NationStates Jolt Archive

Shameless pilfered from my own hard drive, a slightly edited version of a resolution I managed to pass at a model united nations event:

The General Assembly,

Deeply conscious of the gradual degradation of the
world’s biosphere,

Observing that a major cause of environmental pollution is the use of fossil fuels in power stations,

Further observing that 80% of the world’s energy is derived from fossil fuels,

Convinced that economic growth is not necessarily linked with a rise in levels of pollution,

Aware of opposition to wind farms due to environmental and aesthetic concerns,

Noting the mercurial effect of the petroleum trade on the world economy and interests of member states,

1. Calls upon all member states, particularly More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), to fully address the issue of sustainable energy production; a minimum 2% increase in world usage over the next five years;

2. Recommends that a greater proportion of energy is derived from wind and wave power plants, including offshore wind platforms;

3. Calls upon governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread use of solar power, in the form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants in areas receiving high quantities of sunlight;

4. Endorses all current programs in member states increasing the percentage of energy derived from renewable sources;

5. Expresses its hope that other member states will be inspired by these examples;

6. Proclaims that steps towards a greater use of sustainable energy sources will be beneficial to the world’s environment and political relationships;

7. Requests a program of target reviews to be undertaken by this committee at the earliest opportunity.

Not bad, Markodonia.

I suppose you'd be listing this as Environmental, which would make it "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." A pity, as this is really the only possible coding and it doesn't actually look like it penalizes industry all that much. That's what would make this a hard sell.

I didn't take the time to cross-reference all prior resolutions. Did you? It would help if you would indicate that.

One minor quibble - remove the word 'committee' from line 7 and replace it with 'body'.

the DSH is well under pollutant levels, thanks to the abundant Uranium reserves found in our borders. In fact 95% of our power stations are nuclear...

Whilst we appreciate the need for additional renewable sources in nations less fortunate, Hirota does not need to develop alternative sources for another could of centuries. However, we have an interest in such matters and would gladly work in partnership with other nations to develop future sources.

Since this proposal does not affect nuclear power production, my government has requested I express our tentative support on this matter.

I didn't take the time to cross-reference all prior resolutions. Did you? It would help if you would indicate that.

One minor quibble - remove the word 'committee' from line 7 and replace it with 'body'.

Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll bear that in mind for a redraft (unless by some fluke it passes first time!)

Sadly, you're right, it has to be environmental. Oh well, it's worth a try...! The original wording of the resolution was certainly intended to avoid penalisation of LEDCs and nuclear power in order to gain as wide support as possible.

Looks sound to me. Though like Hirota, my nation (though full of ideal hydropower sites) relies upon nuclear power. While we'll be happy to address wind generated alternatives, being landlocked my nation will be unable to directly contribute to tidal power research. Though indirectly, my nation will enter into agreements with its North Pacific neighbors.

Good luck on your proposal.

OOC: Frisbeeteria, I would hope that in NS2 that environmental resolutions would have "strengths" as well. Because this is what I'd call a mild worded proposal ... and I'm all for that. :)

Alongside our Alçaeran continental neighbours (well, aside from non-participatory banana republics and police states), we have invested considerable time and resources into maximising usage of sustainable energy sources. Ecopoeia has eschewed the nuclear option; however, other Alçaerans have enthusiastically taken it up.

This proposal is broadly in line with our efforts and we consequently offer our support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

May I suggest that, upon resubmission, the more general term 'hydroelectric' may be more appropriate than 'wave power' so that inland nations can comply by promoting dam projects? Also, geothermal power could be presented as an alternative.

May I suggest that, upon resubmission, the more general term 'hydroelectric' may be more appropriate than 'wave power' so that inland nations can comply by promoting dam projects? Also, geothermal power could be presented as an alternative.
You want to encourage stealing our shared planet's heat? Next, you'll be talking about stealing gravity.

Oh yeah ... ;)

I'd suggest 'tidal and hydro' sources, as a lot of folks don't think of harnessing the tide/waves. Might as well go for all-inclusive.

You want to encourage stealing our shared planet's heat? Next, you'll be talking about stealing gravity.I'm evil, I'm wrong, I know it. I'm comfortable with that. :p

What? Am I the only one who looks at Kilahuea and, after oohing and aahing at nature's splendour for a few minutes, thinks "man, collect all that steam, run it through a turbine, sell power back to the grid, kaching...?" :cool:

Uh-oh. I suspect we may need a clause inserted to protect against nefarious scheming by energy-hungry maniacs...

What what? It's clean, it's self sustaining...waste not, want not and all that.... :p

*thinks*

Biomass is useful... and I've been wondering what to do about that issue concerning overcrowded graveyards...

Now, now. "A Modest Proposal" is an inappropriately nondescriptive title.

Oh dear, it's just occurred to me that it's possible someone might be humor-impaired enough to take this seriously... :eek:

May I suggest that, upon resubmission, the more general term 'hydroelectric' may be more appropriate than 'wave power' so that inland nations can comply by promoting dam projects? Also, geothermal power could be presented as an alternative.

I don't object to the term hydroelectric, but I suspect that the reason the more specific tidal power (it is tidal energy) is because land based hydroelectric dams are proven to result in a host of riverine, esturary, and coastal environmental problems.

The CCSM is rich is sites for potential hydroelectric dams. While a few mills capture kinetic energy from rivers like the Garibaldi and Ivanova Rivers, a full scale dam would trade the sediments necessary for mantaining the deposition of silts and sands further downstream. My government has entered into agricultural and water rights treaties with its downstream neighbors, which specifically prohibit my people from pushing our problems downstream.

In any event, I urge against the proliferation of the construction of huge hydroelectric dams. If they are constructed, temperature control devices, afterbays, and fish ladders are a few of the necessary mitigation measures my government would recommend.

As for not having the natural resources to take advantage of tidal energy, my government is more than willing to work with its neighbors. I'm sure that if a nation like Ivorie would be happy for my government to pay for part of the construction and coastal mitigation measures in exchange for some of the power yield. Afterall, the Mikitivity Bahn runs through many North Pacific nations, and it is local power that propels the MB.

I don't object to the term hydroelectric, but I suspect that the reason the more specific tidal power (it is tidal energy) is because land based hydroelectric damns are proven to result in a host of riverine, esturary, and coastal environmental problems.

A valid point. As you noted, though, smaller mills can produce hydro power with minimal environmental impact and mitigating measures can be taken with larger-scale dams. That, I think, is the balance point between the UN compact and local control - determining the cost-benefit analysis of such a project and taking appropriate measures, in conjunction with one's downstream neighbors. I think we're very much on the same page here.

Perhaps the proposal should further call upon national governments to cooperate regionally in developing sustainable, environmentally sound projects.

I think we're very much on the same page here.

Perhaps the proposal should further call upon national governments to cooperate regionally in developing sustainable, environmentally sound projects.

Agreed! :) And I think you have exactly the appropriate wording as well:

CALLS UPON national governments to cooperate regionally in developing sustainable, environmentally sound projects.

While we'll be happy to address wind generated alternatives, being landlocked my nation will be unable to directly contribute to tidal power research.

And that's why the UN always needs it's fair share of federated sub-tropical island chains. Someone has to pick up the ball when Mikitivity drops it on a technicality. The nation of Sophsita supports this proposal, although we too attempt to use as little fossil fuel power as possible. A handful of small natural gas plants provide energy when yields from tidal harnesses are insufficient to support our massive enegry grids. Just over one-billion tech-savvy citizens and their assorted electronics can use up a lot of juice, and their political wrath when the lights go out knows no bounds.

In order to promote this idea world-wide, Sophistan engineers pledge to develop small, efficient wind turbines that might harness the coastal winds. If such a device could be mounted on a tidal harness and produce enough energy to merit it's cost, non-landlocked nations of the world have much to gain from.

Work on the next draft is underway, many thanks for the suggestions.

Markodonia is concerned about possible environmental side effects of hydroelectric dams. Such a dam in our northern mountain range constructed by a previous government destroyed the valley's precious ecosystem, to green voters' dismay, and turned out to be remarkably inefficent to the dismay of accountants and beaurocrats everywhere.

However, the resolution only recommends the construction of wind/tidal power plants...nations can of course fulfill their duty to cutting down greenhouse gas emissions by building inland hydroelectric power stations if they wish.

_Myopia_ too offers support for this forward-thinking, desperately-needed proposal. Previously, anti-fossil fuel resolutions have only tried to deal with alternative fuels for transportation, without touching upon the need to find other methods of generating electricity.

I welcome the fact that this proposal does not attack nuclear and hydroelectirc dam power - although these power sources are environmentally damaging, they are still preferable to the much greater damage done by emissions from burning fossil fuels.

One recommendation - perhaps research into greater efficiency and reliability of renewable energy sources could be encouraged.

I welcome the fact that this proposal does not attack nuclear and hydroelectirc dam power - although these power sources are environmentally damaging, they are still preferable to the much greater damage done by emissions from burning fossil fuels.

I could be wrong on this, and will make a point to check back with my government, but I believe that some energy sources aren't as "firm" as others. Sometimes it is worth having a diverse range of power sources / options ready to meet peak demands.

Are you referring to the fact that, whilst say a coal plant can simply have more coal piled in for peak demand, the same effect cannot be obtained from wind power, solar power etc, and in fact if the wind drops or clouds cover the sun at peak demand times, there is nothing that can be done? If so, you are correct. Yes, a range of sources is sensible, but some nations are not going to go for only using wind, solar and the like. Therefore, if we are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is necessary to accept the lesser evils of hydroelectric and nuclear power as acceptable alternatives.

Cave Canem applauds this proposal as a general statement of direction for the UN.

It is also most welcome to see this kind of carefully and moderately worded resolution before this body.

The only amendment we would like to see to this proposal before we can offer unconditional support would be the addition of either:

A secondary requirement for the following five years after the initial increase of 2% of sustainable energy production. A further 2% in the next five years is a tentative suggestion that does not appear too aggressive.

OR

A review at the end of the initial 5 year period to set measures of success for the following 5 years, with the inclusion of further reduction targets if considered appropriate.

Member for Cave Canem

Clause 7 is basically equivalent to yoiur second suggestion, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm considering incorporating a second version of clause 7 in a second draft as follows:

7. Requests a program of target reviews to be undertaken by this body at regular intervals of one year, with the first to occur within six months of the passing of this resolution.

How about "...passing of this resolution. All member states shall strive to meet the targets set in future reviews." After all, we can't have nations observe the initial 2 year increase and then treat later ones as recommendations to be ignored.

Thanks, that's good :) I'm also incorporating Jovianica's suggested clause.

That's great can we see an updated draft?

Draft 2:

The General Assembly,

Defining "fossil fuels" as non-sustainable forms of energy derived from limited sources of ancient organic remains,

Defining "sustainable energy" as forms of energy production based upon practically unlimited natural resources such as sunlight, water and wind,

Deeply conscious of the gradual degradation of the
world’s biosphere,

Observing that a major cause of environmental pollution is the use of fossil fuels in power stations,

Further observing that 80% of the world’s energy is derived from fossil fuels,

Accepting the importance of nuclear power,

Convinced that economic growth is not necessarily linked with a rise in levels of pollution,

Noting the mercurial effect of the petroleum trade on the world economy and interests of member states,

1. Calls upon all member states, particularly More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), to fully address the issue of sustainable energy production; a minimum 2% increase in world usage over the next five years;

2. Recommends that a greater proportion of energy is derived particularly from wind and tidal power plants, including offshore wind platforms;

3. Urges governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread use of solar power, in the form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants in areas receiving high quantities of sunlight;

4. Further urges research into greater efficiency and reliability in existing sustainable energy sources;

5. Further calls upon national governments to cooperate regionally in developing sustainable, environmentally sound projects;

6. Endorses all current programs in member states increasing the percentage of energy derived from renewable sources;

7. Expresses its hope that other member states will be inspired by these examples;

8. Proclaims that steps towards a greater use of sustainable energy sources will be beneficial to the world’s environment and political relationships;

9. Requests a program of target reviews to be undertaken by this body at regular intervals of one year, with
a) the first to occur within six months of the passing of this resolution,
b) new targets to be set in five years time;

10. Resolves that all member states shall strive to meet the targets set in future reviews.

Did you have to post that in all italian?

I think the proposal's looking pretty good.

Thanks Chipmunks! The original has been approved by 96 nations now...so close!

Did you have to post that in all italian?

No...but I think it looks nice like that :) Plus is stands out against everything else so it's easy to either skip past or find if you want to skip past everything else. Although I could of just made it bold.

No...but I think it looks nice like that :) Plus is stands out against everything else so it's easy to either skip past or find if you want to skip past everything else. Although I could of just made it bold.
Personally I prefer using colors.

I support the initiative but the proposal should be tweaked IMO.

1. Calls upon all member states, particularly More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), to fully address the issue of sustainable energy production; a minimum 2% increase in world usage over the next five years;

1) Isn't 2% kind of a small number? 2% is like... nothing.
2) 2%... wich number is used to calculate the 2%? If we increase the usage by 2% but increase the usage of fossil fuels by 30% we'd still be legal according to the current draft.

2. Recommends that a greater proportion of energy is derived particularly from wind and tidal power plants, including offshore wind platforms;

3) Why particularly from wind and tidal power plants? Wind turbines cause polution of the landscape, tidal power plants can only be placed at certain locations. I would like to see it be changed into 'any and all sustainable energy source' wich would give all nations the option to pick the power supply best suited for their environment.

3. Urges governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread use of solar power, in the form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants in areas receiving high quantities of sunlight;

4) Why not include urging the governments to encourage the development of technology concerning the use of wind power on a smaller scale as well?

4. Further urges research into greater efficiency and reliability in existing sustainable energy sources;

Perfectly agreed.

5. Further calls upon national governments to cooperate regionally in developing sustainable, environmentally sound projects;

Perfectly agreed.

6. Endorses all current programs in member states increasing the percentage of energy derived from renewable sources;

I was going to make a comment about the hight of the percentage, but my eyes slipt past the 'Endorses'. Perfectly agreed.

7. Expresses its hope that other member states will be inspired by these examples;

8. Proclaims that steps towards a greater use of sustainable energy sources will be beneficial to the world’s environment and political relationships;

9. Requests a program of target reviews to be undertaken by this body at regular intervals of one year, with
a) the first to occur within six months of the passing of this resolution,
b) new targets to be set in five years time;

10. Resolves that all member states shall strive to meet the targets set in future reviews.

Perfectly agreed. I expected to find more things to be tweaked but the proposal is done very well.

1) Isn't 2% kind of a small number? 2% is like... nothing.
2) 2%... wich number is used to calculate the 2%? If we increase the usage by 2% but increase the usage of fossil fuels by 30% we'd still be legal according to the current draft.2% isn't nothing if it's 2% of total power generated. 2% is nothing if it's 2% of the current sustainable-source power generated. I think Markodonia meant the former rather than the latter. Good point, one that we shouldn't have missed before. :confused:

3) Why particularly from wind and tidal power plants? Wind turbines cause polution of the landscapeCan you provide more detail on this? You've piqued my interest.

I would like to see it be changed into 'any and all sustainable energy source' ...which may require a more detailed definition of 'sustainable'.

At any rate, this section is a recommendation rather than a requirement, still allowing the flexibility you seek.

Can you provide more detail on this? You've piqued my interest.

I believe that Hilversum Grandeur simply meant that wind farms look ugly. In some people's opinion, yes, but it's pretty subjective; many find them beautiful.

Oh, yes, I see what you mean. But then, any manmade structure is going to be viewed as a blight upon the landscape by someone.

Oh, yes, I see what you mean. But then, any manmade structure is going to be viewed as a blight upon the landscape by someone.

Indeed. But this has been a major objection in Britain, where wind farms would most likely be put up in unspoiled areas like the Scottish highlands and the hilly north of England. This survey (http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html) suggests that people won't necessarily have a problem with them once they're there.

Thanks Chipmunks! The original has been approved by 96 nations now...so close!
Oh crap - I read it quickly and thought you'd included most of the changes in the current version. It's at 115 approvals now, with a real chance of Quorum in this version.

Do you want the first draft to pass, or should we pull Approvals and wait for the second draft? Can you quickly summarize the changes so we can decide if we need to wait?

I believe that Hilversum Grandeur simply meant that wind farms look ugly. In some people's opinion, yes, but it's pretty subjective; many find them beautiful.

Indeed.

Markodonia, if you want to lose the original version and submit this instead, you could try asking the mods to pull it from the queue. Post in moderation to do so.

To be perfectly fair, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it passed as it is. It's not perfect, but I feel it's still a good resolution in its original form...the only real changes are some messing around with the preamulatory clauses (which don't really matter anyway), urging of further research which is merely making explicit what was already implicit, and the clarification of the roles of further reviews. I feel the resolution is still strong without these changes. The only real thing that annoys me about the original draft is the existance of the annoying word "committee", which should really not be there, but I can live with that existing!

The 2% increase is referring to total power generated. Such a percentage appears small but in a world scale would in actual fact be a significant (as well as attainable!) target.

Some people don't like the look of wind farms...but seriously, which do you think looks nicer, a wind farm or a coal power station? :D

Actually, I think shiny windmill power plants look very cool.

So do I :) There's a lovely looking hillside of them in north Cornwall.

Markodonia, are you keeping a list of all the delegates that have approved this? If it doesn't reach quorum, it'd be handy to have all the names to mount a TG campaign next time round.

I am, thanks for the advice though anyway.

...just 7 approvals needed! This is going to be close.

What about land-locked nations unable to use tidal turbines? What if the condtions for wind turbines aren't right? It is not easy to find a place to use wind turbines...

What about nuclear power. If it was mentioned I would have no trouble with this resolution, but its lack of representation bothers the people of my nation, who are strong advocates of its use as a renewable resource. It causes no pollution and is easier to use than large solar fields, or wind turbine farms. While we understand the downsides of nuclear power remains, they far outweigh the problems of coal and oil.

Nuclear power is a relatively clean, but not a sustainable power source.

Inland nations are bound to have have hills on which to build wind turbines or rivers with which to build hydroelectric plants, or a convenient desert for which to develop solar harnessing technology as encouraged by the resolution. Failing that, you have a flat nation with low winds and a rather bland landscape! In such a case I wish to point out the first clause's focus on "a minimum 2% increase in world usage", implying a worldwide effort rather than lots of individual efforts.

The resolution does not ostrasize the use of nuclear power however.

I hope that helps!

although this is a very interesting reselution i would find it much easier to take if perhaps the less wealthy countries would be helped in achieving the goals of this resolution. prehaps the un would be inclined to allow smaller less developed countries to purchase solar panels and such aquipment at a lesser cost. for smaller nations like Tri-Cal it is harder to achieve this goal. perhaps this reselution could use another draft.

If people go for the resolution then the industry will take years to recover, mine is fragile as it is.
If you go for renewable too quickly then you risk world trade collapse.
*sighs deeply*
Please i ask you people to think of you nations, this will have to greatest affect of any resolution that has ever been past. Think before you do any thing.
Everybody will be affected, world trade will collapse and we will all be in trouble.
Vote NO for the resolution.

This is an outrage, my industry has never been so good (even though its not very good) due to the fact that I have chosen the way of the iron instead of the wood, this vote has to stop immidietly or the terrors of the great depression will come again. Millions of jobs will be lost and all for some little environment, i say trash this resolution.
VOTE NO FOR RESOLUTION :gundge:

Woah, that's a little apocalyptic isn't it?

The desired 2% growth is hardly going to have a major impact on world industry. In fact, the resolution has no impact whatsoever on any industries outside of those relating to power production.

Wind turbines can well be built inland. For example, in the central English county of Somerset they're currently planning a new wind farm (ironically, right next to a nuclear power station!)

In addition, the resolution states that most of the work towards the goal will have to be undertaken in more developed and wealthy nations. The 2% increase is a worldwide goal, not a national one for each nation - if a wealthy nation with extreme weather and lots of coastline can afford a 20% increase, and a less wealthy nation with few natural resources can merely afford 0.2%, then all is still well in the world as long as the international target is met.

VOTE NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2% today is 3% tomorrow

I have to agree, that's a terrifying thought.

:D

In response to the UN resolution to "Increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry":

Lugandia relies heavily on our uranium exports. That said, since 95% of our country is powered by Nuclear Plants (the other 5% is powered by mice running on wheels), and since this resolution does not call for a decrease in nuclear output, we will support this resolution. I would also like to offer our support in the development in solar-power technology, as our barren landscape is perfect for setting up such generator testing stations.

And to any country that relies on coal or other fossil fuel for power, we would be interested in opening discussions on the construction of Lugandia Nuclear Power Plants on your land. For a modest fee, of course.

There is not going to be an economic catastrophe.

There is not going to be a power shortage.

There are not going to be earthquakes, tidal waves, dogs and cats living together, or any other Wrath Of God type stuff.

2% of total global power production is trivial.

The resolution calls for a multinational effort - some economies are going to take off like a rocket for the simple reason that they're willing to invest in alternative energy R&D. Yours could be one of them, if you can get your blood pressure down enough to think a little.

Jovianica has some of its top scientists and industrialists working on lowering the cost of wind and solar energy. We'll share if you ask nicely. And we'll bring cookies.

This resolution is an unenforceable collection of idealogical statements and should be voted down for that cause alone. The sole clause that has anything resembling enforceability is a minimum 2% increase in world usage over the next five years. Since the clause this one is subordinate to merely calls for "address[ing] the issue of sustainable energy production" it is unclear what exactly we are to increase world usage of. Presumably "Sustainable Energy Sources" as suggested by the title of this resolution, but nowhere within the resolution can I find an adequate definition of what is meant by this rather broad description. Discussions here have included wind, tide and solar but the resolution doesn't include a definitive list, nor does it provide guiding principle that would allow the UN to determine whether any given energy source is "sustainable". And frankly, recent developments showing reserve growth in established fuel depositories throw some doubt that fossile fuels might not fall into that category (in addition to throwing a little doubt on them being "fossile" to begin with).

Frankly, since the preamble seems largely preoccupied with pollution, it seems to me that this resolution would do well to shift its focus entirely to an anti-pollution directive. Pollution levels would be a much more useful measure of care for the environment if that is truly the concern of the UN. This proposal looks much more like a bid to benefit specific industries at the expense of others (or to increase the dominance of less-competitive countries blessed with better access to wind/wave power sources over others). Pardon my cynicism, but I, for one, am unwilling to privelege some industry just because it claims to be more environmentally virtuous. As with the harmful eco-effects discovered with large hydro-electric dams, these "enviro-friendly" technologies are young, relatively un-tried, and require much better scrutiny and efficiency before we do anything so rash as to move a large portion of world energy to them.

I encourage all countries and regional representatives to vote NO on this unclear and potentially damaging resolution!

If I may draw your attention to the first operative clause, " "address[ing] the issue of sustainable energy production" explicitly implies (in diplomatic language :p) that the 2% increase is in international output of energy from sustainable sources.

Your opposition to potentially environmentally damaging forms of sustainable energy, such as hydroelectric damns, is noted. It is for this purpose that the resolution focuses on solar, tidal and wind power production: the minimal inpact these plants have on the environment is totally insignificant compared to that of fossil fuel plants.

"Sustainable" means just that...there are not unlimited supplies of natural resources such as coal or oil (or even uranium, but that's a problem for the future)

If I may draw your attention to the first operative clause, " "address[ing] the issue of sustainable energy production" explicitly implies (in diplomatic language :p) that the 2% increase is in international output of energy from sustainable sources.That's still unclear because there's a difference between "sustainable energy production" and "sustainable energy sources", which is why I brought it up. I could read "sustainable energy production" to mean providing the tools to produce "sustainable energy sources"--particularly becuase this is a shift in terminology from the rest of the document (including the title) that references "sustainable energy sources". In other words, I could theoretically comply by introducing an industry to supply windmills without ever actually having to use any. Even if I give you "sustainable energy source", though, this doesn't really alter my objection. I do believe that there are substantial enforcement issues in this resolution because it is so unclear.Your opposition to potentially environmentally damaging forms of sustainable energy, such as hydroelectric damns, is noted. It is for this purpose that the resolution focuses on solar, tidal and wind power production: the minimal inpact these plants have on the environment is totally insignificant compared to that of fossil fuel plants.Ah. Minimal known impact, maybe. Creating a tidal generator that reduces the amount of coastal seaweed that results in sharks hunting sea turtles to extinction is a whole lot worse than, say, a little acid rain that might look ugly and harm buildings a little over time in a way that can be fixed with a little restoration and civic pride. Or tidal generators warming coastal areas and destroying, say, natural reefs. My point is that the technologies are young and the impact is imperfectly known. Which is why gradual experimentation by those nations willing to do so is a preferred solution to mandating wide-scale adoption by UN fiat--after all, we didn't know the full impact of large hydro-electric dams immediately, either."Sustainable" means just that...there are not unlimited supplies of natural resources such as coal or oil (or even uranium, but that's a problem for the future)So you say here in the forum. My point is that this is not clearly defined in the resolution--which is what we're actually voting for, right? Oh, and since oil reserves appear to be replenishing themselves in a manner we do not understand at this time, it appears that fossile fuels would technically fall under this definition. Also, there are not "unlimited" supplies of solar, wind, and tidal energy. It's just that the limits appear to be rather farther out than for fossile fuels. I say appear because we don't really know how long the sun will shine or the atmosphere persist (as well as there being some revisions needed for our estimates of fossile fuel availability). All of which totally ignores my point that you shouldn't be introducing energy production limitations when your actual aim is to reduce pollution. Would it be so difficult to produce a resolution that nations reduce world production of CO2 emmission by power plants? Maybe if you're hiding a motivation to privelege one industry over another...

And just to introduce an economist's market/incentive prediction, what can you expect when you incentivize an industry for strong wind? What if later, say, a technology is discovered that can increase wind speeds (average or burst)? This isn't that far-fetched, you know. We know that winds tend to be stronger some places than others so all we'd have to do is make our nation more like areas with lots of wind and viola, more effecient wind-farms. You can expect anti-tree activity, anti-skyscraper activity, as well as more drastic things like finding key wind-pattern altering focal points and altering them.

OMG! This legislation is anti-poor!!! This resolution will give incentives to increase wind-speed, which will increase hurricane and tornado activity, which will increase the likelihood of death in trailor parks! Why do you hate people just because they live in trailor parks?!?

The Council of Enn would like to know whether our proposed Solar Tower would be accepted under this resolution. A single Tower would provide 10% of Enn's power in a sustainable form.

HELL NO, THIS RESOLUTION WILL COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS! and I'm not exaggerating. Why don’t we make everyone pay the same amount of money per person I’m not opposed to that, but the richer countries flipping the bill, that’s just not right. If your nations poor, TOUGH, it’s your economic policy that made it poor, you dug your grave you get out of it. But the untold TRILLIONS that will be spent on this measure is unreasonable. Why don’t we colonize Mars instead?

FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE EVERYWHERE VETO THIS MEASURE :mad:

Sigh... why does someone else always beat me to the punch? I start a capital punishment resolution and someone else gets quroum. I do a fossil fuel reduction one and this happens. Just for that, I'm voting against you :)

Oil production will peak in about 35 years. It's been projected by the USGS (US Geological Survey) that it will reach peak around the year 2040. After that, supply will decrease and prices will increase.

The simple fact is that we don't have time to waste and sure, it may cost trillions now (and that IS overblown, really), but the closer we get to the critical day, the MORE IT WILL COST.

You say, why don't we colonise Mars instead? Well, for one thing, renewable energy is something that has existed for a while. Wind and solar power are used widely. Yes, they are more expensive than fossil fuels, yes, it might cost a lot, but it's a small price to pay to get us off a dangerously finite fuel which we currently depend on for almost everything. The electricity you're using most likely is from either an oil or a natural gas power plant. The food you eat would not be in your fridge without petrol to power the tractor and the delivery truck and your car. Think of how many plastic objects you own. Without even turning my head I can see about 15 in front of me.

And when it comes to new renewable sources, a lot of the research and development is already done. NASA uses hydrogen fuel cells for its spacecraft. It will take some extra R&D to make them suitable for powering cars and turbines, but it's a lot easier than starting from scratch. I remember somewhere that scientists have figured out how to get hydrogen without needing to electrolyse water, which is the main key in its cost. This is a fuel source to watch out for.

Ethanol, too, is one to look out for. We could soon be growing our petrol in farms. The obstacle to all this is that there isn't enough encouragement or incentive to do it. In the back of their minds, everyone wants oil to last forever, even though we all know it won't.

Wind turbines can well be built inland. For example, in the central English county of Somerset they're currently planning a new wind farm (ironically, right next to a nuclear power station!)

The 2% increase is a worldwide goal, not a national one for each nation - if a wealthy nation with extreme weather and lots of coastline can afford a 20% increase, and a less wealthy nation with few natural resources can merely afford 0.2%, then all is still well in the world as long as the international target is met.

That sounds like a well-reasoned argument to me.

And this "fictional" wind power site (though it is fiction that is often mistaken for being real) has a map showing where some of these facilities are located:

http://www.awea.org/projects/california.html

Being landlocked doesn't mean that a nation need be without wind resources. In fact, mountain passes can make ideal wind farms.

Chowder, please crawl back into the hole some unfortunate dug you out of. The best way you can help your cause is to join the other side...

Kelssek,

Listen, any prediction more than 5 years out isn't worth the paper it is written on (the pixels it is displayed on?). It's nice and all, and I'm glad those fellows are paying attention to energy production, but I'm sorry, they've cried wolf too many times. People have been predicting disaster for decades, including projections that had us running out of oil years ago. Any prediction more than 5 years out has too many failure points to make them anything more than WAGs. Things simply change too danged fast for any prediction predicated on an assumption of constancy to hold true (which all such projections of necessity must). What makes this evaluation any better than those foisted off on us in the 70s? The only reason people are still making these predictions is that they know they'll never have to pay for being wrong.

Which is why I go with the only proven mechanism for predicting energy availability--price. There's a reason that we are using fossile fuels today and that reason comes down to the fact that it is simply cheaper to do so. Price has the advantage of already figuring in all known information from market to extraction to known reserves to the potential for terrorist activities.

Don't get me wrong (okay, do if you really want to), externalities can affect price, sometimes drastically. Threatening key access points can raise price temporarily, hidden reserves can be found, other things happen all the time that affect the price. And we can work to better allocate price by making sure we don't miss externalities like the cost of cleaning up the pollution of the past and making sure that current processes are efficient and so on. I'm all for examining pollution output and what we can do to adequately control the damaging side-effects of our energy consumption. Even with all that factored in, though, fossile fuels tend to be the cheapest (with the exception of nuclear which is by far a cleaner, cheaper energy source for mainline production).

Worry all you all want to. Gripe and moan and pass regulations to try to privelege industries you favor if you feel you must. Just don't think we're going to continue to fall for this sky-is-falling we've been hearing for some 30 odd years now...

Except, of course, that the sky IS falling.

Yes, the projection may be wrong, but even if it isn't, we will run out of oil sometime. It's a case of, we know the sky WILL fall, even if we don't know exactly when.

And it's not true to say that you can only predict based on constancy, because you CAN anticipate where current trends are taking you. And in this case, a prediction based on constant demand will be wrong and give us a date too far ahead, because we know demand will increase. So if it IS flawed, that just makes it even worse.

If you want to talk about price, well, oil prices came close to hitting $50 a barrel this past week. Speaking in RL terms, in the very near future, demand will increase exponentially as China and India modernise, and the supply is finite. Anyone with the most basic grasp of economics knows what will happen to the price then.

In addition the pollution caused by fossil fuel plants is substantial. If you don't believe that pollution has much of an effect, try visiting the forests devastated by acid rain, the retreating glaciers in practically every one of the world's mountain ranges, or any one of many such areas effected directly or indirectly by greenhouse gasses.

The Ennian solar tower sounds like a highly admirable project!

But the untold TRILLIONS that will be spent on this measure is unreasonable. Why don’t we colonize Mars instead?You know, I'd tell you that we have, but see, the R.P. - ing people would probably have me killed for telling you ...

The Ennian solar tower sounds like a highly admirable project!
In that case, the Council of Enn lends its full support to this resolution.

Except, of course, that the sky IS falling.Theoretically, sure. But I dare you to say when. Many have made claims, none have been accurate. What makes you any different? You some prophet?Yes, the projection may be wrong, but even if it isn't, we will run out of oil sometime. It's a case of, we know the sky WILL fall, even if we don't know exactly when.If you don't know when, then you don't know how. If you don't know how, you don't know how to prevent it. If you don't know how to prevent it, why should I listen to your silly proposals?And it's not true to say that you can only predict based on constancy, because you CAN anticipate where current trends are taking you. And in this case, a prediction based on constant demand will be wrong and give us a date too far ahead, because we know demand will increase. So if it IS flawed, that just makes it even worse.Uh. If you are anticipating "where current trends are taking you" then you have built constancy into your prediction. You are assuming that current trends will remain trends. Here's my point: trends never remain constant. Population, energy consumption, racial preferences, national character, none of them will stay the same. There are a lot of reasons for our preference for fossile fuels and many of them will change in the next 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. years. Making predictions about our fossile fuel consumption more than 5 years out is just irresponsible. People get away with this irresponsiblity only because they aren't held accountable for being wrong (as they always are).If you want to talk about price, well, oil prices came close to hitting $50 a barrel this past week. Speaking in RL terms, in the very near future, demand will increase exponentially as China and India modernise, and the supply is finite. Anyone with the most basic grasp of economics knows what will happen to the price then.You're assuming about fifteen things here. Your biggest assumption is that China and India will be net consumers of fossile fuels when this is in no way certain. You're also assuming that these countries with much denser populations than other industrializing nations will have the same reliance on automobiles for personal transportation and that they won't find it cheaper and cleaner to use nuclear power for their central energy needs. And biggest of all, you're assuming that as the price of oil rises that nobody else is going to partake of the second most fundamental tenet or economics: competitive advantage. As oil prices rise, it becomes much more profitable to find an alternative. No need for government subsides or restrictions then. Private business will find the solution it needs because it will benefit them to do so.

Like I said before, if you want to deal with pollution, then by all means. But picking on fossile fuels just because they are popular to use, unpopular to support and might run out some day in the unpredictable future seems beyond silly--it seems needlessly punitive. Why ruin some guy's career mining fossile fuels just because you think he might be out of a job sometime 40 years from now? You don't actually know that and claiming you do just isn't convincing in the face of how many times people have made the exact same predictions in the past and been wrong. You want to impress me, try making a case for fossile fuels running out in the next 5 years. I might pay attention then. Of course, if you could, the price of oil would be astronomical and the competition for alternatives would be truly fierce. I guarantee that we wouldn't be using gasoline for our cars at that point.

Yes, the projection may be wrong, but even if it isn't, we will run out of oil sometime. It's a case of, we know the sky WILL fall, even if we don't know exactly when.

Will we? I'm not too sure about that. I think it is fair to say that we will run out of oil in the ground sooner or later. Once this happens, if we want more, we will have to make it ourselves.

Consider the wetlands. Peat bogs were used for fuel in the US in colonial times. Peat bogs have a great ability to take the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the bog. On a bad year the bog may break even, but it never gives out more CO2 than it takes in. I can imagine some process of converting peat bogs into oil substitutes. We can then artifically increase wetlands (which would make a whole lot of wetlands animals exceptionally happy) and form a closed loop effectively run by sunlight. A very novel way of using solar power.

OK, I'll go back to my normal promote alternate energy resources mode now. My point is that one should never write off the imagination and potential of man. We used to cut down whole forests in order to get the fuel needed for such industroes as iron manufacturing, and this is no longer the case today. We can come up with new ways to do things when necessary. Sometimes it is better to push the process along, but not always.

Wind is a wonderful idea. Unless you are a migratory bird. (In fact I can see a UN resoltion comming soon like the whales resolution if wind mills start severely killing migratory birds!) Solar is also a wonderful idea, but of limited use. Hydrogen is a energy storage system, not a fuel, unless there is a limitless supply of free hydrogen in the earth that I am not aware of.

Even in the real world there are no simple answers. In the nation states world there are even fewer. Of course it wouldn't be fun if things actually ... you know ... worked.

We used to cut down whole forests in order to get the fuel needed for such industroes as iron manufacturing, and this is no longer the case today.

Indeed, and if governments had stepped in to reduce deforestation before necessity forced us to change, we'd have a whole lot more forests now.

Equally, we all stand to benefit if climate change is lessened by a forced reduction in fossil fuel use well before the market finally makes fossil fuels unprofitable.

For future reference:

The resolution "Sustainable Energy Sources" was passed, 12730 votes to 3611, and implemented in all UN member nations.