NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can see is a list of problems and some vague complaint that may be an act.

Just because an proposal sounds nice doesn't mean we pass it. There is nothing to this proposal.

It means the death of many capitialist economies. That seems to be its only real action. Even it's pseudo-scientific text is wrong, as Co2 causes the creating of ozone, and not the destruction of it.

Also noting the ozone layer is largely effected by the Earth's own magnetic feild.

I don't think this is vague:

"a resolution requiring automobile manufacturers to spend a minimum of 1% of their profits toward alternative fuel research so that alternative fuels will proved a viable alternative to fossil fuels."



And why should it mean "death of many capitialist economies"?

How many of the new labor unions will go on strike because the automotive industry is adjusting where profits are going and can no longer pay the standard raise for the next few years, because they have to hire more people in R&D and research something.


When did it become the job of the UN to tell a business what it can and can not do? Can we propose a law that says the agriculture industry can not use tractors because they use fossil fuels? I would love to see what happens when the farming communities have to go out and do everything by hand.

On a side note, when is the last time that a bill actually got defeated? I am inclined to believe that a majority of people just vote yes, instead of thinking about the bill they are passing.

I am of the impression that most members of the UN should never be allowed to be in charge of an economy. Most resolutions just seem to be expensive.

I think the current resolution is badly written, in some cases inaccurate, and the actual solution is not necessarily the answer to the questions.

I have also looked back down the list of past resolutions, and every single one has been passed. This might be partly because of the proposal stage though.

Sir Jambo,
Prime Minister of Jambonarok.

Not every proposal that comes up for vote is passed! You should look a lot harder and those with a longer memory will know that not all of them were passed.

(EDIT) "Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002), the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or trying to force other nations to be more like them. But that's just semantics.

Below is listed every resolution ever passed by the United Nations."

That's quoted from the UN page which lists every resolution _PASSED_, so go figure why everyone of them was passed if the whole point of the list is to show the resolutions that have been passed! Really try reading what's there for a change.

On a side note, when is the last time that a bill actually got defeated? I am inclined to believe that a majority of people just vote yes, instead of thinking about the bill they are passing.

I think "Equality for all" was defeated around 10 days ago.

I would have to resign fromt he UN if this were to pass. My nation's econmy rests on the automotive industry and this resolution will cripple it.

I would have to resign fromt he UN if this were to pass. My nation's econmy rests on the automotive industry and this resolution will cripple it.

Why should paying 1% of the profits cripple the industry? They decide themselves what to do with the money.

mobile noncombustive energy generation for mechanical vihicular
propulsion is a very good idea and does address SOME environmental
costs and concerns, it is a concept we favor in general but don't see as a perminent long term
solution.
as for 'crippling capitol economies' even if we saw that as
a drawback, this is pure rubbish, unless they are so unwise as to
be so lacking in diversity as to be
virtual 'one crop' economies with that one crop being the automobile.
a cleaner car only addressess half the issue with relience upon the private passinger automobile as
a primary means of transportation.

the other is real estate. i.e. habitat loss do to the amount of
it gobbled up by a pneumatic tyre on pavement transport infrastructure.

by any measure, passinger mile or ton mile of freight
flanged wheel on steel rail (and most other guidway based sysetems)
consume 1/5th the fuel and 1/12th the land as those transport infrastuctures
based on pneumatic tyre on pavement.

in today's world of containerization the old arguments
against scalable capacity no longe hold as well

and finaly on a cost comparison basis where total right of way
and vehicular costs both first and o&m, thoses costs are roughly equal

i'm sorry if this seems digressive

to reiterate
we think replacing fossle fuel combustion with something 'earth
friendleir' is a good and positive step in the right diretion at least
potentialy
but fails to address more then half of the issue of invironmental
impact of transportation infrastructure

we do have a question:
is this going to be structured in such a way that mom and pop gasahaul
growers and methane digesters might bennifit
or is this just another scheme to keep the hands of major oil distributers
who see the handwriting on their own walls, in our pockets?

as i say, we tenatively favor the propsal, but have BIG questions

likewise we see no clear and over riding objections to it,

(and are thus inclined to favor it with our vote. we remain though uneasy as to the possibility of typical monitarist hidden bate and switch)

just no great expectations as to what it will likely accomplish

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