NationStates Jolt Archive

Current version of 'Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"'

First changes are highlighted in red.
Second changes highlighed blue.


Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the merits of research into fossil-fuel replacements,

ADMITTING that development of hydrogen-powered vehicles (HPVs) is impractical to many non-industrialised nation-states,

ADMITTING that development of HPVs are not necessarily the optimum method of reducing the environmental footprint of automobile use,

RECALLING Resolution 39: "Alternative Fuels", implemented 30th November 2003,

RECALLING Resolution 71: "Sustainable Energy Sources", implemented 31st August 2004,

ADMITTING "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" as redundant due to the implementation of "Alternative Fuels" and "Sustainable Energy Sources",

ADMITTING "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" as an ambiguous document, lacking in specific instruction and definition,

DECLARING itself against waste and bureaucracy:

RECALLING the Enodian Protocols, article 4 "Real-life Proposals", implemented 10th March 2003, amended 14th October 2004,

DECLARING Resolution 18 to be in violation of the Amendment to Article 4 of the Enodian Protocols,

REPEALS Resolution 18: "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles", originally implemented 16th June 2003.

--------------------------
[Original message]

From the Office of the Duke of Claverton.

An Appeal for the Cancellation of Resolution 18, 'Hydrogen Powered Vehicles'. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=15)

Resolution 18 is a naïve and unrealistic attempt to limit the environmental impact of automobile use, by enforcing the development of hydrogen-powered cars. It is impractical to force nation-states with no background in advanced automotive engineering to develop cutting-edge propulsion technology independantly.

Noting previous efforts to repeal Resolution 18 failed, apparently due to the proposal attempting to do more than repeal Resolution 18 by adding more legislation to replace it, this Office suggests that one UN delegate submits a simply-worded proposal to cancel Resolution 18.

Resolution 18 is obsolete and a tremendous drain on research funds. Please, let us remove this thorn in our economies sides!

Repeals and proposals that only refer to resolution numbers tend to get ignored, Claverton. Most of us don't keep a handy cross-reference to the NSUN resolutions on the backs of our eyelids. Would it have killed you to mention the actual name of the resolution, and maybe quote it for convenience?

Only two posts in and i am already yawning from seeing yet another repeal for the Hydrogen car.

This Thread has been Rated!

DLEBR = 8

Thank you.

Only two posts in and i am already yawning from seeing yet another repeal for the Hydrogen car.

This Thread has been Rated!

DLEBR = 8

Thank you.

DLEBR? :confused:

DLEBR? :confused:I think it's "DemonLordEnigma Boredom Rating"...

i think...

It is impractical to force nation-states with no background in advanced automotive engineering to develop cutting-edge propulsion technology independently.I believe you have a very legit claim to repeal this because of this statement. If you could elaborate more on this and make it look professional, I believe it may stand a good chance.

Nevermoore was against this proposal from the very start! We shall support you.

I think it's "DemonLordEnigma Boredom Rating"...

i think...
Well done, my friend!

Personally, I shall give this a DLEBR of 4, only because I think that the concept itself has merit. Obviously, the resolution would have to be written quite well, but I could foresee myself supporting a repeal of Resolution 18.

I think it's "DemonLordEnigma Boredom Rating"...

i think...

Thats correct my Friend, it is indeed the Demon lord enigma Bordom rating, concieved to celebrate that Nooker of N00bs, Dle's Running to the hills and very Public appeal to the Members of the UN Forums that constantly argue the same thin over and over and over ad nauseum.

for the ratings see the the link, post # 16

DLE.... Bored! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413369)

I believe you have a very legit claim to repeal this because of this statement. If you could elaborate more on this and make it look professional, I believe it may stand a good chance.

Thank you. We will immediately commence work on a finer draft.

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!!!

Votes For: 12,533
Votes Against: 3,280

Implemented: Mon Jun 16 2003

EDIT: This is the existing Resolution 18, which this nation campaigns to repeal.


Here is the draft proposal to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles".


Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the merits of research into fossil-fuel replacements,

ADMITTING that development of hydrogen-powered vehicles (HPVs) is impractical to many non-industrialised nation-states,

ADMITTING that development of HPVs are not necessarily the optimum method of reducing the environmental footprint of automobile use,

RECALLING Resolution 39: "Alternative Fuels", implemented 30th November 2003,

RECALLING Resolution 71: "Sustainable Energy Sources", implemented 31st August 2004,

ADMITTING "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" as redundant due to the implementation of "Alternative Fuels" and "Sustainable Energy Sources",

DECLARING itself against waste and bureaucracy:

REPEALS Resolution 18: "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles", originally implemented 16th June 2003.

I intend to propose this as soon as I can get my colleagues to endorse me.

We'd be in support of a repeal of this resolution, but it might be good to replace it with a proposal urging nations to encourage the development of various environmentally-friendly technologies. That way, nations can apply their research efforts in the areas they are best equipped to look into, and we don't have the same technologies being developed over and over again in parallel.

It might be good to add in an argument about how the resolution is somewhat lacking in an actual plan of action and is therefore quite ineffective. I also dislike the real-life reference and the inappropriate style, but I don't know if that could be worked into an appropriate argument in the repeal.

We'd be in support of a repeal of this resolution, but it might be good to replace it with a proposal urging nations to encourage the development of various environmentally-friendly technologies. That way, nations can apply their research efforts in the areas they are best equipped to look into, and we don't have the same technologies being developed over and over again in parallel.

It might be good to add in an argument about how the resolution is somewhat lacking in an actual plan of action and is therefore quite ineffective. I also dislike the real-life reference and the inappropriate style, but I don't know if that could be worked into an appropriate argument in the repeal.

Thanks for the response.

I did consider suggesting that fragmented research into HPVs is very wasteful, compared to, for instance, specific funding to one or two corporations to specialise in this research, or the creation of a commitee to co-ordinate the international research into fossil fuel replacements, but that would make the repeal more complex. Also, the rules state that a repeal can not create any new mandates or laws.

It is true that the original regulation is too non-specific to be meaningful - the Office Chauffeur could read a chemistry textbook on hydrogen reactions and then draw a concept sketch of a HPV, and that would qualify as 'develop HPVs' under Res. 18. I'll try to work that argument into the repeal.

As for the formatting and style, I copied it from an existing repeal resolution (Res. 95 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90)). Where is the 'real world reference' I've included?

Excellent repeal, Claverton. I hope you can get it through with a solid telegram campaign. :)

Cobdenia will endorse this resolution.

Please endorse "Defining Diplomatic Immunity"

Cobdenia will endorse this resolution.

Please endorse "Defining Diplomatic Immunity"
Thank you. As the Duchy of Claverton has not received any endorsement from our neighbours yet (we are a new nation, founded on the 22nd) we cannot personally endorse your proposal, but we will lobby our regional delegate to do so.

Excellent repeal, Claverton. I hope you can get it through with a solid telegram campaign.
Thank you for your support.

We will now attempt to take this proposal to the UN floor, in order to combine the TG campaign for this repeal with the TG campaign for 'Define Diplomatic Immunity'.

As the Duchy of Claverton lacks the necessary endorsements to post this repeal, would one member kindly post it on our behalf? Please post here before submitting the repeal to avoid repeat submissions.

It's written fairly well; it's got Fatus Maximus' support.

I'll approve it. Well done, Claverton.

We still need someone to propose this. I cannot, because I haven't been endorsed.

Excellent repeal, Claverton. I hope you can get it through with a solid telegram campaign. :)

My government is a "green state", and we are unable to come up with a logical argument against this repeal as it is worded. This certainly is the way we prefer any UN legislation. :)

We still need a UN member with 2 or more endorsements to submit this proposal. It will take at least 24 hours for the Duchy of Claverton to be fully endorsed.

We still need a UN member with 2 or more endorsements to submit this proposal. It will take at least 24 hours for the Duchy of Claverton to be fully endorsed.

Just wait a bit. There's no hurry, as far as I know. If you wait and propose it yourself then you'll get credit for it and you won't have to depend on someone else to do it. My advice is to wait until Monday of next week and propose it around 5:00 AM. (I'm at GMT -5. Hope that helps you figure out what time that would be for you.)

Just wait a bit. There's no hurry, as far as I know. If you wait and propose it yourself then you'll get credit for it and you won't have to depend on someone else to do it. My advice is to wait until Monday of next week and propose it around 5:00 AM. (I'm at GMT -5. Hope that helps you figure out what time that would be for you.)

That is true.

Well, in that case, the proposal is still open to feedback.

As for the formatting and style, I copied it from an existing repeal resolution (Res. 95 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90)). Where is the 'real world reference' I've included?

I was actually referring to the style of the original HPV resolution, and its reference to the effect of acid rain on the north-east USA. Your text doesn't have any problems like that.

It would probably also be worth arguing that this vague and impractical resolution is actually detrimental to environmental efforts, since it diverts resources which could be better applied otherwise.

Also, the rules state that a repeal can not create any new mandates or laws.

I didn't mean that you should include it in the current repeal, but that it might be worth following up the repeal with a new proposal.

You can expect the support of UberPenguinLand. Why should we be forced to save the enviroment? If people are stupid enough to polute the enviroment when they know the consequnces, let them. I also agree with the point about nations not able to devlope these cars.

I was actually referring to the style of the original HPV resolution, and its reference to the effect of acid rain on the north-east USA. Your text doesn't have any problems like that.

It would probably also be worth arguing that this vague and impractical resolution is actually detrimental to environmental efforts, since it diverts resources which could be better applied otherwise.



I didn't mean that you should include it in the current repeal, but that it might be worth following up the repeal with a new proposal.

Thank you for clarifying. I'll redraft it now.

You can expect the support of UberPenguinLand. Why should we be forced to save the enviroment? If people are stupid enough to polute the enviroment when they know the consequnces, let them. I also agree with the point about nations not able to devlope these cars
Thank you for the support, UberPenguinLand.

Why should we be forced to save the enviroment? If people are stupid enough to polute the enviroment when they know the consequnces, let them.

You might as well say - if a delegation here is stupid enough to fill the halls of the UN with carbon monoxide when they know the consequences, let them! The general environment is just a bit more of a long term danger.

(OOC: this thread had disappeared from the main UN page. =/ I thought you had given up on it... now i read you're submitting it on monday. :p guess i typed this up for nothing. but in any case, here's a proposal i typed (again, thinking you had forgotten it altogether) giving a very legit argument, in my opinion. do with it what you like; i'm not gonna submit this since it was your idea i got it from. good luck in getting your repeal passed. i know i'll be urging MY delegate to approve it.)

[your nation's name] proposes that United Nations Resolution #18 - Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=15) be repealed. Here is the resolution in full:

"We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars (1). 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)

"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.(2)

"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.(2)

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

The argument for said repeal is as follows:

(1) Not every nation has the same technological advances as every other, nor does every nation have the same funds as every other. Forcing every nation to develop hydrogen powered cars is a waste of money to those nations who do not use such methods of transportation.

(2) These points are not based in facts that were established in the NationStates world. In other words, the resolution uses "real world" references to solve a "real world" problem which has not been proven to exist in the NationStates world. To quote the Enodian Protocols (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176), "You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. [...] NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply." Also, the Endodian Protocols date back to the "real world" date of March 10, 2003. The resolution in question was implimented on the "real world" date of June 16, 2003. Therefore these rules were in effect when said resolution was passed.

In conclusion, despite the overwhemling popularity of the resolution, it was a violation of the standards on which NationStates is based and therefore must be repealed.

(OOC: this thread had disappeared from the main UN page. =/ I thought you had given up on it... now i read you're submitting it on monday. :p guess i typed this up for nothing. but in any case, here's a proposal i typed (again, thinking you had forgotten it altogether) giving a very legit argument, in my opinion. do with it what you like; i'm not gonna submit this since it was your idea i got it from. good luck in getting your repeal passed. i know i'll be urging MY delegate to approve it.)

[your nation's name] proposes that United Nations Resolution #18 - Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=15) be repealed. Here is the resolution in full:

"We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars (1). 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)

"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.(2)

"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.(2)

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

The argument for said repeal is as follows:

(1) Not every nation has the same technological advances as every other, nor does every nation have the same funds as every other. Forcing every nation to develop hydrogen powered cars is a waste of money to those nations who do not use such methods of transportation.

(2) These points are not based in facts that were established in the NationStates world. In other words, the resolution uses "real world" references to solve a "real world" problem which has not been proven to exist in the NationStates world. To quote the Enodian Protocols (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176), "You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. [...] NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply." Also, the Endodian Protocols date back to the "real world" date of March 10, 2003. The resolution in question was implimented on the "real world" date of June 16, 2003. Therefore these rules were in effect when said resolution was passed.

In conclusion, despite the overwhemling popularity of the resolution, it was a violation of the standards on which NationStates is based and therefore must be repealed.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed that the Enodian Principles were passed after Resolution 18...

I've incorporated your second argument into the draft now. If I can't get someone to endorse me in the next couple of days, you're welcome to submit the proposal on my behalf.