NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is now open for nitpicking.

Notes: The oil supply peak means the point where production will reach its maximum and then get lower and lower. I am basing the 50 year figure on an estimate of the year 2040 by the United States Geological Survey, plus about a 10-year buffer.

All plastic and petroleum products, including polyester, nylon, etc., are derived from naptha, a fraction of petroleum. Oil is necessary to make plastics.

This is a slightly watered-down version of my earlier "Phase Out Petroleum" proposal.

REDUCTION OF OIL CONSUMPTION - DRAFT 1

Whereas our supply of oil is finite, and,

Whereas the oil supply is projected to peak within 50 years, and,

Whereas we also depend on many products which are derived from oil, and,

Whereas the international economy is currently highly dependent on oil for energy, and,

Whereas the consequences of a drop in oil production or an increase in oil prices are and will be grave, therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Recognises that limited time is available to act in the matter,

Resolves to decrease consumption on reliance on oil,

Urges increased spending and support for research into alternative sources of energy,

Urges nations to use existing renewable energy sources in place of petroleum where possible,

Urges national governments to increase fuel efficiency standards,

Urges national governments, automobile corporations, energy corporations, aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers, and members of industries related to transport and energy to support and fund efforts to develop new sources of energy.

I like it, just 3 nits to pick:

Whereas the oil supply is projected to peak within 50 years, and,

It should be more blindingly obvious to the reader that this means "we have at the most 50 years" rather than "we have 50 years". Perhaps "the oil supply is projected to peak within the next 50 years" - it just needs a slight change of emphasis.

Whereas we also depend on many products which are derived from oil,

"Also"? As well as what? I could understand if this came after the clause about energy dependence, but as it is the "also" is used incorrectly (I know, a bit too pedantic...).

Resolves to decrease consumption on reliance on oil,

Do you mean "decrease reliance on consumption of oil" or "decrease consumption of, and reliance on, oil"?

Otherwise, great!

It was a typo, yes it should be "consumption AND reliance".

Might as well correct it now...

REDUCTION OF OIL CONSUMPTION - DRAFT 1A

Whereas our supply of oil is finite, and,

Whereas the oil supply is projected to peak within 50 years, and,

Whereas the international economy is currently highly dependent on oil for energy, and,

Whereas we also depend on many products which are derived from oil, and,

Whereas the consequences of a drop in oil production or an increase in oil prices are and will be grave, therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Recognises that limited time is available to act in the matter,

Resolves to decrease consumption and reliance on oil,

Urges increased spending and support for research into alternative sources of energy,

Urges nations to use existing renewable energy sources in place of petroleum where possible,

Urges national governments to increase fuel efficiency standards, and,

Urges national governments, automobile corporations, energy corporations, aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers, and members of industries related to transport and energy to support and fund efforts to develop new sources of energy.

Your resolution doesn't do anything. It doesn't require any action, doesn't do anything but suggest potential actions. If you want it to mean anything at all, you've got to put requirements in there with hard deadlines and consequences for failing to meet those deadlines.

I will add imperatives later on, this is draft 1 and intended to gauge the reaction to the different items in it. Deadlines are also unrealistic at this point, since many of these alternative technologies still need to be researched or discovered.

Penalties? If this becomes a resolution and you flout or ignore it, and even if this doesn't even get voted on, you're ALREADY going to get a penalty. How's having no energy, no electricity, and no fuel for a penalty? How's having to hoard plastic like it's gold for a penalty? We've already got a penalty, we don't need another one.

Too much handwringing and nice words and to little action.

Did you read what I just said?

Submitted as in Draft 1A on 22 July.

Suggestion for improving proposal:

Each nation must fund research in areas of renewable energy sources and non-oil based materials research in proportion to the amount of oil they consume. Perhaps a tax of no more than 3% of the total tax rate, but adjusted depending on the economy's use of oil. More energy efficient nations relying on more renewable resources, would pay far less than an inefficient nation.

Someone's been reading National Geographic. Good for you.

And now, a lesson on Peak Oil.

The extraction of all natural resources exists on a bell curve. That is, in the beginning, yeilds are few due to poor technology and limited infrastructure. As better tools and more extraction sites open up, the production of resources increases.

But, given that the majority of natural resources are finite, there reaches a point where the amount, in this case of oil, grows smaller and smaller. Once you hit the peak of the bell curve, it is simply impossible to meet earlier rates of production.

So what does this mean for you? Well, as supply decreases, the price of oil will increase. Not only that, but since drilling companies will be forced to tap the least favorable of locations in order to milk out every last drop of the stuff, production costs will also increase. Drilling in Saudi Arabia is much easier than the frozen Siberian tundra, after all. In effect, consumers will be paying more and more for oil, while there becomes less and less available.

The impacts spread far beyond not being able to fuel your Hummer, however. The world's petrochemical infrastructure is a multi-trillion dollar beast, with an iron grip on the global economy. Consider this. The majority of economic growth centers around consumption of goods. An increasing percentage of these goods come from plastic, which comes from petrochemicals. As the price of oil increases, so will the price of these goods, meaning fewer and fewer people will be able to buy them. Demand will decrease, leading to companies slimming their production and laying off workers. This cycle of downsizing will eventually lead to a collapse of the world's economic structure, at a rate of roughly three percent per annum.

It gets worse, though. Keep in mind that most fertilizers and pesticides are also petrochemical products. The tractors and planes that spread the products are fueled by oil as well. The world's food supply will begin to shrink, as will our ability to ship food to remote locations. Supermarkets will become a thing of the past. Clean water, also, is at risk. The pumps and purifiers that keep our water flowing operate because of oil, either directly, or because oil is used in the mining of fuels burned to power the equipment.

So what can be done? Curbing consumption isn't the problem. No matter how much we reduce it, we're still going to run out. What is required is a massive shift in spending from traditional power sources such as natural gas, coal, and oil, into renewable energy sources including geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and solar.

This doesn't necessarily save us though. Oil is consumed in the construction of these alternative sources as well. You can't build a dam without fuel for the trucks that bring in equipment and personell, nor can you drill a geothermal well. This means that the oil we have now needs to be spent preparing for the future, before it becomes too expensive to do so.

Navigating this course is a tricky one. Obviously dedevelopment of the world economy isn't going to be an option, and we still need to keep people fed in the mean time. This resolution is a good start, but represents only the tip of an iceberg the likes of which the world has never seen.

It was the BBC actually, but I did notice they had a cover story on it.

Anyway, well said, Sophista.

Eh. I'm a policy nerd. It's what we do.

I applaud the excellent comments made by the representative from Sophista and would like to add in addition to their comments the world's population is increasing and with it our demands for energy and goods. The rate at which we are consuming the resources of our planet this year will be even more next year accelerating the consequences as mentioned earlier.

I agree that this resolution only covers ‘the tip of the iceberg’, but at the very least it tries to highlight the problem and opens a debate on matter.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia