believe there are non polluting alternative to everything! we just havent found them or invented them because of corupt buisneses like oil, fossil fuel industries.


we need more open minded, aggresive peaple to start fight for the enviroment! and this is a step in the right direction.

have you ever heard of magnetic engines--- there is obsoulutely no pollution in that alternative car.


No pollution? No, I have not heard of magnetic engines. How do they work? What is the ultimate source of power to drive it?

And there would still be a whole lot of pollution required to make the car. But I understand if you are speaking only of getting from point A to B.

Please consider the alternative proposal listed here:

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

If you agree with the principle of the current proposal but not the letter of it, I think you might like this one better. We're all concerned about the environment; I don't think anyone is saying that we should pollute the environment for the heck of it. Rather, it is how we should go about it that is the problem, and this alternative proposal tries to address that problem.

Please have a read and post any comments.

I think people are voting yes because this a 'who cares' issue. 1 % isn't enough and what the hey it can't hurt, so people are voting yes

I voted, and will stick with, no :wink:

The problem with this proposal is twofold. First, in and of itself, according to its own sub-heading, it would "increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." My nation is young and growing, and we cannot afford a devastating blow to our economy at such a precarious time. I know that many nations feel similarly, and much of the recent NS recession has been attributed to numerous UN resolutions harming free enterprise.

Which brings me to my second point. If you are a socialist country, fine, good for you. That does not give you the right to impress your ideals upon my nation and affect my national sovreignity. Just as I would not want resolutions passed to outlaw all trade unions worldwide, even if it would bump up my economy enormously, because IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO ANOTHER NATION. To each his own, and in fact the UN charter specifically forbids the violation of national sovreignity. If this measure passes, it will be another step showing that the UN is just a joke. Some sort of big game, where no one takes responsibility for their actions.

Preamble to UN Charter
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED:"...
"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples." Clearly this proposal does not meet this standard.

In fact, the very FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS is:
"Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

-The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. "

Further, the seventh principle listed (out of a grand total of seven) is
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. "

The UN has no right to interfere in our internal business. Period. It is repeatedly reinforced throughout the carther and listed twice in the list of seven principles of the UN.

If you want to save the [your national animal here], then great! But let me at least get my economy going and a couple of people in my country before you cripple me. Thanks.

When did CO2 become greenhouse gas? Did you know that cows are one of the largest producers of CO2 gas in the world. Lets ban cows!


This is insanity.

The problem with this proposal is twofold. First, in and of itself, according to its own sub-heading, it would "increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." My nation is young and growing, and we cannot afford a devastating blow to our economy at such a precarious time. I know that many nations feel similarly, and much of the recent NS recession has been attributed to numerous UN resolutions harming free enterprise.

Which brings me to my second point. If you are a socialist country, fine, good for you. That does not give you the right to impress your ideals upon my nation and affect my national sovreignity. Just as I would not want resolutions passed to outlaw all trade unions worldwide, even if it would bump up my economy enormously, because IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO ANOTHER NATION. To each his own, and in fact the UN charter specifically forbids the violation of national sovreignity. If this measure passes, it will be another step showing that the UN is just a joke. Some sort of big game, where no one takes responsibility for their actions.

Preamble to UN Charter
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED:"...
"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples." Clearly this proposal does not meet this standard.

In fact, the very FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS is:
"Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

-The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. "

Further, the seventh principle listed (out of a grand total of seven) is
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. "

The UN has no right to interfere in our internal business. Period. It is repeatedly reinforced throughout the charter and listed twice in the list of seven principles of the UN.

If you want to save the [your national animal here], then great! But let me at least get my economy going and a couple of people in my country before you cripple me. Thanks.

WITHOUT A EARTH, WITHOUT PEAPLE THERE WOULD BE NO- AUTOMOBILE FACTORYS.


POLLUTION DESTROYS-- EARTH DESTROYS-- PEAPLE---- THUS DESTROYING NATIONS--- REGIONS.


AUTOMOBILES- CREATE POLLUTION-- THERE FORE THEY DESTROY THE PREVIOUS!


FUEL ALLTERNATIVES- THAT ARE NOT POLLUTING DONT!!!!!!!

SO THE OBVIOUS CHIOCE IS FOR VOTEING YES, "SAVE THE EARTH".

BUT YES I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A "IMAGINARY WORLD" FOR SOME?
WHY? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Content free post? Check
No attempt to support claims?Check
General spelling erros(though I'd be willing to forgive those if the author actually had something to say)?Check
Idotic and redundant proposal?Check
Make the right choice! Vote this proposal down and strike a blow against the idiotic proposals everywhere. :D

We in The Holy Empire of Goronkoth are already using fusion powered engines in our transportation, and anti-grav drives. The most popular car we have is the Versatran and we are soon to launch our First starship primarily for exploration, and the Leader's Ship! :mrgreen:

I wonder why these crazy left wingers always pass UN resolutions that total their economies...

Lol, we just banned cars.

Have you all forgotten that Hydrogen doesn't come from trees? There's no such thing as a free lunch in the world of energy. The hydrogen has to be extracted from the water, which requires energy, so, although perhaps better than fossil fuels, the answer is not as simple as Hydrogen. I for one am a proponent of nuclear power, but that's just me.

The Nomadic people of the Lost Planet, while supporting this resolution feel that it does not take a large enough step in the direction needed to preserve the planet. Automotive emissions, while granted are not the only source of pollution, are the single worst contributor to defiling this planets atmosphere. In response to this the people of the Lost Planet have already banned the ownership of automobiles by the general public and have instead focused our resources instead on promoting walking/bicycling friendly communities and building up our public transit infastructure. While we realize that this model may be unworkable in other nations, it should be pointed out that Hydrogen fuel cell technology has progressed to the point where it is a very real and viable alternative to fossil fuels. These vehicles are virtually ZEV's (Zero Emission Vehicles). We do recognize established industries reluctancy to embrace this new technology and abandon established infastructure (and the capital investments made therein) but since air pollution is a transborder issue, the good of the planet must be given higher priority. While increasing the percentage of profits to this research is not neccesary (as workable solutions are already developed or in the development stage), A further amendment to actually require a percentage of vehicles manufactured to be ZEV should be considered to push industry to actually implement the research dictated in this resolution.


The Nomadic People
of the Lost Planet
"Pari Passo"

WITHOUT A EARTH, WITHOUT PEAPLE THERE WOULD BE NO- AUTOMOBILE FACTORYS.


POLLUTION DESTROYS-- EARTH DESTROYS-- PEAPLE---- THUS DESTROYING NATIONS--- REGIONS.


AUTOMOBILES- CREATE POLLUTION-- THERE FORE THEY DESTROY THE PREVIOUS!


FUEL ALLTERNATIVES- THAT ARE NOT POLLUTING DONT!!!!!!!

SO THE OBVIOUS CHIOCE IS FOR VOTEING YES, "SAVE THE EARTH".

BUT YES I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A "IMAGINARY WORLD" FOR SOME?
WHY? :evil: :evil: :evil:

You're lack of grammer and logic has failed to persaude me.

Some nations don't even have cars or they're already using alternate fuels.

But even still their economies will be reduced to shambles by this preposterous poppycock of a proposal.

But even still their economies will be reduced to shambles by this preposterous poppycock of a proposal.

Applause. I have nothing agains the merit of the proposal. Just the lack of any body or legality to it.

i now oppose this bill, after reading all your wonderful replys!

but it looks as if there is no way we will stop it from passing.

Proposal doesn't go far enough. Most of the air pollution comes not from automobiles, but from coal and oil power plants.

Therefore, we should replace these with environmentally friendly nuclear plants.

The bill must be passed and it will be passed. Although certain revisions should be made. Perhaps a second follow up bill that will make governments spend a small yet apt amount on eco fuels that will allow the world to advance while also giving it (and humanity) a longer future.

Therefore, we should replace these with environmentally friendly nuclear plants.

Never mind all the toxic waste and possibility of meltdown.

nuclear power plants do not create toxic waste or meltdown--they simply use materials and allow them to decay in controlled environments. harnessing that power is natural, environmentally friendly, practical, and cheap... just because it has the word nuclear in it doesn't make it evil... nuclear technology doesn't create radiation when used properly... even nuclear warheads don't--if you use them correctly (if there is a correct way at all.)

nuclear power plants do not create toxic waste or meltdown

Tell that to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

there's a difference--and you know that... or should

xxAndrewD storngly supports the proposal to create a concrete plan for researching alternative fuels. By researching, we, together, will make the world a much safer place.

For great leadership, endorse us...

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=xxandrewd

This is exactly why I'm NOT in the UN...
How people let it jump from being an organization promoting global cooperation and common welfare to being a socialist "tyranny-by-majority" hegemon is beyond me, but they did...

Cow farts pollute. So do volcanoes. In fact, they cause more damage than man does. So let's outlaw cow farts and volcanoes first.

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

New Scientist magazine reports the small amount of hydrogen leaking from the pipes destroys the Ozone.

Cutting down pollution with hybrid cars (electric and petrol (gas) power supplies) should be the 1st step. Accidents will happen if we rush things. This method should cut pollution just above of half per car. (and it already exists, so no research is needed).

Before passing things, I think a quick research (use google or tubo10.com) about pros and cons should be posted, and then added upon by other members. Remember not all info on the net is true though, make sure you find it in a few places, or the site looks reliable.

Sorry about reposting that bit about hydrogen, I just found it oh so silly of the inventors and such to not test it's effects. :roll:

I was accepted by UN, btw, hotmail must have blocked by email from them... so i'll have to wait till tomorrow. :(

Cow farts pollute. So do volcanoes. In fact, they cause more damage than man does. So let's outlaw cow farts and volcanoes first.

:lol:

There is an enzyme in their cuts that makes the methane, much worst then co2! They actually have a drug that kills these enzymes (which seem to have no purpose, and the sheep they tested act no different... except they don't need as much food know they no longer need to feed these odd enzymes.

Maybe we should discuss voting on testing 10% of cattle on farms around the world? It has no effect on them or their meat, as it's in their guts (I believe), so they should have no side effects. We save farmers money feeding cattle (maybe not much, but it’ll help), and make our car pollution look like a much smaller impact on the environment. Along with electric cars, we're pretty cosy!

I wouldn't want to mandate such an act, as the decision as to whether or not to test is ultimately a private decision between the cattle owners and the producers of the drug--no one else has any right to get involved. But such testing should definitely be allowed.