NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution 18:

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


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

Description: We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars. We have polluted the air for too long -- it needs to stop. By passing this resolution we will be able to accompish these three things.

1. Less acid rain. Acid rain a problem that we feel should be stopped. It is especially a problem in the Northeast corner of the U.S.A. The Northeast is a place rich in historical buildings which acid rain damages. We passed a "PROTECT HISTORICAL SITES." This would only furthermore protect historical sites.

2. We wouldn't have to use as much oil. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we only have so much of. By passing this resolution we would only prolong the time that we have oil on earth.

3. We would have cleaner air. Does anyone remember the days when "fresh air" was actually fresh? When it was a pure thing, without chemicals and other junk mixing in the air. With cleaner air, everyone would live longer, happier lives.

I hope that anyone and everyone who reads this agrees with us. PLEASE MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!

Proposal to Repeal Resolution 18

Reaffirming its commitment to the betterment of the environment,

Also reaffirming the need to reduce greenhouse gases significantly to prevent further environmental degradation,

Recognizing that the reduction of vehicle emissions is vital in reducing pollution,

Realizing the importance of renewable energy as a source of power for the future,

Acknowledging the need for green technology for motor vehicles,

Realizing that hydrogen powered vehicles is only one alternative to reducing emissions levels,

Acknowledging that all nations have scientific expertise in different areas,

Also acknowledging that research into solar powered motor vehicles and other sources of green energy to power motor vehicles is equally important as research into hydrogen powered motor vehicles,

Noting that nations tend to specialize in research where the citizens of that nation have scientific expertise,

Also noting the expense of seeking out and recruiting experts in engineering hydrogen powered motor vehicles in addition to constructing institutions to facilitate this research,

Concerned with the negative impact of mandatory research into hydrogen powered vehicles may have on research into other forms of green energy in which the nation may have better expertise in,

Noting the importance of promoting research into all forms of green energy for areas outside of the motor vehicle industry,

Recalling Resolution 39: Alternative Fuels, Resolution 71: Sustainable Energy Sources, and Resolution 72: Reduction of Greenhouse Gases,

The United Nations Resolves that:

1. All nations reaffirm their commitments to Resolutions 39, 71, and 72;

2. All nations should continue to development alternative fuel sources, including in the area of the motor vehicle industry;

3. All nations should focus their research on green fuel and technology in sectors where their citizens have scientific expertise;

4. Patents for new green technology be rapidly issued, while ensuring the safety standards of the product or technology, by the International Copyright Organization created by Resolution 45: UCPL.

I don't see the logic in withdrawing the resolution in your arguement.

I respectfully request the honourable representative to re-read the resolution carefully, paying particular attention to the portions on scientific expertise, specialization, and skills. The logic of this resolution should become clear when read carefully.

From my read, you want to expand, not remove. Removing this Resolution is one step, and doing so does not allow you to add another resolution instantly.

So why not take out the parts about removal, and propose an expansion?

The purpose of this resolution is to have nations reaffirm to their environmental commitments in previous resolutions while repealling the requirement for all nations to develop hydrogen powered cars. Please read the part about the repeal and the reasoning for it, it makes sense economically, environmentally, and scientifically if you think about it.

Please read the part about the repeal and the reasoning for it, it makes sense economically, environmentally, and scientifically if you think about it.

I disagree. Your proposal tries to do things that are in conflict with one another and as such does not make sense.

Your proposal seeks to amend the current resolution, not repeal it, and as such will be in violation of submission guidelines.

First, you need to rework how and why the original resolution should be repealed. Then, submit a second proposal trying to recreate the environmental pacts you speak of in your above proposal.

So far, I see nothing in your proposal that is worthy of the UN's consideration as is.

This resolution does not seek to change or amend this issue. Rather this issue seeks to clearly repeal this resolution. I can take out the clause that asks nations to reaffirm their commitments to the others. This proposal is not arguing against hydrogen powered cars, it is arguing against the manditory researching of hydrogen powered cars. The DRA wants this resolution repealled because of that. I believe that this resolution lays out scientific, environmental, and economic reasons which this would be logical to repeal.

Beyond the technical requirement that you cannot repeal and propose within the same proposal, we see no reason our hydrogen powered cars and such - which have been working just fine for years - have to be removed in order to fulfill the idea of your proposal.

We say again - it would be better to add more then attempt to take away something that is working.

I am not removing hydrogen powered cars. Read what resolution 18 says. It says researching hydrogen powered cars is *manditory*. The DRA believes that this is counterproductive to scientific research into environmental technology. I think it is perfectly clear in this document, if you would please read it thorough and analyze it in the concept of economics and research and development, that this document shows why requiring manditory research into one specific field of environmental technology is not a good plan for a green future. I am not saying that you must get rid of your hydrogen powered cars, again, read my repeal proposal.

In case there is some confusion here, the first resolution is resolution 18, the second is my repeal. That might clear up some confusion.

1) It is not necessary to repeat #18 to pass your resolution.
2) You cannot repeal and propose in one proposal.


Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


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

Description: We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars. We have polluted the air for too long -- it needs to stop. By passing this resolution we will be able to accompish these three things.


It says all nations "should start developing hydrogen powered cars" not "no other solution is possible".

Vastiva strongly suggests you remove the repeal part of your proposal and concentrate on the other aspects, which have merit.

I have the original resolution in my first post solely as a reference point so people did not have to search for it. It was put there for the convience of those wishing to know what I am talking and debate this. I am not stupid enough to resubmit it as part of my resolution.

Secondly, I will remove the operative clauses in this resolution. The whole point of this resolution is the repeal. Also, the current resolution 18 puts international pressure on nations to comply by strongly encouraging and suggesting nations should comply to this. This undue and necessary pressure for nation's to devote time and money to only one part of the ever growing field of environmental technology is again, as argued in the repeal, conter-productive economically, scientifically, and environmentally.

We repeat - the repeal can only repeal, it cannot propose new legislation.

We repeat - the repeal can only repeal, it cannot propose new legislation.Da, correct. You must pass the repeal, and only then can you compose new legislation on the matter and then work to get it passed as a resolution for that matter.

And I have continued to say I will take out the parts that ask nations to reaffirm to previous resolutions, etc and focus specifically on the argument of repeal. Can we move on from this point to other parts of the resolution if there are any different suggestions?

any other suggestions or ideas about this?

And I have continued to say I will take out the parts that ask nations to reaffirm to previous resolutions, etc and focus specifically on the argument of repeal. Can we move on from this point to other parts of the resolution if there are any different suggestions?

You're still not getting it.

All you can do in one resolution is repeal. Period. No new anything.

A better plan is to add to the resolutions already made.

I would give you 30:1 against your repeal working.

Battery powered cars have a better efficiency potential.
They have no emissions. Water vapor is one hell of a greenhouse gas.
Let's all pump imaginary money into electrical vehicles.

I would respectfully ask that the members reread the proposal. This proposal wishes to repeal Resolution 18, which required that all UN Nations research and implement hydrogen powered cars. The argument stands that not all nations are well endowed in the proper research sectors to do this, so requiring it would be detrimental. This repeal pays tribute to several other resolutions which address the issue of generalized green fuels. It does not propose any new material, simply the repeal of a resolution which is 1) not needed due to later resolutions, and 2)creates an absurd economic and social strain on some nations.

No support to the repeal.

Yes support to the repeal.

Vastiva I ask you to read my first post carefully. There are *two* resolutions. The *first* one is the original which I posted as a reference. The second is my repeal of that resolution. They are two very different things. Also, as I said, I can remove a couple of clause that might insinuate that this resolution asks a nation to affirm to something in order to make sure it fits the format of a repeal.

Thgin thank you for giving that very simple synopsis of this resolution, hopefully people will understand that this is a simply repeal with a logical argument against the manditory research of hydrogen powered vehicles.

I think the rule against amendments is a very poor one, as the only way to change laws is with a repeal-resolution method. I see no reason not to support a repeal-new resolution just because it takes two steps.

Vastiva I ask you to read my first post carefully. There are *two* resolutions. The *first* one is the original which I posted as a reference. The second is my repeal of that resolution. They are two very different things. Also, as I said, I can remove a couple of clause that might insinuate that this resolution asks a nation to affirm to something in order to make sure it fits the format of a repeal.

Thgin thank you for giving that very simple synopsis of this resolution, hopefully people will understand that this is a simply repeal with a logical argument against the manditory research of hydrogen powered vehicles.

*throttle*

Your repeal cannot contain new legislation. Therefore, all you are doing is removing a measure already in place.

Again, strong suggestion you just add to the resolution, not make an attempt to withdraw it then replace it. But you are free to do what you want - we all need to earn our lumps.

I think the rule against amendments is a very poor one, as the only way to change laws is with a repeal-resolution method. I see no reason not to support a repeal-new resolution just because it takes two steps.

Darn.

However, Game Mechanics issue, and we peons don't have a say.

I still think we are having a disconnect in logic here Vastiva. Once again, there are TWO resolutions posted on my openning post. The FIRST one listed is the OLD resolution which i put there for REFERENCE. The SECOND one is the NEW resolution. I will remove the operative clause that asks nations to reaffirm to previous environmental resolutions.