NationStates Jolt Archive

Just I thought I've been bouncing around. I've noticed that we've passed quite a few resolution on Environmental protection. however, has anyone noticed that these proposals all fail to deal with industrial emissions, vehicles, power production, and the like?

I was thinking of putting together a proposal for creating a council of interested parties ((or depending on interest not all of htem but soem representatives)) to create a treaty or agreement similar to the RL Kyoto Accords. I thought I'd do this first as a sounding board to see how general reaction is to it and try to garner support ((as well as maybe someone to submit it?))

Just I thought I've been bouncing around. I've noticed that we've passed quite a few resolution on Environmental protection. however, has anyone noticed that these proposals all fail to deal with industrial emissions, vehicles, power production, and the like?

You call forcing cars to run on hydrogen "not dealing with" them? Cares are covered.

I was thinking of putting together a proposal for creating a council of interested parties ((or depending on interest not all of htem but soem representatives)) to create a treaty or agreement similar to the RL Kyoto Accords. I thought I'd do this first as a sounding board to see how general reaction is to it and try to garner support ((as well as maybe someone to submit it?))

It wouldn't go over well. Trust me.

It wouldn't go over well. Trust me.

On the contrary, I believe it would go over very well. The track record for the UN for envoronmental issues is very much favoring passage. As long as there seems a pressing need and the proposal is well written and well campaigned for, it'll go over Quite well.

If you believe you have a sensible idea for a proposal, then please, write it up. I for one will be happy to make suggestions. As for submission, if your proposal is good enough, I believe some people will be willing to either submit it for you, with your name included, or better yet, move to your region temporarily and endorse you until your proposal reaches quorum.

M. LordEnigma: I imagine all the capitalist nations and nations that don't give a flip about the environment would be rather strongly opposed. Very fortunately such nations are a minority in the United Nations as evidenced by the nature of the proposals we pass.

M. Chipmunk: Many thanks... I don't pretend that I write stuff like this every day but I like to think I can write a decently written proposal , ((President of my School's Youth in Government club, General Assembley President state Model UN coference, Vice-Governor Youth Legislature... If you can find a bigger government geek please point him out... :P )) O.K. enough ego stroking I actually have legitimate work to do here...

M. Hersfold: thankyou. I will get a draft started up ASAP. I'm not worried about submission yet since it will probably be december before I'm ready to submit ((due to the necessity of campaigning for a proposal)).

With that said, I'll work on getting a draft up sometime 26 November since 25 ((today)) is a national holiday in the United States which of course requires a family gathering with a large meal... LOL...

This is a very early draft... Comments and criticism are welcome, and also I'm pretty sure this is well over the length limit. I'm used to being able to write without length limits so suggestions ot cut length are VERY welcome.


Whereas, the United Nations of Nationstates has passed numerous resolutions on the protection of the environment

Recalling, that among these are resolutions:
a. #11 Banning Single-Hulled Tankers
b. #13 Mandantory Recycling
c. #15 Protect Historical Sites
d. #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
e. #23 Replanting Trees
f. #34 Oceanic Waste Dumping
g. #35 Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning
h. #37 World Heritage List
i. #39 Alternative Fuels
j. #48 Save The Forests of the World
k. #52 Ballast Water
l. #58 SPCC regulation act
m.#66 Illegal Logging
n. #70 Banning Whaling
o. #71 Sustainable Energy Sources
p. #72 Reduction of Greenhouse Gasses

Noting, that only resolutions 18, 23, 39, 48, 71, and 72 could potentially have any effect on the level of greenhouse gases and global climate change

Regretting to see, that all of these proposals have inherent problems:

18. The resolution is mostly rhetoric, mandating that nations only begin researching setting no deadline or amount of funding making it possible for nations so desiring to effectively block such research.

23. The proposal is vaguely worded allowing it to be skirted. Also, even if a buisiness was in compliance the majority of hte replanted trees would not survive

39. Mostly a repeat of resolution 18. Establishes a funding minimum albeit far to low ofr effectivity. Fails to adress alternative energy sources for power and industry

48. Simply reduces the number of trees being cut down. Does not solve the issue

71. Does not mandate action from less developed nations , does not adress emissions from still existing plants, mandates no furhter action

72. Mandates a reduction in the amount of 10% over 10 years in the amount of fossil fuels used. Unrealistic goal as replacements for these sources would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that many nations simply cannot afford. Also, still does nothing to address emissions from fossil fuels still being used.

Noting with grave concern, that the build-up of greenhouse gasses and climatological change poses a serious threat to the world

Horribly Concerned, that the climate of the world is very delicate balance and that its dis-balancing could cause catostrophic and unpredicatable changes causing mass destruction

The United Nations Hereby:

1. Resolves, to form a committee of representatives from member states to adress the issue of affordably and reasonably reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

2. Further mandates, that the final goal of this comittee shall be to form a plan to rid the nations of the UN of their reliance on fossil fuels

3. Insists, that any plan by this comittee shall not be construed as to free a nation from its obligations from any other proposal previosuly passed or to be passed.

On the contrary, I believe it would go over very well. The track record for the UN for envoronmental issues is very much favoring passage. As long as there seems a pressing need and the proposal is well written and well campaigned for, it'll go over Quite well.

I was referring to length. The RL Kyoto Accords are a nightmare compared to your standard UN proposal. I refrained from replying until I saw what he had in mind for a reason: I wanted to see if he could boil it down to a simple resolution within the length requirements.

M. LordEnigma: I imagine all the capitalist nations and nations that don't give a flip about the environment would be rather strongly opposed. Very fortunately such nations are a minority in the United Nations as evidenced by the nature of the proposals we pass.

Actually, I do give a flip, just not on my homeworld. My homeworld was not naturally meant to support life and even the alterations to allow it to leave it to be mostly a barren rock. Terrator is a stunningly beautiful planet and I plan to keep it that way, thus I am thinking of banning cars there entirely.

Anyway, the proposal:

Whereas, the United Nations of Nationstates has passed numerous resolutions on the protection of the environment

Recalling, that among these are resolutions:
a. #11 Banning Single-Hulled Tankers
b. #13 Mandantory Recycling
c. #15 Protect Historical Sites
d. #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
e. #23 Replanting Trees
f. #34 Oceanic Waste Dumping
g. #35 Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning
h. #37 World Heritage List
i. #39 Alternative Fuels
j. #48 Save The Forests of the World
k. #52 Ballast Water
l. #58 SPCC regulation act
m.#66 Illegal Logging
n. #70 Banning Whaling
o. #71 Sustainable Energy Sources
p. #72 Reduction of Greenhouse Gasses

Noting, that only resolutions 18, 23, 39, 48, 71, and 72 could potentially have any effect on the level of greenhouse gases and global climate change

Regretting to see, that all of these proposals have inherent problems:

18. The resolution is mostly rhetoric, mandating that nations only begin researching setting no deadline or amount of funding making it possible for nations so desiring to effectively block such research.

23. The proposal is vaguely worded allowing it to be skirted. Also, even if a buisiness was in compliance the majority of hte replanted trees would not survive

39. Mostly a repeat of resolution 18. Establishes a funding minimum albeit far to low ofr effectivity. Fails to adress alternative energy sources for power and industry

48. Simply reduces the number of trees being cut down. Does not solve the issue

71. Does not mandate action from less developed nations , does not adress emissions from still existing plants, mandates no furhter action

72. Mandates a reduction in the amount of 10% over 10 years in the amount of fossil fuels used. Unrealistic goal as replacements for these sources would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that many nations simply cannot afford. Also, still does nothing to address emissions from fossil fuels still being used.

Noting with grave concern, that the build-up of greenhouse gasses and climatological change poses a serious threat to the world

Horribly Concerned, that the climate of the world is very delicate balance and that its dis-balancing could cause catostrophic and unpredicatable changes causing mass destruction

You may want to shorten this or lengthen the next part. While a good arguement, it overshadows what you are trying to do. That, and most people don't read beyond the first paragraph anyway.

The United Nations Hereby:

1. Resolves, to form a committee of representatives from member states to adress the issue of affordably and reasonably reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

Kill the committee. We have enough committees as it is. Committees are as worthless in NS as they are in real life. Also, there are no alternatives that are affordable, practical, and pollution reducing at the same time (example: hydrogen is the first, but not the second and sure as hell not the third).

About the only one that comes close is nuclear power. You'll need to advance about 60-90 years to get one that is more practical. My nation uses luciferian (read as: solar) power in the homeworld, but that planet orbits a red giant. With a star as small as Sol, it's not that practical.

2. Further mandates, that the final goal of this comittee shall be to form a plan to rid the nations of the UN of their reliance on fossil fuels

I would include natural gasses as well. They are also a major source of pollution.

3. Insists, that any plan by this comittee shall not be construed as to free a nation from its obligations from any other proposal previosuly passed or to be passed.

I like this, but drop the committee.

I was referring to length. The RL Kyoto Accords are a nightmare compared to your standard UN proposal. I refrained from replying until I saw what he had in mind for a reason: I wanted to see if he could boil it down to a simple resolution within the length requirements.



Actually, I do give a flip, just not on my homeworld. My homeworld was not naturally meant to support life and even the alterations to allow it to leave it to be mostly a barren rock. Terrator is a stunningly beautiful planet and I plan to keep it that way, thus I am thinking of banning cars there entirely.

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you in particular did not care. It is obvious you do care by your offering of constructive criticism. What I had meant was that nations similar to the Real World United States would not care. I admit that I am not the best at expressing myself clearly.


Anyway, the proposal:



You may want to shorten this or lengthen the next part. While a good arguement, it overshadows what you are trying to do. That, and most people don't read beyond the first paragraph anyway.


Point well taken. This puts this proposal well over the length limit in Nation States. However, I of course do nto wish to eliminate the argument. Perhaps I should refrain from listing every environmental proposal and rather mention specifically the proposals effecting greenhouse gases and paraphrase the problems withthem rather than listing them specifically... Although I'll not that I really don't have paragraphs since I wrote in parlimentary style, it's actually one very long single sentence... LOL.



Kill the committee. We have enough committees as it is. Committees are as worthless in NS as they are in real life.

My intention here was to roleplay it out but I can see your point for effective UN wide engagement since an agreement by the comitee woulkd only be binding in a roleplaying perspective. However, as you noted the Kyoto Protocols IRL are excessively long (20 plus pages) and I had had in mind something similar coming out of the role-played committee since I hardly see any solution to this that does not answer to the varying levels of developement and individual cases of UN states.


Also, there are no alternatives that are affordable, practical, and pollution reducing at the same time (example: hydrogen is the first, but not the second and sure as hell not the third).

About the only one that comes close is nuclear power. You'll need to advance about 60-90 years to get one that is more practical. My nation uses luciferian (read as: solar) power in the homeworld, but that planet orbits a red giant. With a star as small as Sol, it's not that practical.


You just made my point actually. Hydrogen power is clean and affordable but is currently impractical. I really don't want tactical nuclear bombs driving around. Solar power, however is not viable in my nation because of climate. However, it would be viable say in a desert even on sol as very little rain is received there. Nuclear is an option for some nations (such as myself) but conerns are there that certain states cannot be trusted with nuclear technology. Hydroelectric power if used correctly (tidal harnesses/ dams) could be a viable alternative in certain cases where the environmental impact would be negligible but not all nations have such conditions. Hence we have to adress getting to a viable ealternative energy sources but what I really want to do is, while working in that direction it is not accopmlishable at this time so we must reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Hence the idea is to recreate the Kyoto protocols in a more reasonable and affordable manner. (Perhaps shorter as well).


I would include natural gasses as well. They are also a major source of pollution.



I like this, but drop the committee.
By definition of the word all hydrocarbon compounds useable as an energy source are a fossil fuel hence the term encompasses oil, coal,and natural gas.

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you in particular did not care. It is obvious you do care by your offering of constructive criticism. What I had meant was that nations similar to the Real World United States would not care. I admit that I am not the best at expressing myself clearly.

No harm done. My post at the time was not exactly what

Point well taken. This puts this proposal well over the length limit in Nation States. However, I of course do nto wish to eliminate the argument. Perhaps I should refrain from listing every environmental proposal and rather mention specifically the proposals effecting greenhouse gases and paraphrase the problems withthem rather than listing them specifically... Although I'll not that I really don't have paragraphs since I wrote in parlimentary style, it's actually one very long single sentence... LOL.[/quote]

Actually, the idea of listing them them and then paraphrasing what they do not cover as a whole is pretty good. Your style has a official air to it that attracts one to reading and keeps things simple. Simplicity I like.

My intention here was to roleplay it out but I can see your point for effective UN wide engagement since an agreement by the comitee woulkd only be binding in a roleplaying perspective. However, as you noted the Kyoto Protocols IRL are excessively long (20 plus pages) and I had had in mind something similar coming out of the role-played committee since I hardly see any solution to this that does not answer to the varying levels of developement and individual cases of UN states.

It's just a prejudice I have against committees. Why does it take a group of people six+ weeks to hammer out something in 20+ pages when, as you have probably done, a person can do the same thing with simpler language in a couple of hours?

The roleplaying aspect I had not considered. I'll keep in mind as I continue.

You just made my point actually. Hydrogen power is clean and affordable but is currently impractical. I really don't want tactical nuclear bombs driving around. Solar power, however is not viable in my nation because of climate. However, it would be viable say in a desert even on sol as very little rain is received there. Nuclear is an option for some nations (such as myself) but conerns are there that certain states cannot be trusted with nuclear technology. Hydroelectric power if used correctly (tidal harnesses/ dams) could be a viable alternative in certain cases where the environmental impact would be negligible but not all nations have such conditions. Hence we have to adress getting to a viable ealternative energy sources but what I really want to do is, while working in that direction it is not accopmlishable at this time so we must reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

I was hoping I was right.

I agree that such emissions need to be reduced and the problems of each. There are other areas we need to research first.

Hence the idea is to recreate the Kyoto protocols in a more reasonable and affordable manner. (Perhaps shorter as well).

If you do it, I'll back it.

By definition of the word all hydrocarbon compounds useable as an energy source are a fossil fuel hence the term encompasses oil, coal,and natural gas.

Ah! I learn something new everyday. And I'm not being sarcastic.