NationStates Jolt Archive

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop Polluting the World
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
*
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Description:
•Noticing that global warming is starting to take effect, we propose these measures be taken to ensure that our world stays safe from these dangers.

1)a) Encouraging and subsidising the installement of chemical "scrubbers" onto the top of factory chimneys and the like to prevent dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and phosphorus oxide from entering the atmosphere.

1b)Rewarding businesses who succesfully cut down their emissions to a pre-determined level. This will be proportionate to the size of the business, as will the reward. Governments would be able to decide how the businesses in their countries are rewarded, but the rewards will be of an equal value in each country.

1c)Punishing businesses who fail to cut down on their emissions or whose emissions increase. Again, it will be up to individual governments to decide the punishment, but they will all be equal and again the punishment will be proportionate to the size of the business.

2) Assisting businesses or companies that make alternative engines, such as Hydrogen fuel cells or electric cells. This will be by way of subsidies.

3) No taxes or fines shall be imposed on any business as a result of this proposal. Therefore, using diesel engines will not be taxed, and businesses will not be fined for increasing their emissions. Other ways of "punishment" will be found.

what can I do to improve this? will you vote for it?

Stop Polluting the World

Heh heh heh , lame title? No ... :wink:

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
*
Minor alarm bells.

Category: Environmental

I can live with that. :)

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Hmmm, you might not make many friends with that, :wink:

1)a) Encouraging and subsidising the installement of chemical "scrubbers" onto the top of factory chimneys and the like to prevent dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and phosphorus oxide from entering the atmosphere.

( Heh heh heh, "scrubbers", tee-hee ... never-mind. )

This could be VERY expensive, unless of coarse you manufacture them.

1b)Rewarding businesses who succesfully cut down their emissions to a pre-determined level.[quote=Moozimoo]l though?

[quote="Moozimoo"]This will be proportionate to the size of the business, as will the reward.

Ah, but proportionate how?

Governments would be able to decide how the businesses in their countries are rewarded, but the rewards will be of an equal value in each country.

Errr, come agin? Individual governments may decide... but the reward has to be equal in all countries ... ?

(Whistles) " Logic, oh log-ic, here boy (Whistle-whistle) ! "

1c)Punishing businesses who fail to cut down on their emissions or whose emissions increase. Again, it will be up to individual governments to decide the punishment, but they will all be equal and again the punishment will be proportionate to the size of the business.

And here we run inot the same problem, they must be punished, a government may decide how, but the punishment must be "equal" to all violators in all countries. Last I checked logic dictates not all punishments were born equal. So to speak. You know, I'm ripping it almost right out of Animal Farm, but some punishments are more equal then others I would think and "equal" is always very subjective to personal opinion ...

2) Assisting businesses or companies that make alternative engines, such as Hydrogen fuel cells or electric cells. This will be by way of subsidies.

Hmmm, so other "power" supply industries must suffer by their differance, as I would think many nations still use "conventional" power sources, so they must suffer to support the current population, a veritable duty, while the "new" power source companies dance of into the financial sun set ...

3) No taxes or fines shall be imposed on any business as a result of this proposal. Therefore, using diesel engines will not be taxed, and businesses will not be fined for increasing their emissions. Other ways of "punishment" will be found.

WTF ?

So to avoid the entire taxes fiasco,

(Which is not so in a way, as only the U.N. may not institute taxes, it could theoretically dictate to nations how-ever to tax the citizenry but keep the money for the nation. I think)

You propose some kind of "alternate punishment" Ha ha ha, I can imagine how many would react, "String them up by their thumbs, and something else too ! "

what can I do to improve this? will you vote for it?

I like your idealism, Its very nice, I like your idea too, its very good,

But,

But sadly the entire economic factor as described at this time discourages me from supporting it. Hope I did not seem too critical. Regrads,

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

logic? I mean that if the government of one nation decided to reward a certain business by providing them with a new machine(for example), it's cost would not exceed a certain amount, nor be lower than it. We are talking about different countries and therefore different currencies here, so part of the propoal must say that.

I don't understand your last point about taxes - should I just cut out the whole fuel thing?

Thanks for your contributions, I just lost my 2 endorsements cos they got ejected from the UN. So I wont be making any new ones for a while!

No no no, what I meant was it sounded to me like,

1) The punishment / reward must be decided by the government of the individual nation, but must be equa to that of every other nation. The economical logistics of it bsically made my head hurt, :wink:

2) Oh, no, regarding taxes, I said it seemed you were (And I say this with respect, if you did it with intent, its rare for a proposal involving finance now to avoid the "tax fiasco", where they want the U.N. to institute tax, even though past passed law says it may not) dodging the entire "tax fiasco" problem, but I was greatly concerned by the idea of "alternate punishments" that were not specified. You know, its that kind of vague problem solving that creates problems. Thats all.

Nice to have contributed,

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

A system of property rights is all that is necessary to control pollution.

Pollute my property? I'll see you in court. Or, if you want you can purchase pollution rights from me for a fee we can both agree on.

No special laws necessary.

Therefore, using diesel engines will not be taxed
Why do people always choose out diesel engines? In a properly serviced engine, diesel emissions are less polluting than unleaded petrol emissions.

Just a common misconception I guess.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Therefore, using diesel engines will not be taxed
Why do people always choose out diesel engines? In a properly serviced engine, diesel emissions are less polluting than unleaded petrol emissions.

it's am example

A system of property rights is all that is necessary to control pollution.

Pollute my property? I'll see you in court. Or, if you want you can purchase pollution rights from me for a fee we can both agree on.

No special laws necessary.

No, this solution will not solve everything...

1. Air pollution affects everyone. So either a company/person that wants to pollute the air has to ask everyone affected if they can accept that their air gets polluted or they have to figure out some other way to get their waste products out.

2. We want to LIMIT the amount of pollution and it won't get limited if companys can pay people money to be allowed to pollute in their areas. So unless we can find some good alternative income for those who own enviormentally important areas, this is a very bad idea. We can't risk giving the resoponsability of the protection of our planet to people that have unknown intentions.

But i think that I can agree with you that, IF we would be 100% of the intentions of the owner of a enviormentally important area then a private owner would most likely be the best choice.