NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow UN members:

I encourage you all to support my resolution, "Replace Obsolete Reactors". It's cheap, it's beneficial, and it's common sense.

Also it delays the uprising of a horde of radioactive mutants.

Jornbek Taskolida, Chief, Mission to the United Nations, FIU of Pragmas

Also it delays the uprising of a horde of radioactive mutants.
Yes, we've had constant problems with that. Shouldn't have named our capital Toyko, I guess.

Replace Obsolete Reactors
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Pragmas

Description:
NOTING the continuing environmental effects of Chernobyl, Chelyabinsk, and other sites within the former Soviet Union and around the world;

NOTING that nuclear reactors on the Chernobyl design continue to operate in both developing and developed counties;

NOTING that this older generation of nuclear reactors and those like it have a high incidence of failure and produce waste both difficult to store safely and easier to illicitly obtain materials for weapons of terror from;

CONSIDERING that many countries are dependent on the relative affordability of energy obtained from fission plants;

RESOLVED:
- A commission shall be established to evaluate all nuclear reactors currently in operation throughout the United Nations' member states;
- A fund shall be established, the moneys therein obtained through a modest tax on commission charges in international uranium brokerages;
- The contents of that fund shall be used to assist the upgrading or replacement of nuclear power facilities throughout the United Nations' member states, with priority given to those facilities in greatest risk of causing long-term loss of life and environmental harm, as determined by the aforementioned commission;
- Evaluation of a member states' power facilities by the commission is voluntary and shall not be imposed unwelcomely on any member state.

SUMMARY:
Obsolete nuclear reactors cause massive harm to worldwide health and the environment. This resolution creates an international agency to assess the risks of nuclear power plants, and a fund to pay for upgrades and replacements of obsolete plants. The fund is paid for by a modest tax on the international uranium trade. To prevent the commission being used as a tool of espionage, monitoring by the commission is at the request of the particular nationstate which controls the land containing the reactor.

I would find this proposal, uhh, where, exactly? I would suppose that if you really want people to examine your proposal, you would provide a link (hint, hint).

The title sounds good. I'm interested in whether it has been thought out, with the means of implementation, the funding provided, and alternatives and timetables set out.

There happen to be a number of other proposals published that simply haven't been thought out. I hope you will forgive me for making such pointed inquiries.

In our own country, the mutants haven't been a problem. Our two reactors are aging, but reliable, with minimal radiation hazards. Those hazards are well contained within zones where people do NOT live. The wildlife has suffered no adverse effects, though we have discovered 3 seperate instances of vegetation that require study.

Please expand on your thoughts.

Sophista, too, is interested in this proposal. Our country relies heavily on nuclear power, and any kind of regulation will likely have a profound impact upon our energy situation. However, as has often been said, the devil is in the details, and we'd like to see exactly what this proposal brings to the table before we start signing off on it.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Went ahead and edited the proposal into the second post. I wish the author had posted it - it's a very well written proposal.

Frisbeeteria has placed its preliminary Approval on this proposal, pending review by our nuclear experts.

Thank you Frisbeeteria :)

This proposal DOES have merit. I like the inclusiveness of all nations aspect, and I really like the un-intrusiveness. I need not fear nosey regulators barging into my plants to condemn them.

I think that one aspect of funding was overlooked. In free enterprise countries, reactors are often built by private and/or public corporations. That is, for-profit entities. One would expect that, if the UN shoulder the burden of upgrading and/or replacing unsafe reactors, these corporations should be charged for the work.

While my own nation has a vested interest in ensuring the continued SAFE operation of our own reactors, they do not belong to the nation per se. They are the property of private corporations. Rest assured, they do shoulder the cost of maintenance, safety measures, training, operation, etc. In short, my government does NOT intend to pay for these corporate profits.

Were you to incorporate into this proposal means for recouping costs from the responsible parties, it would be easy for my government to support this rather well reasoned proposal.

In free enterprise countries, reactors are often built by private and/or public corporations. That is, for-profit entities. One would expect that, if the UN shoulder the burden of upgrading and/or replacing unsafe reactors, these corporations should be charged for the work.
Given that the mode of payment is a general excise tax on uranium production, the ultimate end user will pay. Whether that's a military or civilian reactor, whether it's for enrichment for weapons or power production, the cost will necessarily be factored into the expenses of whomever is buying the uranium. I think it works for either governmental or corporate entities equally, and fairly.

It is a bit of an up-front hit to uranium miners who have no production capacity, but as I stated, they'll end up recovering it from their customers (or absorbing it into their national budget, in some cases). I think it works just fine.

I should have expanded on my line of thought. There is more at stake here than just the funds.

Given that for-profit corporations now run some reactors which are aging, and/or obsolete. Those corporations might examine the cost of maintenance, and balance those costs against the profit margin. Knowing that there IS a safety net in place to clean up a major catastrophe, some corporate entities might start cutting corners to increase the profit margin for the last few years in operation. Or worse, cut those corners, then falsify the records, to maintain profit margins beyond the lifetime of the nuclear facility.

These circumstances could actually precipitate a nuclear accident at one ot these affected facilities.

I feel that from the very first, all parties should be made aware that the responsible parties should be held accountable, until the day that the facility is actually disassembled and retired.

The cost of closing and disassembling a plant is enormous, and those costs in my country are held in bond. In another, more naive and trusting nation, there might not be a bond for those costs. One can imagine various ways in which corporations with the profit motive might try to take advantage of your system.

Rest assured, that my nation already holds the funds for virtually any conceivable costs involved in closing and cleaning up our facilities, thereby negating any chance that we would drain your proposed funding for those reasons.

As for replacemet costs, our plans are not so firm. We rely somewhat on the profit motive attracting another builder, if not the previous builders when our plants are retired. However, various factors might persuade the government to build it's own reactors, in which case, we could concivably apply to the UN for assistance in funding.

I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating that your funding proposal, while good, leaves some room for improvement. Left in it's present form, it could allow certain questionable characters to evade their own lawful responsibilities.

With respects :wink:

I should have expanded on my line of thought. There is more at stake here than just the funds.

Given that for-profit corporations now run some reactors which are aging, and/or obsolete. Those corporations might examine the cost of maintenance, and balance those costs against the profit margin. Knowing that there IS a safety net in place to clean up a major catastrophe, some corporate entities might start cutting corners to increase the profit margin for the last few years in operation. Or worse, cut those corners, then falsify the records, to maintain profit margins beyond the lifetime of the nuclear facility.

These circumstances could actually precipitate a nuclear accident at one ot these affected facilities.

I feel that from the very first, all parties should be made aware that the responsible parties should be held accountable, until the day that the facility is actually disassembled and retired.

The cost of closing and disassembling a plant is enormous, and those costs in my country are held in bond. In another, more naive and trusting nation, there might not be a bond for those costs. One can imagine various ways in which corporations with the profit motive might try to take advantage of your system.

Rest assured, that my nation already holds the funds for virtually any conceivable costs involved in closing and cleaning up our facilities, thereby negating any chance that we would drain your proposed funding for those reasons.

As for replacemet costs, our plans are not so firm. We rely somewhat on the profit motive attracting another builder, if not the previous builders when our plants are retired. However, various factors might persuade the government to build it's own reactors, in which case, we could concivably apply to the UN for assistance in funding.

I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating that your funding proposal, while good, leaves some room for improvement. Left in it's present form, it could allow certain questionable characters to evade their own lawful responsibilities.

With respects :wink:

DubyaShrubland brings up a concern which we herein address: namely, the establishment of a monitoring regime and emergency fund might encourage unscrupulous entities to skimp on maintenance.

It is our feeling that if such entities are willing to cut corners and potentially risk irradiating millions because a UN resolution creates an opportunity, then in all likelihood they are doing so already -- thereby making the passage of this resolution all the more urgent.

Jornbek Taskolida, Foreign Ministry, Pragmas

PS, thanx to Frisbeeteria for adding the text of our resolution :D

Having seen the actual text of the resolution, the nation of Sophista feels much more secure in offering her support. While we go to great lengths to ensure that our reactors are operating well within the safety paramaters established by the IAEA, we understand that other nations are not so civic-minded and are more than willing to take a small hit to our leading industry in order to bring about a higher standard of safety across the globe.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Holy Church of psychotropics and it's subsidiaries (Disney, AOL, the Mormons) here by fully endorse the proposal on one condition. You must pay for them

Hate to nit pick but...

Make referance to "Real World" locations/events... I am unsure if thats valid...

Also mentions taxes being imposed, which is certainly not valid, we already have a passed proposal that says the U.N. is not to collect tax, this would be a direct contradiction...

Maybe a mod could comment... ?

Still, not too bad all-round,

The Rep of Komokom.

Hate to nit pick but...

Make referance to "Real World" locations/events... I am unsure if thats valid...

Also mentions taxes being imposed, which is certainly not valid, we already have a passed proposal that says the U.N. is not to collect tax, this would be a direct contradiction...

Maybe a mod could comment... ?

Still, not too bad all-round,

The Rep of Komokom.
The soviet union was a former nationstate
As for the taxes, there is always a way around every law.

The use of real-world arguments to uphold a value is no vice, but I can understand your point. Perhaps if the resolution were to substitute "Cherynobyl-based designs" with the technical term for a reactor of that design it would be more to your liking?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Nuclear disasters the world over, whose consequences can easily spread across national boundaries, have emphasized the need for international standards on nuclear reactors.

Therefore, we have endorsed the proposal by region mates in Pragmas.

Jason M. Dunster
Commonwealth of Borealium
QB Alliance United Nations Delegate

Lubria finds no reason why any nation should still be using nuclear power. Its benefits in short term gains in reduction of pollution are far outweighed by the cost and danger of its waste products.

Lubria renews our objection to the worldwide proliferation of nuclear power, however, if nations insist on using it, they may as well use the best equipment possible.

Lubria is committed to solar based-power systems, that being passive and active solar power stations, and wind power stations (as wind is caused by differences in pressure created by the unequal heating of the earth, Lubria classifies it as a solar-based power system), and continues our research into fusion power.

The Right Honble. Peter Javanis
Baron of Altrec
Special Envoy
Office of His Grace, the Lubrian Prime Minister

This is an interesting proposal, and bears a lot of thought.

The use of real-world arguments to uphold a value is no vice, but I can understand your point. Perhaps if the resolution were to substitute "Cherynobyl-based designs" with the technical term for a reactor of that design it would be more to your liking?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Well, something like that, just I was sure I did read a mod thing on proposals not mentioning R.L. things. So, naturally, I pointed this out in the interest of the proposal, which might I add, does seem a nice change from the usual dripping rubbish. :D

However I am still some what concerned by its mention of taxes, if it means the U.N. collects the taxes, which seems to be the natural and logical conclusion, then it would directly contra' a previous proposal, and in the interests of the ongoing validity of the previously passed proposals, I could not allow such a precedent to be formulated, once again, in the interests of the U.N. and its stability, please clarify this tax bit for me? Feel free to telegram my office. ! :wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

I have minor gripes with this resolution concerning 'real world' references, tax collection and the voluntary nature of the inspections (I'd like to see this made compulsory). However, these are not quite enough to prevent me recommending that my nation support the proposal should it come to a vote. Of course, if appropriate amendments were made we'd be vigorously advocating rather than merely passively acquiescing.

As an aside, we take an approach very similar to that of Lubria. Should we have any success with our research into fusion power, we pledge to pass on our knowledge to the UN and any other nations that take an interest. We will not seek reward for this act, based on our principles of common ownership (which is why the Copyright/Patent Law aggrieved us).

Best wishes
Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speaker for Energy & Industry

With respect to taxation, the relevant resolution, passed 13 January 2003, states:

</i>The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose<i>

Our proposal, meanwhile, states:

</i>the moneys therein obtained through a modest tax on commission charges in international uranium brokerages<i>

As we read it, the UN resolution as passed does not preclude the levying of taxes by the UN on either corporate entities or nationstates. Furthermore, the nature of the corporations taxed is inherently international and therefore implicitly under United Nations purview. The passage of the resolution "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" (28 April 2003) gives a precedent to such action.

J. Taskolida, Eskanje

OOC: With respect to references to real-life events, meanwhile...well, I think it's a little draconian to clamp down on anything that happened outside the game with respect to historical events. Chernobyl was 1986, Chelyabinsk was 30 years before that; those events, and their effects, are as much a part of history as the Crusades.

Meanwhile, in the game we have any number of countries based on real-life countries. This opens up two possibilities: Either a country, say for example PRC China, is in its backstory either an offshoot or carbon-copy of the real China, in which case by implication it has the same history as the original; or this vast world of NationStates contains every possible nationstate, either in-game or not, in which case, somewhere in the land of possibility, there was a parallel Soviet Union with a parallel Chernobyl.

Finally, UN resolutions have passed with references to the Axis of Evil, Kofi Annan, and the US dollar -- and if things that became relevant only in the early 2000's can be in UN resolutions, I don't see why something that happened in the 80's can't.

Look for my resolution banning New Kids On The Block albums soon on this forum :lol:

I would vote to support this resolution, granted my nation does not have to pay for it. My citizens taxes should not go up based on this proposal being passed. They get taxed enough and we've got windmills, dams, and solar panels.

Pay for it by forcing the nations/corporations employing nuclear power to pay inspector salaries. Don't mandate how that money is collected, however.

Just my two cents...

As New Eriu is completely powered by solar and wind power, this resoloution has no effect on our nation. Because of the nature of nationstate UN to 'enforce' the pros and cons of each resoloution, I feel New Eriu will be taxed with no benefit as a result of this resoloution.

As a result we will be voting against this should it come to quorum.

-------------------------------------------
Mediator Phineous Oakhurst, New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations.