NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an alternative to the proposal currently being voted on in the United Nations, "Alternative Fuels." Paradoxical Ideas believes this draft to be better than the resolution currently on table because this draft:
Does not violate member states' sovereignty.
Is not biased against any particular industry.
Provides for a mechanism through which funds can be used toward research of alternative energy sources, which "Alternative Fuels" does not do (where is that 1% going toward, hmm?)
Encourages worldwide scientific cooperation.
All comments for improving this draft are welcome; additional sponsors may contact Paradoxical Ideas to be listed on the final proposal.

Paradoxical Ideas encourages all states to vote NO for the current resolution, and work on improving this one instead, to the point where it can be submitted to the queue. Or, if "Alternative Fuels" happens to pass, this may possibly help to reverse some of the damage.
==============================

Subject: Commission for Research and Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources
Category: Environmental
Sponsor(s): Paradoxical Ideas

The General Assembly,

NOTING that fossil fuels are currently the world's primary energy source,

OBSERVING that processes involving fossil fuels cause harmful effects to Earth's ecosystem including:
recovery of fossil fuels causing destruction of top soil and acidic water runoff;
transportation of petroleum causing harmful accidents such as spillage into world waters;
refinery of fossil fuels generating wastes which pollute air and water;
end use of fossil fuels producing pollutants from combustion such as sulfur and nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and unburnt hydrocarbons, resulting in excess subatmospheric ozone (smog) and acid rain, and contributing to the Greenhouse Effect;
REALIZING furthermore that supplies of fossil fuels are used much faster than they are regenerated, and that scarcity of fossil fuels may soon become a worldwide problem,

CALLS FOR the creation of a United Nations Commission for Research and Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources;

INVITES member states to appoint scientific and economic experts to said Commission to facilitate the development of alternative energy sources;

CONFIRMS that all progress made by said Commission is to be released to the global scientific community, thus encouraging cooperation and rapid progress;

URGES interested and capable member states to voluntarily contribute financial resources to said Commission, thus aiding in progress toward said Commission's stated goals; and

RECOMMENDS that member states consider their present and future economic goals, consulting industries affected as appropriate, before taking any action toward adoption of this resolution in their respective states.

Sources:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/env_fossil.html
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/l/a/laf208/environmental_effects_of_fossil.htm
http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/education/modelun/resolution.asp

Edits: Clarification of intro and citation of sources; some syntactical corrections.

Since it currently has over a 4000 vote lead and it doesn't contain an "Equality for All" type fatal flaw there is no reason for another proposal and it won't do any good.

The Commonwealth of Treeonia

Agrees with this alternatve proposal to the currently written Alternative Fuels Resolution now upon the voting bench.

For those that would blindly follow the currently written resolution, think beyond the moment. Think beyond the year. Think to the future. The currently written legislation does not solve a single, or for that matter, any, issue of fossil fuel consumptiom. Rather, it taxes over and beyond the norm, those who require fossil fuels in everyday business.

Do those who agree with this resolution seriously think, with heart and soul, an Alternative Fuel can be conceived, created and implemented by an all inclusive monetary poundation of the Automobile Industry? You are sadly mistaken.

Vote NO to this ridiculous agenda of psuedo taxation.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

Since it currently has over a 4000 vote lead and it doesn't contain an "Equality for All" type fatal flaw there is no reason for another proposal and it won't do any good.

The current proposal does, however, infringe upon the sovereignty of member states. And it also contains questionable opinions and factual error, neither of which I would like to vote YES to. Examples: 1) "when the supply does run out the world will come to a halt and be thrust back into another stone age complete with utter chaos." Utterly irrelevant and pure speculation. 2) "Alternative fuels will also be cheaper and easier to produce." New products are almost *always* more expensive and harder to produce when they are first developed. Only after a period of time does the new product drop in price enough to rival the old. All in all, the current resolution is just badly researched and badly written.

There is still a chance for the vote to turn around. "Equality for all" was similarly 3000 votes in the lead its first few days. And all the easier it will be to convince people to change their vote, here being IMHO a better resolution right in front of their eyes.

Please post about anything in the current text that you object to, or if you feel strongly that any part of the text should be kept. Also, what is this draft doing right, and what is it doing wrong? Paradoxical Ideas UN delegation would like to have any and all feedback, before submitting it to Isolationism's UN delegate to consider.

Thanks all, and to everyone in the US, have a happy Thanksgiving!

Also, what is this draft doing right, and what is it doing wrong?

Right: Supporting alternative fuel development.

Wrong: Not actually, ya know, DOING anything about it.

Lemme see if I missed something: your proposal, if passed, would (1) create a commission to research alternative fuels, and (2) allow nations to donate to the cause or implement an alternative fuels program of their own if they felt like it. Now, really, other than creating a bureaucracy this has no effect whatever.

The current proposal, however, actually gets things DONE. It forces the auto manufacturers to get off their butts and do something about the fact that, eventually, we're gonna run out of oil. And note that the res doesn't say "toward alternative automotive fuel research"...it's just general research into ALL forms of alternative fuels, INCLUDING power plants.

As far as national sovereignty, cry me a pollution-free river. EVERY UN proposal/resolution either (1) infringes upon national soveriegnty, or (2) does absolutely nothing.

Thanks for your comments. Here I'd like to address them.

Right: Supporting alternative fuel development.

Wrong: Not actually, ya know, DOING anything about it.

Lemme see if I missed something: your proposal, if passed, would (1) create a commission to research alternative fuels, and (2) allow nations to donate to the cause or implement an alternative fuels program of their own if they felt like it.

No, it does not say anything about nations implementing a program of their own. They can do that, but the proposal doesn't say anything about that. In fact, having individual programs should be discouraged, because it leads to fragmentation. Is the language unclear?
Now, really, other than creating a bureaucracy this has no effect whatever.

The current proposal, however, actually gets things DONE. It forces the auto manufacturers to get off their butts and do something about the fact that, eventually, we're gonna run out of oil. And note that the res doesn't say "toward alternative automotive fuel research"...it's just general research into ALL forms of alternative fuels, INCLUDING power plants.

I would beg to differ. Notwithstanding the (sometime) necessity of creating new organizations (bureaucratic or not), the current proposal doesn't do much either. Where's that 1% tax on the auto industry going? Are the auto makers supposed to research alternative fuels on their own? Do they have any incentive to do so? What about if Acme Auto Corp. discovered a cheap method to use alternative fuels and didn't share it with anyone else? Have we benefitted the world? Not really.

A commission to research a subject is more than bureaucracy. In operative clause 2 of the draft, the resolution asks member nations to contribute their scientists to this research. If you want this to be more clear, we can revise as follows:

2. INVITES member states to appoint the best scientists in the field and industry experts to this Commission;

Furthermore, if you're worried about not enough funding, an initial grant would solve that-- the UN has a fair amount of money.

1. CALLS FOR the creation of a United Nations Commission for Research and Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources, the mission of which is to coordinate and facilitate scientific and economic progress toward the use of alternative energy sources;

1a. APPROVES an initial grant of five million USD ($5,000,000) for this Commission;

4. URGES capable member states and third parties to contribute financial resources to said Commission;


As far as national sovereignty, cry me a pollution-free river. EVERY UN proposal/resolution either (1) infringes upon national soveriegnty, or (2) does absolutely nothing.

I'm out to prove you wrong. First, the real UN has done plenty of things without infringing on the sovereignty of member states. In fact, it's in the real UN charter. It has done a lot to improve the welfare of third world nations (through organizations a bit like the one this proposal seeks to set up), it has sent peacekeeping forces throughout the world (with mixed success, but that's the nature of the business). All this without violating national sovereignty.

What the real UN has not done, though, is inflict laws dictating policy on their member states, such as the previous Labor Union resolution, or the current one, which dictates a tax on companies in individual countries. This is not the United Nations' job. I'm not opposed to this kind of tax, actually I think I even might pass something like it in my country. But guess what? It's the job of the national government to pass taxes and make policy. We've even passed a NS UN resolution saying that the UN should not tax member countries. (Yes, this proposal does not directly tax them, so it doesn't technically apply. My point stands.) The United Nations should leave this up to the member states. I can tax my auto industry and donate that money to the UN Commission created by the above proposal. Another country might be having more problems with pollution caused by power plants, so they might tax power plants and donate that money. Or they might just be rich and donate money.

Most importantly, top scientists from member countries will be able to gather and research together. Scientists are where the innovation comes from, not companies. Companies may employ scientists to great advantage, but the real innovation comes from the mind of those scientific thinkers and experimenters. This proposal provides a vehicle for these advances to be made and shared by the global community.

Now, if you're worried that this leaves too much up to the member states, maybe we can add a provision that requires member states with significant pollution to contribute manpower and money to the commission. I'm not convinced that's necessary; I think that many thriving nations would be more than willing to contribute their resources to such a cause. But I'm willing to listen if you think otherwise.

Conclusion: Not only does this proposal do something about the alternative fuel problem, contrary to what the previous poster states, it does it better than the resolution currently on the table, while not violating national sovereignty and not killing small nations' economies. Scientists from different countries cooperating is going to produce better results than each individual auto company researching something that they don't even want to be doing necessarily. Instead of forcing nations and companies to do things, this proposal would create a framework in which any member nation or any interested company could contribute.

Now, I'd be more than happy to consider more revisions to the proposal. But I stand by the position that the resolution currently on the ballot is flawed, and that this one, if it's not already better, can become better.

Thanks for your comments. Here I'd like to address them.

I would beg to differ. Notwithstanding the (sometime) necessity of creating new organizations (bureaucratic or not), the current proposal doesn't do much either. Where's that 1% tax on the auto industry going?

Uhh, according to the res it's going "toward alternative fuel research".

And as for "tax", as I understand it "tax" means "money paid to the government". The exact language of the res is "requiring automobile manufacturers to spend a minimum of 1% toward alternative fuel research"...not "requiring auto manufacturers to give 1% of their profits to the government".

Are the auto makers supposed to research alternative fuels on their own? Do they have any incentive to do so? What about if Acme Auto Corp. discovered a cheap method to use alternative fuels and didn't share it with anyone else? Have we benefitted the world? Not really.

Alright, so there's a point of weakness on the sharing of discoveries. But the res's strengths elsewhere MORE than make up for it.

I'm out to prove you wrong. First, the real UN has done plenty of things without infringing on the sovereignty of member states. In fact, it's in the real UN charter.

Difference being, the REAL UN can impose its will on those who are actively screwing the world through economic sanctions and through their combined military might. NSUN can't, so to compensate the NSUN gets greater domain over its members.

Most importantly, top scientists from member countries will be able to gather and research together. Scientists are where the innovation comes from, not companies. Companies may employ scientists to great advantage, but the real innovation comes from the mind of those scientific thinkers and experimenters. This proposal provides a vehicle for these advances to be made and shared by the global community.

A panel of scientists is a good idea. Problem is, they need power to implement their conclusion. As an oversight board, with the ability to review and if necessary alter the auto companies' AF policies, this works. As a bunch of smart guys who go "oh, it'd be nice if you did x", it doesn't.

Now, if you're worried that this leaves too much up to the member states, maybe we can add a provision that requires member states with significant pollution to contribute manpower and money to the commission. I'm not convinced that's necessary; I think that many thriving nations would be more than willing to contribute their resources to such a cause. But I'm willing to listen if you think otherwise.

Manpower and money aren't the issue here. The issue is COMPLIANCE. Even if I spend a kajillion dollars and create an ARMY of scientists to work on alternative fuel solutions, it does neither me nor anyone else any good if my neighbor nation is producing cheap smog machines. If each nation had its own atmosphere, then individual do-gooding nations working together would be enough. Since there's only ONE, though, ALL nations have to get on the boat.

Since it currently has over a 4000 vote lead and it doesn't contain an "Equality for All" type fatal flaw there is no reason for another proposal and it won't do any good.

carlemnaria would strongly favor this proposal over the existing one

although we would still even more strongly favor phasing out the
use of combustion to generate (most) energy all togather
(we have no objection to personal use of biomethane backup generators,
provided this is done on a small personal home scale and only as a
back up source with distributed wind and solar being the primare,
suplimented by small scale hydro and yes even sufficiently small scale nuclear)
likewise mobile transportion energy being stored energy of some
sort on board automaticly recharged at stopping places from
these 'alternative' sources

and there ARE at least potential flaws (as pointed out in our
critique of it) in the existing proposal that yours does to some degree overcome

=^^=
.../\...

There is a fundamental flaw in your proposal, one typical of UN "problem solving."

Simply put, you cannot commity a problem to death. Creating an internation research group based in the UN is an admirable goal, but where are they going to get their funding? Are they simply to discuss the problem, or are there actual plans to create a viable alternative to the fossil fuels?

Hamletonia has voted yes to the current UN proposal and until such time as this proposal has adressed this small nations concerns, it will retain its faith in the current UN version.

I would beg to differ. Notwithstanding the (sometime) necessity of creating new organizations (bureaucratic or not), the current proposal doesn't do much either. Where's that 1% tax on the auto industry going?
Uhh, according to the res it's going "toward alternative fuel research".

My problem with this is exactly that. That language provides no direction whatsoever. A commission such as the one set up in this proposal would provide an international, cooperative direction, instead of individual auto companies researching on their own, some very disinterestedly-- after all, they are being forced to do this.
And as for "tax", as I understand it "tax" means "money paid to the government". The exact language of the res is "requiring automobile manufacturers to spend a minimum of 1% toward alternative fuel research"...not "requiring auto manufacturers to give 1% of their profits to the government".

I understand "tax" to mean "government-sanctioned removal of money from private entities." My point here is that it might as well be a tax in the usual sense of the word, because auto companies have no incentive to use it well.
A panel of scientists is a good idea. Problem is, they need power to implement their conclusion. As an oversight board, with the ability to review and if necessary alter the auto companies' AF policies, this works. As a bunch of smart guys who go "oh, it'd be nice if you did x", it doesn't.
Both these resolutions address research. In this sense they aren't different. It is the scientists' job to come up with ideas and experiment and create prototypes, not necessarily to manufacture/market the actual product. Once the technology is out there, individual member states can require their automotive companies to implement alternative fuels. But that's not the UN's job. This Commission is about creating the technology.

Manpower and money aren't the issue here. The issue is COMPLIANCE. Even if I spend a kajillion dollars and create an ARMY of scientists to work on alternative fuel solutions, it does neither me nor anyone else any good if my neighbor nation is producing cheap smog machines. If each nation had its own atmosphere, then individual do-gooding nations working together would be enough. Since there's only ONE, though, ALL nations have to get on the boat.

The current resolution does nothing to help the environment directly. Neither does this one. The current resolution requires auto manufacturers to spend money on research. This resolution collects manpower and money for research. Neither resolution addresses the problem you are talking about. You'd need some kind of Convention on Emissions for that. You bring up a good point about compliance, but neither resolution does anything about it, so I do not think it is a valid argument for either proposal.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Maybe the next proposal should be an Emissions proposal that we can draft together.

There is a fundamental flaw in your proposal, one typical of UN "problem solving."

Simply put, you cannot commity a problem to death. Creating an internation research group based in the UN is an admirable goal, but where are they going to get their funding? Are they simply to discuss the problem, or are there actual plans to create a viable alternative to the fossil fuels?
I have yet to incorporate my above-proposed revisions based on Welcome to Coneria's comments into the main draft. However, I believe that those revisions make it clear that the Commission is not simply a committee a la Senate or House Committees; it is a group of scientists and industry experts, and it is directly in their power to create solutions. This Commission is there to not simply discuss but to do something about it. And its members can directly do so. An expert from the auto industry on this Commission can take the findings back to his company and immediately work on implementation. A scientist from a power company can take the work back to his home country and create better prototypes. The members of this commission are ones directly involved in these issues.

Those revisions also address funding, and as stated above, I believe that there are plenty of nations for which it is in their own interest to contribute manpower and money to this Commission. If you believe otherwise, I am willing to listen to your argument.


If the current resolution passes, this proposal still stands; the category will probably change to Free Trade/Significant. In that case the purpose of this proposal would be to amend the flaws of the current one. That might include an oversight board as Welcome to Coneria mentioned.

I am open to more suggestions in either case.