NationStates Jolt Archive

I would vote for the proposal to protect the world's environment, but my country's industries are unable to sustain the cost due to an economy that is going south. At this point my nation has only a reasonable economy.

If this is about the Oil Spills proposel i say vote for. In the long run it will help all countries. The only problem is when is the long run? But the it shouldnt matter becuase sooner or later that time will come and it will help us all. Vote yes

If this is about the Oil Spills proposel i say vote for. In the long run it will help all countries.

Mind showing us how exactly the current resolution will do that?

10kMichael

no skin off our backs
in carlemnaria we burn no oil or coal anyway
the only thing we burn is methane from biomass and a twinsie bit of
u235 occasionaly
you see most of our energy, even for transportation, comes from
non-combustive sources.

13% methane from biomass
15% nuke
31% wind/solar
41% hydro (no dam without generator)

=0% petrolium and coal

of course we consume a fraction as much total energy as most nations our size as well

the majority of that goes into long recharge life batteries, solar cells and life sized leggo blox of polymerized silica which is a popular building material that helps to save our forrests by reducing our consumption of forrest lumber by 80% over what it would be otherwise.

we also consume energy of course to charge the batteries in our little trains and ag/construction robotics, and of course the pitance consumed by data communications.

most homes collect enough energy by themselves to run their own refrigerators and computers

it's only when someone at home wants to run their power tools that they fire up the methane fueled gensets

so we certainly have no problem with double hulling our non-existent petrolium pipelines, if we had or needed or wanted any.

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

But the resolution doesn't actually do anything. At most, it states that the problem is caused by not double-hulling or whatever. It does not set up the organisation mentioned in the title, and it issues no recommendations or instructions to member nations. Additionally, it backs up it's argument by citing places that don't exist.

* Votes ...

{ NO NO NO }

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

well if it doesn't actualy do anything then i suppose there's no harm in abstaining on it.

i was looking for the clause where it said it did anything and couldn't find it myself.

i think the missing clause must have been a requirement for everyone to double wall their pipelines and storage tanks.

i think that was implied all over the place.

either that or maybe it's not missing at all and we're looking right at it and not seeing it.

that has happened to us before too.

if these things were written the way lawers actualy write them it would be 15 times as long, repeat itself that many times, once for each point it needed to cover, with only the wording specific to that point chainged each time.

i don't know if a document like that could even fit in the length of what can be entered on here.

but anyway the idea sounds good
whether or not there is any harm
would of course be in the eye of each perception

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

Why have a proposal that really wouldn't do anything then? I still say no.

Carlemnaria, you make fair points; however, the resolution only reiterates what has been said in a previous resolution. Regardless of its efficacy, it is redundant.

Kind regards

Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speaker for Industry

DP

PS - we still love you for your poetry!