NationStates Jolt Archive

The following resolution came to the UN floor on Wed Sept. 1 2004.


Reduction of greenhouse gases
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing
Proposed by: Kritosia

Description:
Acknowledging climate change and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind,

Concerned that human activities have been increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due to fossil fuel use, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result in an additional warming of the Earth's surface, adversely affecting natural ecosystems,

Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all nations in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions,

Recognizing that all Nations, especially developing nations, need access to resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order for developing countries to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption needs to grow,

Accordingly, delegates of the United nations have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
1. The objective of this resolution is to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations by implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years,so that gradual adaptation is possible. This will ensure that food production and economic development is not threatened.

2. In their actions to achieve the objective of the United Nations and to implement its provisions, all Nations shall be guided by the following:

ARTICLE 2
1.All Nations should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities.

2.Nations should cooperate to promote an open international system that leads to sustainable economic growth and development in all Nations, particularly developing Nations.

ARTICLE 3
All Nations, taking into account their commonalities and differences,shall;

1. Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent emissions of fossil fuels;

2.Promote and cooperate in the full exchange of information related to climate change.

Each of these Nations shall :

1.Review its own policies which encourage activities that lead to greater levels of fossil fuel emissions;

2.Developed Nations shall take all practicable steps to promote and finance the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies to other Nations, particularly developing Nations, to enable them to implement the provisions of the U.N.

ARTICLE 3
In carrying out their commitments under the previous articles, Nations shall:

1.Support world efforts to strengthen scientific capacities, particularly in developing countries, and to promote the exchange of data and analyses obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction; and

2.Cooperate in the exchange of material on climate change, development of national institutions and the exchange of personnel to train experts in this field.

Votes For: 2009
Votes Against: 848
Voting Ends: Sun Sep 5 2004

On a first review my government has tenatively voted in favour of this resolution.

I'd like to point out that typos happen, and my government is considering the second Article 3 to in fact be Article 4.

[OOC: A few years ago in one of California's state-wide propositions, I read the actually proposed changes to the CA State code and noticed that there were two Article IV's. I asked my boss's boyfriend, a lobbist / housing advocate / lawyer, and he explained that obvious typos are in fact quietly fixed when passed into law. I asked if this is normal, and he said yes. In other words, don't be a jerk and vote no just because of a stupid typo! Base your vote on other things.]

Perhaps a delegate could propose an ammendment to the resolution to correct the error? If this is possible, then consider this post such a proposal - we can then focus on the issues :)

Perhaps a delegate could propose an ammendment to the resolution to correct the error?
It's not possible. Once a proposal enters the submissions or voting queue it can't be edited. Such are the facts of NS. It's a coding thing.

I voted for it. Global warming sucks! Down with pollution! :sniper:

Bah. Another extremist resolution. We have to magically get rid of fossil fuels DAYS AFTER ANOTHER ENERGY RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED. Are there no limits to this insanity?

*Ahem* not get rid of - it's a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use. And the previous one didn't demand reduction in fossil fuel use, just an increase in renewables use.

FACT: People NEED energy.
FACT: It is not just magically going to appear.
WHERE do you think the energy is going to come from? Or do you believe that the world can just use 10% less energy?

EFFECTS of this resolution, a mix of the following as predicted by undersigned:

Energy made from fossil fuels will simply be imported from non-UN nations, hurting the UN economies while not contributing to end the problem the resolution proposes to solve.
Governments will decide to use (non-fossil) nuclear energy instead. They will have to built expensive power plants too.
Energy supply in UN nations will decrease due to forced shutting down of energy production facilities. Global Energy prices will increase, making the practice of getting fossil fuels only more profitable for non-UN nations. I need not tell you how bad high energy prices are for the economy.
We are one step closer to the environmentally sustainable caveman-like state the people who make these things seem to prefer.

*sigh* It is just always the same people that make every single environmental resolution that is submitted pass.

A fine specimen from this very thread:
I voted for it. Global warming sucks! Down with pollution! :sniper:

Perhaps I should submit this and see how many endorsements it gets:


NOTING that Global Warming sucks
FURTHER NOTING that fossil fuels smell and are totally un-cool
DEEPLY CONCERNED that there are still places where the earth is polluted by grown-up things suck as factories and power plants
AFFIRM that we do not care about that st00pid economy thing and those corporate crony reports that people "need" energy to do stuff.
DECIDE that every single factory and power plant on the planet earth is shut down so there will be no more pollution
ALSO DECIDE that solar power will do everything, because the sun is very big!


I am afraid it would reach quorum.

A little extra, since I have given this a bit more thought.

The effects I predicted above are actually a bit unpredictable due to the nature of the resolution. A "decrease in fossil fuels" is called for. Production? Consumption? Total Planetary Use? I am assuming for the sake of sanity that production is meant by this... person.

Fortunately, due to Knootoss lacking anything meaningful by way of natural resources barring natural gas, we might actually profit from this. Slow down extraction of natural gas from the Wadden province, watch prices go up and turn a nice profit. And I always liked those nuclear/fusion plants of mine much better.

Import Knootian Power Now
NUCLEAR - EXPERIMENTAL FUSION - GAS
-Need an alternative for your closed down coal mines? Nuclear power is now!
-Want to benefit from the front edge of experimental atomic technology? Come to us!
-We also have natural gas, exporting 7 EUROS per Million BtU - prices liable to change whenever we feel like it.


http://www.glennbeck.com/dayaftertomorrow/poster-1-350-tn.jpg

FACT: People NEED energy.
FACT: It is not just magically going to appear.

Perhaps I should submit this and see how many endorsements it gets:

I am afraid it would reach quorum.

The problem isn't the need of energy or the production of waste, but rather the fact that finite resources are shared by an ever growing population. We should be talking about population control in addition to these short term stop gaps.

But here is the real problem: though my society actively campaigns against population growth, few other nations do so, thus basically negating any positive impact my government's planning can have on the global problem.

As for your "modest" proposal, you may want to consider seeing if a "puppet" would propose and campaign for your theory. Having looked at UN voting trends I think that such a proposal would not enjoy the 3:1 ratio that the past several resolutions enjoyed. At best it could hope for a 2:1 ratio, such as Illegal Logging had IMHO, but I'd actually expect something close to the 1:1 vote that the 40-hour work week managed to slip by. That resolution passed by fewer than 100 votes. At the time a few key nations were "absent" from the UN.

The problem isn't the need of energy or the production of waste, but rather the fact that finite resources are shared by an ever growing population. We should be talking about population control in addition to these short term stop gaps.
Thing is... this is no stopgap. Unless the UN is somehow going to enforce a 10% drop in the economy as a whole. A 10% drop in the quality of living, if not more. The NS population grows and this proposal calls for a reduction of what is, at this moment, the most feasible source of energy. HOW are we supposed to do this? HOW?

Something like Kyoto had goals that were more-or-less achievable, but this is insane. The 10% bit, that is. The other stuff is just all feelgood blahblah... my government cannot force privatised energy corporations to share information anyway so I´m passing the buck on that one.

But here is the real problem: though my society actively campaigns against population growth, few other nations do so, thus basically negating any positive impact my government's planning can have on the global problem.
*giggles*
As I roleplay it, my society actually has a decreasing population at this moment, but this is a cultural thing combined with western demographics. Population control is not really an issue in the DDR.

As for your "modest" proposal, you may want to consider seeing if a "puppet" would propose and campaign for your theory. Having looked at UN voting trends I think that such a proposal would not enjoy the 3:1 ratio that the past several resolutions enjoyed. At best it could hope for a 2:1 ratio, such as Illegal Logging had IMHO, but I'd actually expect something close to the 1:1 vote that the 40-hour work week managed to slip by. That resolution passed by fewer than 100 votes. At the time a few key nations were "absent" from the UN.

Do realise what a 2:1 ratio, or even a near pass, means? (Even if I rephrase it a bit to make it look more serious). Its the end of democracy. It just means that the leaders of the UN are incompetent to make even the most basic decisions.

I submit that any world leader voting for my joke proposal above is criminally insane and should be impeaced. Nero only burnt Rome, after all.

By the way... I just noticed. According to the UN page this resolution hurts.. I mean "affects" Automobile Manufacturing and not the economy as a whole. Does that not make it against the rules?

I mean... should it not be deleted for that? Obviously, "all businesses" would be affected by this.

(Sorry for posting so many times succesively in one thread by the way. I just noticed this and I am making seperate points in all my posts and I dunno of Mik is going to miss it if he refreshes.. or whatever. :P)

By the way... I just noticed. According to the UN page this resolution hurts.. I mean "affects" Automobile Manufacturing and not the economy as a whole. Does that not make it against the rules?

I mean... should it not be deleted for that? Obviously, "all businesses" would be affected by this.


Isn't the main point of this resolution as 10% reduction in fossil fuels? If so, the question at hand is, will a 10% global reduction in fossil fuels be possible if we target non-point pollutant sources (automobiles)?

I think the category "Automoblie Manufacturing" was created as an "Environmental" sub-category with air quality resolutions in mind. If you care to disagree with that your best bet would be making an appeal to the moderators.

Meh. With us two agreeing we would be OMG UNSTOPPABLE.

But seriously... this resolution seems to me to emphasise on reducing ALL production. Frankly it totally eludes me how making people buy less cars is going to help. But lets look at what the creator himself thinks this resolution is about:

ARTICLE 1
1. The objective of this resolution is to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations by implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years,so that gradual adaptation is possible. This will ensure that food production and economic development is not threatened.

Emphasis added. Seems to me he is thinking that it will affect ALL BUSINESSES.

Anyway, killing energy production would surely hurt all businesses, no? I mean, seriously, it would not be limited to Automobile Manufacturing. The resolution does not even mention emissions.

(I am not even complaining here about the whole issue that NS cars already have HYDROGEN power because there was a bloody UN resolution about that. AARGH)

Meh. With us two agreeing we would be OMG UNSTOPPABLE.

But seriously... this resolution seems to me to emphasise on reducing ALL production. Frankly it totally eludes me how making people buy less cars is going to help. But lets look at what the creator himself thinks this resolution is about:



Emphasis added. Seems to me he is thinking that it will affect ALL BUSINESSES.

Anyway, killing energy production would surely hurt all businesses, no? I mean, seriously, it would not be limited to Automobile Manufacturing. The resolution does not even mention emissions.

(I am not even complaining here about the whole issue that NS cars already have HYDROGEN power because there was a bloody UN resolution about that. AARGH)

I think you are mistaking the industry negatively impacted (oil) for the industry the author suggests will be positively influenced (agriculture).

As for the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles resolution, my government's records indicate that the resolution called for every nation to develop the technology.

See Page 3 (use the bookmark):
http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/Environmental.pdf

I know that my government is still working on the technology, but since busing and rail are used more frequently, frankly this is a lower priority for my government than say improving the efficiency of wind turbines.

The Alternative Fuels resolution (see Page 6 of the same archive) directly targeted automobile manufacturers, directing that they spend 1% of their profits in alternative fuel research.

This resolution focuses more on international exchanges of information. If anything I'd say that this resolution is an extension that seeks to combine the two previous resolutions and speed up the progress by getting our governments to work together:


1.Support world efforts to strengthen scientific capacities, particularly in developing countries, and to promote the exchange of data and analyses obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction; and

2.Cooperate in the exchange of material on climate change, development of national institutions and the exchange of personnel to train experts in this field.


In other words, I see this resolution as developing a different solution to a common problem. At least this was enough justification for my government to vote in favour, and I'd hope that other "Green" states do the same.

I think you are misstaken.

The author is not asserting that agriculture will be positively influenced. The author is asserting that the whole economy will be ´undamaged´ by a reduction of ´just´ 10% in a decade. Note his wording: "not threatened". Of course, this is a totally ridicilous assertian because an enforced shrinking of the world economy is, well, not really harmless even if you spread it out over 10 years.

Oh, and of course the oil industry is totally independent from the rest of the economy. After all, what do we do with oil... I for one just start wars over it and then I would just use it to sustain fires in temple of Evil Capitalism.

I am wrong. You are right. All that stuff about energy being vital for almost every sector in the economy is just evil right-wing propaganda. Who needs electricity? Who needs raw materials? People managed to produce without energy in the past! (Well, not counting "fire" of course, but since that is using up innocent, defenceless trees I move that we make sure that there is a 10% reduction of fire in all UN nations spread out over 10 years.)

I am aware of the Alternative Fuels resolution because I have referred to it myself. You do not have to point me to it. If I may inquire, for your own sake, WHEN exactly Mikitivity scientists intend to make ANY progress in developing alternative fuels?

But, oh, wait! Actual progress as a result of a resolution would break that whole "clone of earth" idea, so no matter. Mikitivity scientists will just be spending their days fruitlessly searching for alternative fuels using huge UN-enforced funding until alternatives are found IRL.

*Ahem* not get rid of - it's a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use. And the previous one didn't demand reduction in fossil fuel use, just an increase in renewables use.

Yeah, but if you increase the use of renewable fuels, then it only makes sense that your proportional use of fossil fuels will decrease. I view it as incentive (rather than punishment) based governing. I like that kind.

But I see your point. This proposal IS different from the previous one; there is an argument for the reduction of fossil fuels directly.

implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten yearsThis is plainly insane. This isn't a decrease in growth, this is an absolute decrease. That means grinding your economy to a halt, then cutting it back severely. And since it is a universal cut in fossile fuel use, you're going to force UN nations to make up the difference for non-UN nations that give us the finger. Way to open us up to a totally untenable hostage situation...This will ensure that food production and economic development is not threatened.Just because you say that, doesn't make it true. First, producing food has never been a problem. Famine happens due to man-made distribution problems--always. This proposal makes it harder to distribute anything, including food (there is no energy source that is as good at moving things as fossile fuels--nothing even near as efficient). And economic development will be more than threatened, it will grind to a screeching halt. You think the difference can be made up by non-fossile fuels, but here's a clue (for those unable to afford their own), alternative fuels aren't ready for prime time, don't have the installed infrastructure, and won't have the capability to make up the difference. The sheer volume involved is literally irreplaceable from a logistics standpoint alone.

You saw this effect in Arizona when the state government gave a tax incentive that made a car very nearly free if it was a hybrid (natural gas/gasoline). A lot of hype went around about all the money you would save because natural gas was so cheap, yadda yadda. Well, a substantial portion of the population took the state up on it (I don't think it was over 10%, but it was way more than anticipated). In addition to nearly breaking the state budget, you also saw (to the horror of those banking on cheaper fuel costs) the price of natural gas in the state skyrocket. To the point where it is (to the non-surprise of any economist bright enough to remember the basics) exactly as expensive to use natural gas as gasoline. People forgot (and those voting for this resolution likely never learned) that supply isn't infinitely configurable. Even though there's plenty of natural gas, the supply simply cannot increase fast enough to meet the new demand due to issues like extraction, prcessing, and distribution. This is a problem when government sticks it's bloody big stick into a natural process--lots of stupid, unnecessary disruptions and disappointments.

It's so much easier to pass these silly resolutions than to implement them, all I can say is that if this actually passed and people actually tried to implement it, you'd have rampant inflation, stavation, massive job shortages, bankrupt companies, and rioting in the streets. Not to mention the fact that in the end, you wouldn't actually have achieved the goal. 10% only seems small because people have little conception of the actual volumes involved.

The author is not asserting that agriculture will be positively influenced. The author is asserting that the whole economy will be ´undamaged´ by a reduction of ´just´ 10% in a decade. Note his wording: "not threatened". Of course, this is a totally ridicilous assertian because an enforced shrinking of the world economy is, well, not really harmless even if you spread it out over 10 years.


I think undamaged is in this case considered "non-negative", and is being used to as a "positive" or "benefit".


Concerned that human activities have been increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due to fossil fuel use, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result in an additional warming of the Earth's surface, adversely affecting natural ecosystems,

Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all nations in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions,

Recognizing that all Nations, especially developing nations, need access to resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order for developing countries to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption needs to grow,

Accordingly, delegates of the United nations have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
1. The objective of this resolution is to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations by implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years,so that gradual adaptation is possible. This will ensure that food production and economic development is not threatened.


That last sentence is not an impact, but as an assurance that his suggested cut will not hurt other sectors. Example: Your window is a problem. If I throw this rock, it will break your window. It will not knock your wall down.

I think if you look at the text I've highlighted along with the context of the supporting text that this actually is a pretty damn good resolution. The author is saying that the global economy and environment are both important, but that developed nations, have an obligation to cut back on their consumption of fossil fuels and an obligation to help developing nations cut back on their consumption.

This is plainly insane.

Slow down there for a second. I merely posted the text of the resolution and have voted for it. I've had zero contact with the resolution's author, but felt that somebody should actually post the text of the resolution here for the purpose of debate.

I highly suggest you go back and properly quote who said what!

vote against reduction of greenhouse gasses...cause it's stupid.http://img81.exs.cx/img81/7003/shiftyeyes.gif

Has anyone realized that to halt the current rise in consumption of fossil fuels AND cut back by 10% (even over a ten year period) would have a devestating effect on the economy?

Not just of one nation, but all of the UN. Even beyond the UN.

My country, several years ago (before joining the UN), tried to impliment a similar proposal on a much more conservative scale. A 2% reduction of fossil fuel powered vehicles. Not only did this start an ecomonic downslide due to an outragous rise in inflation, but the technology of the replacement power source was never up to the requirements of mass use. The fuel sources became more expensive than fossil fuels due to (and here's a simple economic principal) high demand and low supply. We simply weren't prepared for an almost complete halt of our auto manufacturing industry (in order to facilitate the 2% production drop). Coupled with this we were trying to establish a new source of fuel to be avalible to anyone that needed it. Put simply, it was a very bad idea.

Why not, instead of using a reduction in fossil fuel use as a vague idea, suggest a viable means of producing cheaper energy? Like this:

All oil producing corporations will recieve a flat tax cut of 5% for evidence of implimenting and continuing advancement into reasearching viable alternitive energy sources to be shared with the government.

There. Any company that wants to break into a future energy source (not to mention save on their taxes) will be striving to develop new energy sources.

Start out by having a replacement, then use it to replace the existing "problem".

Thank you,
Blechnamore Bluftuney (no relation)

My nation is choosing to vote against this resolution. Partly this is because we're still recovering from the economic hit from the last resolution (which we still firmly support) and one of our major industries is Automobile Manufacturing.

However, we also take issue with this part of the resolution:

2.Developed Nations shall take all practicable steps to promote and finance the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies to other Nations, particularly developing Nations, to enable them to implement the provisions of the U.N.

Our biggest concern with this is that 'practicable' steps will either amount to next to no benefit for developing nations or will lead to those nations being effectively controlled by corporations from a developed nation. We'd much rather handle our own R&D and buy what we need on an open market than depend on more developed nations looking out for our best interests.

I recommend a vote AGAINST partially related to the techical implementation in the game. It's redundant.

We should wait to see the overall effect of implementing sustainable resources and let the natural consequences of developing said sustainable energy sources. This should naturally lead to a reduction of greenhouse emissions. Granted, ethanol is technically a renewable energy resource. However, it is not sustainable, if you take sustainability to mean environmentally sustainable. However, if you want to reduce greenhouse gasses, that's going to require investment in technologies to reduce gas emissions, rather than simplistically and unrealistically setting a goal as a matter of a percentage. You can't attack a problem that way. It's not realistic. Especially when world-wide overall emissions are increasing as a result of out-of-control population growth in developing nations. Gas emissions will naturally be lowered as sustainable energy sources are socialized as necessary and desireable.

A 10% reduction of greenhouse gasses will be completely unrealistic for a fast growing country where the industrial technology is not as advanced. However, a mandate that they too contribute to the international pool of research knowledge with the expectation that they will benefit in the long run (which will benefit ALL nations in the long run).

Spokesperson for TFPotJW
and Delegate to the Democratic Underground

Markodonia is not sure about this resolution. Indeed, it complements "Sustainable Energy Sources" quite nicely but the economic effects cannot really be reliabily forcasted. A debate has been launched in the region of Moperville to determine my delegational vote on the resolution.

It's redundant.

We should wait to see the overall effect of implementing sustainable resources and let the natural consequences of developing said sustainable energy sources. This should naturally lead to a reduction of greenhouse emissions.


Not necessarily. There is a case for the direct attack on things that emit excess greenhouse gases. Previous legislature only invites an indirect response by endorsing alternatives. If we recognize this (global warming) as a major problem, then it's imperative that we work to defeat it from multiple angles.

With a population of 26 million people this naton is obviously a puppet of someone, and as is witnessed the local elite has already endorsed this proposal for the sole sake of it being environmental. (Perhaps after discussing it in an offsite forum?) Another pointless fight.

The objective of this resolution will never be attained anyway unless a UN army comes in to manually blow up factories. I am yet to see that happening.

*leaves thread.*

Once again, I sit in confusion and dissapointment at the bizzare debate that follows what clearly seems to be a reasonable resolution. Everyone should take a deep breath and see what is written (ignoring the typos of course).

The resolution does not mandate a 10% reduction over 10 years. The resolution sets an "objective." Yes you do have to factor that NS is growing at bizzarely incredible porportions, and given this growth, even getting a steady state system seems bizzarely impossible. But in NS the bizzarely impossible is just incredibly difficult.

The resolution only promotes cooperation. It doesn't require industry to shut down. It probably does require all UN nations to spend a little more of our currency on research and development (don't you just love unfunded mandates) and to then give it to those nations too cheap to do their own research, but that's what the UN is for isn't it? (Is my sarcasm showing?) And probably spend more money on public transportation.

In other news, Axis Nova will be building giant smog factories to pick up the slack. :D

For future reference:

The resolution "Reduction of greenhouse gases" was passed, 10968 votes to 3984, and implemented in all UN member nations.