NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

Description:

Most of the studies on potential climate change, along with ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth's climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. Scientists have so far identified only one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: a swift reorganization of the ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and thus play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate.

For a variety of reasons, North Atlantic waters are relatively salty compared with other parts of the world ocean. Salty water is denser than fresh water. Cold water is denser than warm water. When the warm, salty waters of the North Atlantic release heat to the atmosphere, they become colder and begin to sink. In the seas that ring the northern fringe of the Atlantic—the Labrador, Irminger, and Greenland Seas—the ocean releases large amounts of heat to the atmosphere and then a great volume of cold, salty water sinks to the abyss. This water flows slowly at great depths into the South Atlantic and eventually throughout the world’s oceans.

Thus, the North Atlantic is the source of the deep limb of the Ocean Conveyor. The plunge of this great mass of cold, salty water propels the global ocean’s conveyor-like circulation system. It also helps draw warm, salty tropical surface waters northward to replace the sinking waters. This process is called “thermohaline circulation,” from the Greek words “thermos” (heat) and “halos” (salt).

If cold, salty North Atlantic waters did not sink, a primary force driving global ocean circulation could slacken and cease. Existing currents could weaken or be redirected. The resulting reorganization of the ocean’s circulation would reconfigure Earth’s climate patterns. Computer models simulating ocean-atmosphere climate dynamics indicate that the North Atlantic region would cool 3° to 5° Celsius if Conveyor circulation were totally disrupted. It would produce winters twice as cold as the worst winters on record in the eastern United States in the past century. In addition, previous Conveyor shutdowns have been linked with widespread droughts throughout the globe. It is crucial to remember two points: 1) If thermohaline circulation shuts down and induces a climate transition, severe winters in the North Atlantic region would likely persist for decades to centuries—until conditions reached another threshold at which thermohaline circulation might resume. 2) Abrupt regional cooling may occur even as the earth, on average, continues to warm.

Ignoring or downplaying the probability of abrupt climate change could prove costly. Ecosystems, economies, and societies can adapt more easily to gradual, anticipated changes. Some current policies and practices may be ill-advised and may prove inadequate in a world of rapid and unforeseen climate change. The challenge to world leaders is to reduce vulnerabilities by enhancing society’s ability to monitor, plan for, and adapt to rapid change.

All human endeavor hinges on the vicissitudes of climate. Thus, the potential for abrupt climate change should prompt us to re-examine possible impacts on many climate-affected sectors. They include: agriculture; water resources; energy resources; forest and timber management; fisheries; coastal land management; transportation; insurance; recreation and tourism; disaster relief; and public health (associated with climate-related, vector-borne diseases such as malaria and cholera).

Developing countries lacking scientific resources and economic infrastructures are especially vulnerable to the social and economic impacts of abrupt climate change. However, with growing globalization of economies, adverse impacts (although likely to vary from region to region) are likely to spill across national boundaries, through human and biotic migration, economic shocks, and political aftershocks, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report stated.

The key is to reduce our uncertainty about future climate change, and to improve our ability to predict what could happen and when. A first step is to establish the oceanic equivalent of our land-based meteorological instrument network. Such a network would begin to reveal climate-influencing oceanic processes that have been beyond our ability to grasp. These instruments, monitoring critical present-day conditions, can be coupled with enhanced computer modeling, which can project how Earth’s climate system may react in the future. Considerably more research is also required to learn more about the complex ocean-air processes that induced rapid climate changes in the past, and thus how our climate system may behave in the future.

Does nothing. Classifies as SPAM.

I see no way in which this resolution will actually address the problem it mentions.

I see no way in which this resolution will actually address the problem it mentions.
I can beat you. I don't see the problem.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The Black New World - the problem is that with rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to an increase of global temperatures, we could see a significant loss of fresh water from the polar ice caps. With this much fresh water being dumped into the North Atlantic, it could theoretically disrupt the North Atlantic Conveyor system, which brings warm water to the Northern Hemisphere. This would, in turn, lead to average annual temperatures between 5-15 degrees C lower than we have now, precipitating a new Ice Age.


DemonLordEnigma - there is a solution included within the text, in the last paragraph.
A first step is to establish the oceanic equivalent of our land-based meteorological instrument network
and
Considerably more research is also required to learn more about the complex ocean-air processes

I am suggesting that all UN nations devote more of their funding towards scientific research, in order to prevent the problem described above (mainly, global temperature decrease, precipitated by melting of polar ice caps, leading to a new Ice Age)

Does this help?

Let's not forget the impact of the imminent magentic shift, and the weakening of earth's magentosphere......

But all of this you mention are naturally occuring elements that will happen, regardless of what action is taken by humans... IOW greenhouse effect, and eventual ice-age will occur, regardless, and the UN member nations of earth, do not possess the technology to control their enviroment on a global scale.

The Black New World - the problem is that with rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to an increase of global temperatures, we could see a significant loss of fresh water from the polar ice caps. With this much fresh water being dumped into the North Atlantic, it could theoretically disrupt the North Atlantic Conveyor system, which brings warm water to the Northern Hemisphere. This would, in turn, lead to average annual temperatures between 5-15 degrees C lower than we have now, precipitating a new Ice Age.

Environmental problems are not universal in nation states. And I have no idea what (or which) North Atlantic you are talking about.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

DemonLordEnigma - there is a solution included within the text, in the last paragraph.

and


I am suggesting that all UN nations devote more of their funding towards scientific research, in order to prevent the problem described above (mainly, global temperature decrease, precipitated by melting of polar ice caps, leading to a new Ice Age)

Does this help?

No, as it doesn't actually solve the problem. Research towards what? How to build better canary cages?

You are proposing a solution to a problem most people don't believe exist and your solution is about the same as building a satellite dish to stop a hurricane from destroying major portions of Florida. If you wish to solve the problem, come up with a real solution. Research doesn't mean anything if you don't have a goal.

But if we enforce research into furthering our understanding of exactly how the oceanic conveyor system functions, what drives it, how far it can be pushed until it shuts down, etc - then we will be better prepared to deal with any eventuality that comes under the umbrella of oceanography.

Also - expanding the network of unmanned monitoring buoys throughout the seas will enhance our aquatic understanding, allowing greater advances in fields such as seismology, marine biology, and even such far-flung divisions as pharmaceutics (ie, aquatic-based derivatives)

If we can increase spending by UN member States on this project, we will one day perhaps be able to create an early warning system - allowing for us to evacuate areas that could be affected - preventing massive loss of human life.

And, if we can discover the causes of changing patterns in ocean currents, we could work to minimise the impact by preventing any more long-term damage being done (once we have found the cause). This could include researching filters for industrial practices, looking into more economically viable transport means, etc.

Until the project receives the funding, it is impossible to determine exactly what the outcome would be. However, I can assure you that it would be worth ALL our efforts.

Black New World - let us, for sake of argument, say that this problem will extend into ALL North Atlantics - for all countries in all worlds will have similar (not the same) problems if and when the conveyor system shuts down.

I am currently studying Geography at A2 (England - RL) and I have studied this theory into some detail in class. Suffice to say - it is a distinct possibility.

But if we enforce research into furthering our understanding of exactly how the oceanic conveyor system functions, what drives it, how far it can be pushed until it shuts down, etc - then we will be better prepared to deal with any eventuality that comes under the umbrella of oceanography.

Also - expanding the network of unmanned monitoring buoys throughout the seas will enhance our aquatic understanding, allowing greater advances in fields such as seismology, marine biology, and even such far-flung divisions as pharmaceutics (ie, aquatic-based derivatives)

If we can increase spending by UN member States on this project, we will one day perhaps be able to create an early warning system - allowing for us to evacuate areas that could be affected - preventing massive loss of human life.

And, if we can discover the causes of changing patterns in ocean currents, we could work to minimise the impact by preventing any more long-term damage being done (once we have found the cause). This could include researching filters for industrial practices, looking into more economically viable transport means, etc.

Until the project receives the funding, it is impossible to determine exactly what the outcome would be. However, I can assure you that it would be worth ALL our efforts.

Except, the primary causes are the natural weakening towards shift of the earths magentosphere as well as the increase output from the sun over long periods.... two things you do not have control over, and will have no hope of controling for 400 or more years (about 100-200 years too late). What are you going to do? Exacuate several continents? And to where? Will the remaining land mass be able to support that many people?

This is like pulling hen's teeth from a rooster.

But if we enforce research into furthering our understanding of exactly how the oceanic conveyor system functions, what drives it, how far it can be pushed until it shuts down, etc - then we will be better prepared to deal with any eventuality that comes under the umbrella of oceanography.

That is totally different than trying to prevent an ecological disaster. And, in the end, you still won't be able to do a damn thing to stop anything big.

Also - expanding the network of unmanned monitoring buoys throughout the seas will enhance our aquatic understanding, allowing greater advances in fields such as seismology, marine biology, and even such far-flung divisions as pharmaceutics (ie, aquatic-based derivatives)

Only two of which, at the most, will actually result from the buoys.

If we can increase spending by UN member States on this project, we will one day perhaps be able to create an early warning system - allowing for us to evacuate areas that could be affected - preventing massive loss of human life.

Or a way for those of us more advanced to destroy nations we don't like. Or a way for people to target biotoxins to certain areas.

And, if we can discover the causes of changing patterns in ocean currents, we could work to minimise the impact by preventing any more long-term damage being done (once we have found the cause). This could include researching filters for industrial practices, looking into more economically viable transport means, etc.

The cause isn't damage. It'll be, at least, another 70 years before damage actually starts to affect ocean currents, assuming damage is the cause at all.

Until the project receives the funding, it is impossible to determine exactly what the outcome would be. However, I can assure you that it would be worth ALL our efforts.

No, it won't. I'm not even on Earth and this is something that is a waste of money for myself, all nonEarth nations, and all landlocked nations. There is not enough of a possible benefit for it to be considered otherwise.

As we do not know the extent of the problem, nor do we have any idea how severe the shutdown would be, nor the conditions that would cause it to occur - I am not able to hypothesize at this time.

However, that would all change when we became more aware of the problem at hand.

I am not asking for a large proportion of each Nation's budget to be diverted towards this project, in fact - I am asking that each Nation only provide 0.02% of their annual budget to address this issue.

This would surely not put a dent in anyone's bank book...

As I said - until we look at this problem in more detail, I cannot afford to give any more conjectural theories until we have concrete evidence of what we are dealing with. I cannot give you any concrete evidence until we have the funding necessary to complete this work.

I am sure that you will agree that 0.02% is hardly a significant figure, and that I am not making an unreasonable request.

Then please leave out the mention of real world places. You don't really need to go into that much theory. This is the problem requires one or two lines, this is the solution should be most of the document.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The debate on global change has largely failed to factor in the inherently chaotic, sensitively balanced, and threshold-laden nature of Earth’s climate system and the increased likelihood of abrupt climate change. Our current speculations about future climate and its impacts have focused on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has forecast gradual global warming of 1.4° to 5.8° Celsius over the next century.

It is prudent to superimpose on this forecast the potential for abrupt climate change induced by thermohaline shutdown. Such a change could cool down selective areas of the globe by 3° to 5° Celsius, while simultaneously causing drought in many parts of the world. These climate changes would occur quickly, even as other regions continue to warm slowly. It is critical to consider the economic and political ramifications of this geographically selective climate change. Specifically, the region most affected by a shutdown—the countries bordering the North Atlantic—is also one of the world’s most developed.

The key component of this analysis is when a shutdown of the Conveyor occurs. Two scenarios are useful to contemplate:

Scenario 1: Conveyor slows down within next two decades.
Such a scenario could quickly and markedly cool the North Atlantic region, causing disruptions in global economic activity. These disruptions may be exacerbated because the climate changes occur in a direction opposite to what is commonly expected, and they occur at a pace that makes adaptation difficult.

Scenario 2: Conveyor slows down a century from now.
In such a scenario, cooling of the North Atlantic region may partially or totally offset the major effects of global warming in this region. Thus, the climate of the North Atlantic region may rapidly return to one that more resembles today’s—even as other parts of the world, particularly less-developed regions, experience the unmitigated brunt of global warming. If the Conveyor subsequently turns on again, the “deferred” warming may be delivered in a decade.

Changes in ocean circulation or water properties can disrupt the hydrological cycle on a global scale, causing flooding and long-term droughts in various regions. The El Niño phenomenon is but a hint of how oceanic changes can dramatically affect where and how much precipitation falls throughout the planet.

Computer models simulating ocean-atmosphere climate dynamics indicate that the North Atlantic region would cool 3° to 5° Celsius if Conveyor circulation were totally disrupted. It would produce winters twice as cold as the worst winters on record in the eastern United States in the past century. In addition, previous Conveyor shutdowns have been linked with widespread droughts throughout the globe.

Societies are vulnerable to abrupt climate changes that can turn a year or two of diminished rainfall into prolonged, severe, widespread droughts. A growing body of evidence from joint archaeological and paleoclimatological studies is demonstrating linkages among ocean-related climate shifts, “megadroughts,” and precipitous collapses of civilizations, including the Akkadian empire in Mesopotamia 4,200 years ago, the Mayan empire in central America 1,500 years ago, and the Anasazi in the American Southwest in the late 13th century.

It should be noted that climate shifts precipitated by oceanic shutdowns do not just affect those countries bordering the oceans, but also the landlocked ones. As has been proven before, severe drought can be instigated by a shift in the rain patterns globally - and can affect countries throughout the world. Whilst it may not affect countries who are not located on Earth, it will affect ALL those who are. And surely, being in the UN, you have agreed to help those in need.

As we do not know the extent of the problem, nor do we have any idea how severe the shutdown would be, nor the conditions that would cause it to occur - I am not able to hypothesize at this time.

However, that would all change when we became more aware of the problem at hand.

I am not asking for a large proportion of each Nation's budget to be diverted towards this project, in fact - I am asking that each Nation only provide 0.02% of their annual budget to address this issue.

This would surely not put a dent in anyone's bank book...

As I said - until we look at this problem in more detail, I cannot afford to give any more conjectural theories until we have concrete evidence of what we are dealing with. I cannot give you any concrete evidence until we have the funding necessary to complete this work.

I am sure that you will agree that 0.02% is hardly a significant figure, and that I am not making an unreasonable request.

I do not see any tangible return, and I do not waste my nation's money on severe risks like that. It's not worth it.

Also, there are no guarantees you will find anything or do more than waste money on a fruitless and aimless project.

Finally, El Nino was originally a fancy name they gave something to cover up their ignorance. It's no more an unusual phenomenon than a cloud shaped like a dog.

El Niño is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather around the globe.

Among these consequences are increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and in Peru, which has caused destructive flooding, and drought in the West Pacific, sometimes associated with devastating brush fires in Australia.

El Niño is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather around the globe.

Not originally. Originally, it was just a fancy name several people agreed on to cover up their ignorance of what was going on. Science sometimes does that.

Also, we have no evidence it is an actual disruption and not just part of how that ecosystem naturally works or is naturally evolving. Once again, covering ignorance.

Among these consequences are increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and in Peru, which has caused destructive flooding, and drought in the West Pacific, sometimes associated with devastating brush fires in Australia.

Doesn't sound any less natural to me just because of what it does.

To reiterate...

What causes abrupt climate change?

Current theories on abrupt climate change focus on sudden shut downs and start-ups of the Gulf Stream ocean current in the North Atlantic as the most likely cause. The Gulf Stream transports a tremendous amount of heat northward, keeping the North Atlantic and much of Europe up to 9°F (5°C) warmer, particularly in the winter. A sudden shut down of the Gulf Stream would have a ripple effect throughout the ocean-atmosphere system, forcing worldwide changes in ocean currents and in the path of the atmospheric jet stream. Studies of North Atlantic Ocean sediments have revealed that the Gulf Stream has shut down many times in the past, and that many of these shut downs coincide with the abrupt climate change events noted in the Greenland ice cores.

How does one shut down the Gulf Stream? To answer this, we first must describe the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt (image below), the system of interconnected ocean currents that girdle the planet. At the surface, ocean currents are driven by the winds, and so move parallel to the wind direction, except where continental land masses block the way. Water can also move vertically in the ocean. High density water sinks, and low density water rises. Salty water is more dense than fresh water, and cold water is more dense than warm water, so that wherever we find cold, salty water, it tends to sink.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/conveyor.jpg

In the tropical Atlantic, the sun's heat evaporates large amounts of water, creating relatively warm, salty ocean water. This warm, salty water flows westward toward North America, then up the East Coast of the U.S., then northeastward toward Europe, forming the mighty Gulf Stream current. As this warm, salty water reaches the ocean regions on either side of Greenland, cold winds blowing off of Canada and Greenland cool the water substantially (in the above image, these regions are marked with white circles labeled, "Heat release to the atmosphere.") These cool, salty waters are now very dense compared to the surrounding waters, and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the oceanic areas by Greenland where this sinking occurs are called "deep-water formation areas". This North Atlantic deep water flows southward toward Antarctica, eventually making it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where it rises back to the surface to complete the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. It takes about 1000 years for the water to make a complete circuit around the globe.

Since the Great Ocean Conveyor belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean's salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters there no longer sink. The Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current will then shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering the climate.

How would the climate change if the Gulf Stream shut down?

A shut down of the Gulf Stream would suddenly decrease the amount of heat in the North Atlantic, leading to much colder temperatures in Europe and North America. A 2003 report (http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231) prepared for the Department of Defense outlines what would happen if an abrupt climatic change similar to the 8200 years before present event were to recur today:


Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5°F in North America, and up to 6°F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10°F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816--the famed "year without a summer". In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun's rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.
Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4°F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.
Winter storms and winds would strengthen over North America and Europe.


Conclusion

The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible--it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behooves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner. In the words of Dr. Wally Broecker, "the climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it."

Actually, there is no direct evidence that humanity is the sole cause, or even a major cause, of increasing rates of CO2. In fact, there is evidence that the decreasing oxygen rate actually started in the era of dinosaurs and the increasing CO2 levels have been getting bigger in slowly increasing increments. It only makes sense that at some point the increasing size of increments would speed up.

Also, the fact this is a natural phenomenon says something else: Humanity can't stop it. Humanity can't start it. Humanity probably can't even "poke it with a stick," to use the words from your post. What we're looking at is something that has been going on for millions of years, like the decreasing amounts of oxygen in the air. Finally, humanity won't have the technology to stop such a change until after it actually happens. And prediction is nice, but we won't know how accurate our information is until it actually happens. In other words, your proposal is still pretty much a waste of money. It's like trying to stop a hurricane by throwing gold coins at it, building a wall of paper, and hoping that will work.

I must say I disagree, I believe that if we investigate - we will find a solution.

(tired - heading to bed, so I'm not going to say more than that. Yes I know that what I've said above is a circular argument, but I have given my reasons multiple times in above posts.)

I must say I disagree, I believe that if we investigate - we will find a solution.

(tired - heading to bed, so I'm not going to say more than that. Yes I know that what I've said above is a circular argument, but I have given my reasons multiple times in above posts.)

A solution to a process that has been going on since probably the beginning of the dinosaur era? That's about like trying to find a solution to stop rain. The only solutions available are far more damaging than anyone is willing to accept.

To be honest I don't think it would be so bad if we fecked up the environment so much we killed ourselves off.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I would like to highlight and emphasise your usage of the word 'probably'.

since probably the beginning of the dinosaur era?

We do not know exactly when this began, nor where it will stop. That is why I am requesting money for research so that we can finally get rid of any 'probably' from the matter.

As I am only requesting 0.02% of your annual budget, for a total period of 5 years (length of project currently) - it is hardly going to affect you hugely. At the end of the five years, the 0.02% becomes no longer enforcable under UN Regulations, and we will merely ask for nations who wish to to offer donations to continue the research.

Is this satisfactory?

To be honest I don't think it would be so bad if we fecked up the environment so much we killed ourselves off.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Hush. Let him figure it out on his own.

Hush. Let him figure it out on his own.
Spoil sport. :p

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Am I missing something here?

To put it simply :

I am asking for

1) A resolution to be passed allowing for funding into ocean currents and their effect on the climate effectively

2) The resolution to allow for 0.02% of each Nation's funding to be diverted to a UN controlled Oceanographic research institute

3) The total funding period to extend over a five-year period

4) At the end of the five-year period, all Nations can withdraw from the Resolution, but funding can continue on a voluntary basis from interested Nations


Is that acceptable?

I would like to highlight and emphasise your usage of the word 'probably'.

I say "probably" because antarctic (or was it arctic?) ice has revealed that, in the past, Earth was in a constant 20-year cycle of going from hot to cold and back again. It's only relatively lately that has stopped, probably having to do with the ecological damage caused by the birth of the ozone layer. However, we know the cycle still sometimes happens.

We do not know exactly when this began, nor where it will stop. That is why I am requesting money for research so that we can finally get rid of any 'probably' from the matter.

There's your problem: You can't. You need an actual time machine to go back to the beginning of Earth's existance and measure temperatures and weather patterns. We do not know how much evidence has been lost throughout the ages, but it is likely enough to invalidate any attempt at a guess.

As I am only requesting 0.02% of your annual budget, for a total period of 5 years (length of project currently) - it is hardly going to affect you hugely. At the end of the five years, the 0.02% becomes no longer enforcable under UN Regulations, and we will merely ask for nations who wish to to offer donations to continue the research.

I still do not intend to pay for something that I will get no benefits from. Unless, of course, you intend the benefits to be an understanding of exactly where on Earth I have to hit to disrupt the ecosystem enough to wipe out humanity. But I'm not wanting that.

Is this satisfactory?

No. If you are going to do this, you need a real goal with real benefits, not money to blow on a data gathering mission that may publish a result based on red herrings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. The only feasible solution is to damage the world's ecology so badly it collapses. The rest are scifi beyond anything my nation considers real, and my people travel in space ships and cast spells.

To put it simply :

I am asking for

1) A resolution to be passed allowing for funding into ocean currents and their effect on the climate effectively

Useful for developing a new type of weapon of mass destruction or new methods of deployment for weapons of mass destruction. Makes for slightly more accurate weather predictions.

2) The resolution to allow for 0.02% of each Nation's funding to be diverted to a UN controlled Oceanographic research institute

Waste of money. Make it voluntary and a maybe.

3) The total funding period to extend over a five-year period

This is what gets me. All other resolutions are all or nothing on funding. Why is this one temporary?

4) At the end of the five-year period, all Nations can withdraw from the Resolution, but funding can continue on a voluntary basis from interested Nations

You didn't read the FAQ or any of the topics on here. Read them to understand why this is against game mechanics.

Is that acceptable?

Nope.

Is that acceptable?
Not in it's present format.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Goal: To determine whether a severe climate shift could occur within the next 50 years, leading to a new Ice Age

Benefits:

1) By knowing if we are heading to ecological disaster, we can concentrate on cleaning up our industrial practices, utilising cleaner energy sources, etc

2) We will know exactly which areas will be affected and how, allowing us to begin planning irrigation projects for areas that will be affected by drought, evacuating areas that will be the most severely affected, designing new types of housing to better withstand colder conditions

3) Be more informed of how our planet works, and how our interactions with it can damage it and us.

Yes dear we get that.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You know what - I really cannot be bothered.

You two are so completely against this that why should I even try and convince anybody else? Everything I say you find some way to counter it, and to ridicule my ideas - and I become tired of justifying my proposal.

I am going to fund my own goddamn research into this and, as such, any data gathered will belong exclusively to the Federation of Aligned Planets. Access to this information will be strictly controlled by us.

Thank you for your time.

Chmhayak Vosneh
President of Aligned Planets
Paris, Earth

I get tired of repeating my points.

Goal: To determine whether a severe climate shift could occur within the next 50 years, leading to a new Ice Age

Not needed in this case. You can measure atmosphere in general over the next 25 years and extrapolate the chances from that. You don't need to spend millions to put buoys in the ocean, where they will disrupt native life and migration patterns of multiple species.

Benefits:

1) By knowing if we are heading to ecological disaster, we can concentrate on cleaning up our industrial practices, utilising cleaner energy sources, etc

And this benefits me, who is not on Earth, how? Also, go back and read what I said about no evidence humanity can do anything. Then, read it six more times.

Also, you don't need the ocean for that. Once again, atmosphere is just as useful.

2) We will know exactly which areas will be affected and how, allowing us to begin planning irrigation projects for areas that will be affected by drought, evacuating areas that will be the most severely affected, designing new types of housing to better withstand colder conditions

No, you will know what areas are most likely to be affected and how they are most likely to be affected. Which means a 70% chance you are right. You could evacuate people from a region predicted to be safe, only to have them killed in the area you take them because you were wrong. The ocean is only a small part of Earth's weather equations.

3) Be more informed of how our planet works, and how our interactions with it can damage it and us.

Not necessarily. Once again, not enough evidence to support our interactions with it causing damage. How many more times do I have to say that?

You know what - I really cannot be bothered.

You two are so completely against this that why should I even try and convince anybody else? Everything I say you find some way to counter it, and to ridicule my ideas - and I become tired of justifying my proposal.

The problem is the evidence and goals you are using. The evidence is faulty and not entirely supported and the goals are, at best, just a study session that won't provide hard facts beyond probabilities.

I am going to fund my own goddamn research into this and, as such, any data gathered will belong exclusively to the Federation of Aligned Planets. Access to this information will be strictly controlled by us.

Tis your right and your money.

You know what - I really cannot be bothered.

You two are so completely against this that why should I even try and convince anybody else? Everything I say you find some way to counter it, and to ridicule my ideas - and I become tired of justifying my proposal.

I am going to fund my own goddamn research into this and, as such, any data gathered will belong exclusively to the Federation of Aligned Planets. Access to this information will be strictly controlled by us.

Thank you for your time.

I'm not against this idea. I would like to see this rewritten to include less theory and more solution.

But go ahead, make yourself a martyr. The cruel United Nations Forum offers criticism so we must be against you.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

OOC - sorry if that sounded ridiculously stroppy, but I have just pulled a 10 hour shift at work, and I am shattered! My last post still stands however

OOC - sorry if that sounded ridiculously stroppy, but I have just pulled a 10 hour shift at work, and I am shattered! My last post still stands however

Now you know why I refer to this place as "The Grinder." It grinds up any proposals it feels would be bad and spits out the ones it feels would be good. Sometimes a bad one gets revised, sometimes it's just reduced to dust.

Am I missing something here?

To put it simply :

I am asking for

1) A resolution to be passed allowing for funding into ocean currents and their effect on the climate effectively

2) The resolution to allow for 0.02% of each Nation's funding to be diverted to a UN controlled Oceanographic research institute

3) The total funding period to extend over a five-year period

4) At the end of the five-year period, all Nations can withdraw from the Resolution, but funding can continue on a voluntary basis from interested Nations


Is that acceptable?

This plan seems fairly sensible. You could also request that nations pool their knowledge to this point. Maybe extend the period to say 10 years?

You didn't read the FAQ or any of the topics on here. Read them to understand why this is against game mechanics.

Um, apologies if I'm mistaken, but I see no reason why this would be illegal.

Oh also, regarding your proposed plan, add a little more detail on exactly what we're researching. Perhaps you could encourage the UN to act appropriately on any useful knowledge obtained.

Finally, with the whole climate change deal, remember that the UN here does have quite a few measures in place that RL nations don't, and given the impression I've gotten of the political demographics of NS users, I imagine that an awful lot of non-UN nations are also more climate change conscious than RL nations. So the situation isn't necessarily identical to reality.

Um, apologies if I'm mistaken, but I see no reason why this would be illegal.

Simple: The UN is all or nothing on resolutions pretty much. You have resolutions that either force you to do it for all eternity or ones that allow you to choose from the start. The middle ground does not exist, and I've seen a couple going for the middle ground deleted. An exception is when a certain clause is optional while the rest are forced. I would say, based on my experiences, that this goes against game mechanics.

Well I can't think of any actual rule that would create problems. It might be worth getting a mod's opinion.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The rest of the mountain is enough.

Please :-)

Then I can rewrite the resolution (using the current information enclosed in this topic as background info)

I would cut the reference theory down to the basics, and try as hard as possible to remove real world references. Then post your actual draft proposal text here for refining, then contact a mod for advice before you submit it.

Then please leave out the mention of real world places. You don't really need to go into that much theory. This is the problem requires one or two lines, this is the solution should be most of the document.


Giordano,
UN representative,
The Sad New World

:confused:
Um...sorry if I offended you by repeating your advice

Please go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379364) for the revised Proposal

:confused:
Um...sorry if I offended you by repeating your advice
OOC: sorry to bump this but I was repeating it for AP who asked for my comments on the new draft.

Ah sorry. Confusion.