NationStates Jolt Archive

Over recent years conclusive scientific evidence has shown our world is being warmed up due to increases in the levels of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouses gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. The Empire of the Mongol believes this situation can no longer continue and that the UN must publish new initiative to push Nation States into taking much needed actions to save our planet from the environmental disaster we face.

We have proposed the Environmental Accord to the UN and hope you can agree to it to help bring this important issue to the UN general assembly.

The UN Environmental Accord is also designed to help more local pollution issues such as acid rain as well as tackling major global issues like Global Warming.

The problem of global warming is a real and dangerous one and this must be tackled as soon as possible before it is too late. If we do not then we condemn our children and grandchildren to a damaged world.

Please agree to the UN Environmental Accord and help the world.

The measures proposed by the UN Environmental Accord are:

1.All UN member states shall reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020.

2.All UN member states shall increase the share of energy in their national grids that comes from renewable sources to 20% by 2020.

3.Measures such as chimney scrubbing (To remove sulphur dioxide) and catalytic converters on cars shall become compulsory for all UN member states in order to cut down on acid rain.

4.The Automobile manufacturing industry shall be required to provide 3% of their net profit into research for alternative sources of energy to power automobiles.

5.A UN Environmental Watchdog will be set up to monitor the earth’s environment.

Please support this proposal and help save our precious planet.

My congratulations to the Nation of the Mongol for this well-attempted piece of legislation.

Here are the problems as I see them.

1. A 20% reduction by 2020 will be based on the pollution standards of what year?
EX: are we reducing 20% based on pollution levels of 2004? 2002? 2000? 1978?

2. The year 2020 is too far in the future for a 20% reduction.
I feel that 2010-2015 would be a better date, or a simple statement of 20% of current levels every 10 years until the year 2030. At which time, the pollution levels and technology advances would be re-evaluated for measures more appropriate for the time and era.

So by 2014, we should be creating 20% less than we did in 2004. In 2015, we should be creating 20% less than we did in 2005. In 2025, we would be creating 20% less than we did in 2015, which is 40% less than was created in 2005. (Which is why 2030 would be a cut off date for the implementation of this proposal, since we would hopefully be using other methods that are cleaner and more stable. To continue with the demand could cause countries to begin to de-evolve.)

3. The lowering of pollution should not be adhered across the board. Countries who are thrid world classifications would not be able to advance with such restrictions. Second world nations should only cut their pollution by 5-10%, since they too are not as developed. The UN surely does not want to stifle the growth and development of any nation.

Those are the problems that I see with this proposal.

I would love to see proposals such as these applied to alot of pollutants.

My comments:

1: It has been proven that carbon dioxide warms up the earth.

2: We pump carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

3: Is the carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere the actual cause of the warm up?

We humans aren't the only thing that produces carbon dioxide. Please provide evidence that the carbon dioxide produced by mankind is the DIRECT cause of the warm up.

Also provide evidence that the warm up isn't just a minor tremor in the earth's temperature. In the 1960's the temperature was dropping. Old magazines showed hoaxes of glaciers sliding into cities. Provide evidence that the temperature won't drop again after a number of years. Provide evidence that the temperature will continue to rise, and, as mentioned above, that mankind is the cause of this.

Please provide accurate evidence that reducing the production of carbon dioxide will stabilise the temperature of the earth.

Also, when dealing with environmental issues, I would prefer to put more emphasis on developing environment-friendly techniques, and making them much more affordable than they are now, preferably even more affordable than using fossile fuel.

Making green power, as I will call environmet-friendly means of the production of energy from now on, more profitable than fossil fuel will have a far greater effect, and will benefit economy more than laying down strict rules for using the limited techniques we now posses.

In short:

Less money to enforcing, more money to research.

My comments:

1: It has been proven that carbon dioxide warms up the earth.

2: We pump carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

3: Is the carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere the actual cause of the warm up?

We humans aren't the only thing that produces carbon dioxide. Please provide evidence that the carbon dioxide produced by mankind is the DIRECT cause of the warm up.

Also provide evidence that the warm up isn't just a minor tremor in the earth's temperature. In the 1960's the temperature was dropping. Old magazines showed hoaxes of glaciers sliding into cities. Provide evidence that the temperature won't drop again after a number of years. Provide evidence that the temperature will continue to rise, and, as mentioned above, that mankind is the cause of this.

Please provide accurate evidence that reducing the production of carbon dioxide will stabilise the temperature of the earth.

Well recent samples of ice cores from the Antarctic show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in over 50,000 years. This cannot realistically be due to natural causes because the other main contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere, volcanic activity, has shown no real increase to match the dramatic rise in CO2 levels. The CO2 breathed out by animals is also so negligible especially when photosynthesis is taken into account that this cannot be the reason for the increase. The only cause of CO2 actually increasing at such a rate to cause this rise in atmospheric levels is combustion and that increase in combustion is caused by mankind pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

You however deny that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This is quite obviously a false belief because simple chemistry will show you that burning fossil fuels (or combustion) like oil and hydrocarbon natural gas produces CO2 as long as there is enough oxygen for it to react with. So our factories burning large quantities of these fuels obviously give out large amounts of CO2.

Also as for whether CO2 would cause a warming affect this can once again be easily answered. It is now well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas helping to keep heat inside the world. So by adding so much large quantities to it (As conclusive evidence proves we are) you are increasing the greenhouse affect because you have more greenhouse gasses. Increasing the greenhouse affect obviously leads to more temperature being kept inside the earth’s atmosphere and therefore creates a warming affect.

The world is definitely warming up and excess CO2 is the only affect. By reducing CO2 levels we obviously reduce the amount temperatures increase. Also if we reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere enough then natural CO2 removal methods such as dissolving into rain and sea water should hopefully stabilise and maybe reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Don’t just believe me though the UN, EU, CIA and the Pentagon all agree that global warming exists and so did the Whitehouse- previously.

My congratulations to the Nation of the Mongol for this well-attempted piece of legislation.

Here are the problems as I see them.

1. A 20% reduction by 2020 will be based on the pollution standards of what year?
EX: are we reducing 20% based on pollution levels of 2004? 2002? 2000? 1978?

2. The year 2020 is too far in the future for a 20% reduction.
I feel that 2010-2015 would be a better date, or a simple statement of 20% of current levels every 10 years until the year 2030. At which time, the pollution levels and technology advances would be re-evaluated for measures more appropriate for the time and era.

So by 2014, we should be creating 20% less than we did in 2004. In 2015, we should be creating 20% less than we did in 2005. In 2025, we would be creating 20% less than we did in 2015, which is 40% less than was created in 2005. (Which is why 2030 would be a cut off date for the implementation of this proposal, since we would hopefully be using other methods that are cleaner and more stable. To continue with the demand could cause countries to begin to de-evolve.)

3. The lowering of pollution should not be adhered across the board. Countries who are thrid world classifications would not be able to advance with such restrictions. Second world nations should only cut their pollution by 5-10%, since they too are not as developed. The UN surely does not want to stifle the growth and development of any nation.

Those are the problems that I see with this proposal.

I would love to see proposals such as these applied to alot of pollutants.

You raise some good point some I agree with some I don’t.

1)Well I intended it to go from the levels at the time of the resolution being passed but yes I probably should have actually specified this.
2)Well I personally chose the 20% level so more people could stomach it. The problem with such proposals is that many nations balk at the idea of heavy CO2 reductions but may be able to accept then when given a longer period of time to do them. Like I said in the resolution this is by no means a final solution but hopefully something to get the ball rolling and then maybe individual nations will take their own initiative and future amendments will be made to this proposal so that it will be stronger once nations have seen they can easily reduce CO2 levels.
3)Well the problem is that in the Kyoto agreement many developed nations (ie. The US) because they though developed nations were being favoured too much over them. Lets also not remember that some developed countries actually produce a large amount of CO2 and the levels they produce are growing rapidly. If we let them install non-environmentally infrastructure then it will be much harder for them to reform once all this infrastructure has been put in place. It may slow down their development in some cases but many developing countries do have still have the economic power to easily accommodate these demands. With the third world nations your probably right but if they are still producing high levels of CO2 then measures must be put in place to reduce them. As such for third world countries if they are producing above a certain level of CO2 then they have lighter measures like the 10% you suggested put in place.

These are all very good points I if this proposal is passed as a resolution I will later on try to add amendments to it. If it doesn’t pass then I can add the points I agree with into a new version of the proposal.

Well recent samples of ice cores from the Antarctic show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in over 50,000 years.

Source?

This cannot realistically be due to natural causes because the other main contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere, volcanic activity, has shown no real increase to match the dramatic rise in CO2 levels. The CO2 breathed out by animals is also so negligible especially when photosynthesis is taken into account that this cannot be the reason for the increase. The only cause of CO2 actually increasing at such a rate to cause this rise in atmospheric levels is combustion and that increase in combustion is caused by mankind pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

accurate numbers?

You however deny that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

I never denied the fact that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, I haven't denied anything, I just ask questions. My point is, nature produces a humongous amount of CO2 by itself. Won't a 20% reduction in the emission of CO2 by humans be - as a Dutch saying goes - a drop of water on a red hot stove?

This is quite obviously a false belief because simple chemistry will show you that burning fossil fuels (or combustion) like oil and hydrocarbon natural gas produces CO2 as long as there is enough oxygen for it to react with. So our factories burning large quantities of these fuels obviously give out large amounts of CO2.

undoubtfully

Also as for whether CO2 would cause a warming affect this can once again be easily answered. It is now well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas helping to keep heat inside the world. So by adding so much large quantities to it (As conclusive evidence proves we are) you are increasing the greenhouse affect because you have more greenhouse gasses. Increasing the greenhouse affect obviously leads to more temperature being kept inside the earth’s atmosphere and therefore creates a warming affect.

The world is definitely warming up and excess CO2 is the only affect. By reducing CO2 levels we obviously reduce the amount temperatures increase. Also if we reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere enough then natural CO2 removal methods such as dissolving into rain and sea water should hopefully stabilise and maybe reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Don’t just believe me though the UN, EU, CIA and the Pentagon all agree that global warming exists and so did the Whitehouse- previously.


I somehow get the feeling that you haven't spent much attention into reading my post, and/or interpreted it in a completely wrong way.

I clearly made a few statements under 1 and 2, and here you are explaining to me in detail what I stated under 1 and 2, saying things I never did, and totally missing the point of the post. I do not find your post a satisfying answer to the questions I put down.

Evidence for the ice core claim (On which I actually got the years wrong it is 440,000 years not 50,000!)

“Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years.”

“Epica is still busy analysing the ice core's atmospheric gases, but preliminary results suggest that present CO2 levels are remarkably high.
"We have never seen greenhouse gases anything like what we have seen today," said Dr Wolff.”

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3792209.stm

Here’s some evidence with accurate numbers for rises in CO2:

“When examining global CO2 rates on a timeline, it becomes shockingly clear that human use of fossil fuel burning technology (cars, industry, heating/cooling systems) has had a major impact on the rise of CO2 levels in our environment. "Given the current and projected extent of urbanization, ecologists cannot afford to ignore the existence and impacts of Homo sapiens in urban and suburban landscapes"(McDonnell and Pickett, 1990). The concentration of CO2 in parts per million (ppm) has rapidly increased since 1960. From 4000 B.C. to 1700 A.D. CO2 concentrations fluctuated between 260-280ppm, in 1959 the level had risen to 316 ppm, now in 2001 the level has risen to 370ppm (Ricklefs 2001). This greenhouse gas that is naturally a part of the earth’s chemical balance has been skyrocketing in concentrations by more than 30% since the industrial revolution.”

From: From personalwebs.coloradocollege.edu

My point is, nature produces a humongous amount of CO2 by itself. Won't a 20% reduction in the emission of CO2 by humans be - as a Dutch saying goes - a drop of water on a red hot stove?

For nature to cause the dramatic changes to CO2 levels would require some increase in the levels of CO2 it produces because nature is finely balanced so that CO2 levels do not fluctuate dramatically. I also highly doubt that it is just co-incidence that since levels of polluting industry have dramatically increased CO2 levels have in turn dramatically increased. Therefore the levels of CO2 produced by nature present no problem of increasing CO2 levels at the moment. Therefore by tackling the cause, CO2 produce by humans we should slow down the affect and eventually hopefully stabilise it. Would it be a drop in the ocean, who knows? However we do have to try to save our planet.

Also many scientists believe the most disastrous global warming wont happen until atmospheric CO2 levels 550 ppm. We’re still quite a way from this and so may have time to avoid the worse of this potential environmental disaster.

That, I find a satisfying answer to my question.

Now for the second post I made:

Don't you think providing the industries with a better alternative would be a better solution instead of enforcing them to isntall expensive filters and use use alternatives that are at the moment hihgly cost inefficient?

The problem that the US, and other countries had with the Kyoto agreement was that developing and undeveloped countries were effectively exempted from the reduction completely.

I believe that developing countries should not be exempted completely, but should also not be forced to the same levels as developed nations. Unfortunately, the beginnings of economic and developmental infrastructure begins with industry, and industry means pollution.

Third world countries who are not developed, or under-developed should be practically exempt from the pollution restrictions.

So, perhaps: 20% reduction for developed nations
10% for developing, and 5% for un/under-developed.

I still feel the year 2020 is too far in the future for such changes to be truly effective. Not with the rate that some countries are sending pollutants into the environment.

Exempting undeveloped/developing nations will have a huge impact on the economy. All the industries will move from the restricted area to the "free polution zone" in the 3rd world countries.

On the other hand, this might help development of these countries...

The problem that the US, and other countries had with the Kyoto agreement was that developing and undeveloped countries were effectively exempted from the reduction completely.

I believe that developing countries should not be exempted completely, but should also not be forced to the same levels as developed nations. Unfortunately, the beginnings of economic and developmental infrastructure begins with industry, and industry means pollution.

Third world countries who are not developed, or under-developed should be practically exempt from the pollution restrictions.

So, perhaps: 20% reduction for developed nations
10% for developing, and 5% for un/under-developed.

I still feel the year 2020 is too far in the future for such changes to be truly effective. Not with the rate that some countries are sending pollutants into the environment.

Yes perhaps but if a developing country like India or China that can afford the full changes and is producing a large amount of CO2 and will produce even more in the future they should have the full measures put in place. After all many people believe China may be prove to be an important factor in global warming because it could end up producing more CO2 that the US. So in reality the levels shouldn't just be done on the level of deloping, developed, under-developed, there would need to be more detail in it.

Precisely.

As industries move to the less restricted countries, they would develop their economy. Then, as these countries became developed, they would end up moving into the more restricted catagories.

As a student of Environmental Health, this issue was discussed a great deal. The simple fact is, for now, that if we hold lesser developed countries to the same restrictions as we place ourselves, we will limit their growth and stall their development. To me, this seems akin to ensuring there is a lesser class of people.

Here are some facts on CO2 emissions and the top 20 culprits:

RANK NATION CO2_TOT CO2_CAP

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1528796 5.40
2 CHINA (MAINLAND) 761586 0.60
3 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 391664 2.69
4 JAPAN 323281 2.55
5 INDIA 292265 0.29
6 GERMANY 214386 2.61
7 UNITED KINGDOM 154979 2.59
8 CANADA 118957 3.87
9 ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO) 116859 2.02
10 REPUBLIC OF KOREA 116543 2.47
11 MEXICO 115713 1.19
12 SAUDI ARABIA 102168 4.77
13 FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO) 98917 1.68
14 AUSTRALIA 94094 4.91
15 UKRAINE 93551 1.89
16 SOUTH AFRICA 89323 2.04
17 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN 84689 1.33
18 BRAZIL 83930 0.50
19 POLAND 82245 2.13
20 SPAIN 77220 1.95
Information found @ http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2000.tot

Now dont try and tell me that China is expected to exceed the US pollution levels. Especially when nearly 1/3 of the power plants in the US were built before the Clean Air Act deadline, and therefore are not required to follow the emission rules established by the legislation.

Some valid points are being made on both sides here. I'm inclined to agree with the notion that a resolution should be more carrot than stick.

I would suggest that the proposal include language setting goals, in a nonbinding sense, for the amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we want to achieve, but that the binding provisions be directed toward member governments supporting research for alternative power sources. For example:

* Affirming that it is in the interests of the people of all nations to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions without deterring growth in developing economies, and that a goal of reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 10% every ten years should be encouraged and promoted by the General Assembly.

* Requiring that member governments provide a minimum percentage of Gross Domestic Product, in the form of direct funding, tax incentives or both, to subsidize alternative energy research and development - through private industry, public research institutions or both.

* Further requiring that member nations with strong industrial economies commit to subsidizing international trade in alternative energy technology and resources, through loans, joint venture investment and/or other financial aid, to allow developing nations to incorporate the new technology in their future economic development.

(This is strictly to illustrate the general principle; obviously I don't have practice drafting these things.)

What do you think?

To Hilversum Grandeur and Jovianica:
The Alternative fuels resolution already encourages and even enforces research into alternative fuels. The UN Environmental Accord also encourages research and development of alternative fuels in points two and four. However I accept the point that more could be done and so in a second draft I will add further points to encourage research into better alternatives. However current filters are in many cases already quite efficient, (Catalyst converters on modern cars generally are) and temporary use of current filters will not cause drastic harm (and has not in cases where they are used)

The Alternative Fuels resolution requires private industry to commit a percentage of profits to R&D. I'm suggesting that government funding and incentives be added to that effort.

The current filtering technology - smokestack scrubbers, catalytic converters and the like - are useful for reducing particulates and sulfur, but do nothing about greenhouse gases, just FYI. But you're right in general terms about them. Perhaps the suggestion about industrialized economies helping developing nations finance and implement clean tech can be applied here as well?

Don’t just believe me though the UN, EU, CIA and the Pentagon all agree that global warming exists and so did the Whitehouse- previously.


I found the following interesting:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

And should any climate debate make it to the UN floor, you can count on my nation's participating in these discussions.

Good Luck!

Very interesting indeed. I shall be submitting a revised version of the UN Environmental Accord at a later date.