NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution aims to take care of something that is important to the world, and that is the basic right to all humans of power and energy. This proposal expands human rights and quality of living for all peoples regardless of race, religion, or physical limitations/boundaries.



Electricity is a Human Right

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Quarka

Description:Whereas the world is filled with different means of utilizing and creating energy.

'Energy' is defined as usable power (as heat or electricity).
'Alternative Energy Sources' is defined as sources of energy other than fossil fuels.
'Fossil Fuels' is defined as those sources of energy including coal, oil, and natural gas.

Whereas the various and diverse nations of the world have different economies, different infrastructures, and different dependencies on power and electricity.

Whereas there are also many nations in which electricity is not freely available due to government regulations and/or struggles to provide alternative fuels over traditional fossil fuels.

Therefore it is resolved that energy is a freely available resource that every nation may utilize, and may harness in any way they please. Every nation may choose to obtain energy from any source they wish, be it fossil fuels or alternative fuel sources.

Therefore it is also resolved that electricity is a basic human right and that every human being in every NationStates nation should be allowed, at the very least, access to electricity. This is simply the capability, how it is provided may vary nation to nation. Government may provide electricity free to its citizens or citizens may purchase their own, but all citizens of every nation MUST have access to it in some form or fashion.

With the passing of this resolution all nations will meet a universal required energy standard so that the people of the world may be able to enjoy the basic right of electricity and power.

Good Quarka, while I do agree on the fundamental level, that, electricity is a basic right in modern society, I must protest in part, as your proposal seems non-progressive in the fact it allows governments to generate power through the use of fossil fuels, which creates the possibility of a loop hole to limit or reduce future alternative source laws. Prhaps some... compromise could be made here?

That or I am completely wrong. (Shrughs) Eh. Either way, explain, clarify, or discuss. Jeeez, I sound like my HSC English Advanced paper... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I can see that your heart is in the right place, however I question the plausibility of implementing such an Idea. In your proposal you stated first that different countries have different dependencies on electricity then move to say that all countries should be required to send power to ALL citizens. This would be ridiculous in a large number of places where there is zero dependency on electricity because it does not exist.

You also propose allowing countries to charge for electricity which you now consider a "basic human right." That is like a poll tax where you are forced to pay money to vote, and that my friend is undemocratic. By allowing a cost to be implemented you undermine your own definition of a basic human right....

[/quote]Therefore it is also resolved that electricity is a basic human right and that every human being in every NationStates nation should be allowed, at the very least, access to electricity. This is simply the capability, how it is provided may vary nation to nation. Government may provide electricity free to its citizens or citizens may purchase their own, but all citizens of every nation MUST have access to it in some form or fashion.

With the passing of this resolution all nations will meet a universal required energy standard so that the people of the world may be able to enjoy the basic right of electricity and power.[/quote]

I assume your heart is to help out the people of the world. However, why do we assume that electricity or any such thing will make life better? Are you saying that the quality of life is diminished by not have electricity? Where do we stop! Do we say it is a "basic human right" to have a tv? Cable? Dish network? HMM, it's not a basic right, it is a luxury.

Respectfully submitted,
Czar Peterovsky of Eliasson

I would have to agree with Eliasson... what makes electricity a "basice human right"... I see it as more of a luxury. I mean I know the UN right now is all about making coutries spend more and all that but where does it truly stop? I think initially it was a good idea, but saying everyone has to give electricity is just wrong... I mean look at the Amish, do we make them have electricity? NO... If someone chooses not to have that luxury that should be their choice.

I, too, am of the belief that this resolution has its heart in the right place, but misses on a few key notes.

We will agree that access to electricity is a basic human right. With the power of electric motors and similar devices, a person's life can be reshaped. No longer do you need to spend 15 minutes pumping water for your boiled eggs - the electric motor will save you that labor.

We also agree that the government should be responsible for providing access to this grid. Many have argued that people shouldn't be forced into using electricity, and we agree. What they seem to miss, however, is that this resolution doesn't force people to turn on their lights, only that they have access to the power should they desire it.

To that end, we ask that the author of this resolution come back to the drawing board and extrapolate his ideas on the implementation of this resolution. With the proper focus, Sophista will be happy to lend her support.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

OOC: What about the Amish, electricity is a sin to 'em.

With all due respect to the representitive of Quarka, electricity is a convenience and a privaledge. Each man is born with rights, we believe in some universal rights.... but some dictatorships and socialist nations differ. For all Psychotropicans we have established the rights that each citizen is born into..... such as the right to controll ones own finances, the right to work or not work, the right to enjoy oneself by any means as long as you don't interfere with anothers, the right of free movement, the right of free speech, the right of free thinking (hence our ban on all hate crime laws..... murder is murder, we care not what the motive is), the right to protect oneself if the police have failed (which implies the right to own firearms), the right to worship or not worship as one sees fit....

However...

Conveniences and privaledges are not rights. You do not have the right to have electricity, you may PAY for the privaledge. Same goes for food, clothing, driving, flying, internet use, abortion, experimental medical procedures, medicine, and shelter. It is up to each individual to design his or her own life according to their drive, intelligence, and desires. If a citizen decides not to craft his or her own life... then the lifestyle that follows from such choices is usually not all that pleasant. They may change course when they realize life is hard and WORK is needed.

Simply put...... it is not the job of the government, at least in our view, to give away anything. The government has 4 jobs....

1. National Defense
2. Police
3. Roads and basic infrastructure
4. Schools

All else is left to each city, town, and village.... and of course the Market!

Potestas Democraticorum Delenda Est!

Psychotropics, it would do you well to read something before you post about it.

Obviously you are conservative as am I. I am saying this in the resolution:


Countries may use any fuel source they desire to ensure that each and every one of their citizens has, (and are you listening?) ACCESS TO electricity.

Access to electricity would boost the economy for some, increase welfare for others, take your pick and dip, but the essential basis of the resolution is access to the available resource of electricity.

Psychotropics, it would do you well to read something before you post about it.

Obviously you are conservative as am I. I am saying this in the resolution:


Countries may use any fuel source they desire to ensure that each and every one of their citizens has, (and are you listening?) ACCESS TO electricity.

Access to electricity would boost the economy for some, increase welfare for others, take your pick and dip, but the essential basis of the resolution is access to the available resource of electricity.

I did read it. The problem is that you will force electric lines to be built everywhere. We have hermits in psychotropics who live in Himalayan caves. How would you give "access" to electricity to those hermits ? We feel that people should move to where the electricity is... or provide enough economic incentive to have the lines built if they are unwilling to move. making a proposal that would gaurantee any whack-a-doo who wants to live in a tree house his/her own power lines is just a bit to extreme for us. The points about using any means a nation sees fit to generate electricity we are in full agreement on.

Psychotropics, it would do you well to read something before you post about it.

Obviously you are conservative as am I. I am saying this in the resolution:


Countries may use any fuel source they desire to ensure that each and every one of their citizens has, (and are you listening?) ACCESS TO electricity.

Access to electricity would boost the economy for some, increase welfare for others, take your pick and dip, but the essential basis of the resolution is access to the available resource of electricity.

I did read it. The problem is that you will force electric lines to be built everywhere. We have hermits in psychotropics who live in Himalayan caves. How would you give "access" to electricity to those hermits ? We feel that people should move to where the electricity is... or provide enough economic incentive to have the lines built if they are unwilling to move. making a proposal that would gaurantee any whack-a-doo who wants to live in a tree house his/her own power lines is just a bit to extreme for us. The points about using any means a nation sees fit to generate electricity we are in full agreement on.


I do believe you are confused. 'Access to electricity' means that anyone who wants electricity can get it, right?

That doesn't necissarily mean where they currently live. That would be up to the individual nations.

Now, in urban areas, it is probably best to provide electricity infrastructure. But out in the wilderness, who expects you to do that? IF someone WERE to do that, they could have a private company do it for them.

We are really on the same page, you are reading the wrong paragraph. :lol:

Possibly.... I feel that the wording must be more clarified so as not to invite some slick lawyer an opportunity to soak the system dry ;)

We've got to object to this.

Every nation may choose to obtain energy from any source they wish, be it fossil fuels or alternative fuel sources.

This seems to be an attempt to prevent pollution controls by the back door. Pollution - particularly of the types produced by burning fossil fuels - is a truly international issue and should be regulated internationally.

We agree that electricity, appropriately harnessed, can drastically improve quality of life, but really this does nothing to guarantee it. We wouldn't go so far as to say it's a right, however.
A government that's having trouble providing access to power to its people could merely jack up the prices so that only the top 1% of the population could afford it. So effectively, this does nothing except prevent pollution controls.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

We've got to object to this.

Every nation may choose to obtain energy from any source they wish, be it fossil fuels or alternative fuel sources.

This seems to be an attempt to prevent pollution controls by the back door. Pollution - particularly of the types produced by burning fossil fuels - is a truly international issue and should be regulated internationally.

We agree that electricity, appropriately harnessed, can drastically improve quality of life, but really this does nothing to guarantee it. We wouldn't go so far as to say it's a right, however.
A government that's having trouble providing access to power to its people could merely jack up the prices so that only the top 1% of the population could afford it. So effectively, this does nothing except prevent pollution controls.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

The reason fossil fuels are in there, is essentially to guarantee every nation can pull it off in some form or fashion— the UN already has a resolution for moving to further alternative sources.

Not all nations can have(or afford) the luxury of alternative energy quite yet, when it is more generalized, this clause will fade out of the picture. For now, most nations do not have the resources to pull off using only alternative fuel sources.

This is not a backdoor way to anything, perhaps you are looking through the wrong window.

Okay, while it is an alright idea, I'm going to have to agree with some of the other nations in saying that electricity is a privalege, not a right.
Also, what of the poorer nations? If their government cannot afford to do this? You will force them to? This, in turn, would cause taxes to raise substantially, and charging for the "access to electricity." Even if people cannot afford the costs for electricity, they will have to pay the taxes. Making the people poorer. Then, they might not me able to buy other things, causing the economy to collapse; the government needs more money, again, so taxes raise, again, and you have a never-ending spiral. True, this is probably the very worst scenario, and might never happen. But what if it does, or comes close? Then you have yourself a dead nation. Its purpose may be to help the little guy, but you might end up not seeing him, and crushing the little guy.

I do not support this resolution. Not because poor nations would be driven into bankruptcy, and they would. Not because it would subsidize the electric companies, and it would. Not even because it would cause a logistical nightmare, and it would. I do not support this resolution for the simple fact that it would open up every border for every nation. If this passes, it gives all nations the right to cross another nations borders and steal the natural resources. This intolerable act is provided for under the “Every nation may choose to obtain energy from any source they wish” clause.

I am inclined to agree with turrim....

Aside from its multiple faults, this resolution is too easily misconstrued and provides loopholes that allow piracy of resources...

Not all nations can have(or afford) the luxury of alternative energy quite yet, when it is more generalized, this clause will fade out of the picture.

We must respectfully disagree.

On the level at which electricity is actually needed in rural third-world states, small-scale projects with solar power and biodigestors are no more expensive than First World-style large-scale generators. As a developing nation which has never allowed the environment or civil liberties to suffer in the development of our economy, we find it offensive that all Third World nations are expected to rush to industrialise by any means necessary.

Large-scale electricity generation is unnecessary for the basic standard-of-life improvement electricity can bring. It is really only needed for heavy industry and luxuries - that is, the infrastructure of a capitalist economy. There's therefore a vast jump of logic in this proposal. If it said 'it's legitimate to generate such electricity as is necessary to support the necessities of life' that would be one thing, but it legitimises all electricity production by whatever method, regardless of what it's used for.