NationStates Jolt Archive

Please endorse (and help telegram please)


Description: This legislation, if passed, will see Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) banned from city centres.

SUVs have poor fuel economy and high greenhouse gas emissions especially when moving at low city centre speeds.

Approvals: 2 (Upper Gornal, Zouloukistan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 18 2005

Heh. We'll decide for ourselves what restrictions we'll place on our citizens' ability to make their own choices, thank you.

Why should the U.N Be any part of this? :confused:
It might "Hurt" the enviroment but we shoulden't Dictate This Until it becomes a serious issue.. How many people have Died From The "evil' S.U.Vs? Not much I can pretty much tell you that!!

What about people who own Land Rovers for legitimate reasons (such as farmers or the military) and then need to go into towns?

The Island of Istate agrees heartily with your recommended policy to help reduce greenhouse gas and puts its weight firmly behind it.

Enn cannot support. This would require banning SUVs from nearly the entirety of the nation - we are after all just one city.

That's a tough shout for Seagravia to make. What about carpools for schools within the city centre etc? IF public transport in Seagravia could be guaranteed to be first rate then we might think about adding our voice. Environmental concerns are important to us.

Who are you in my country? No one. You don't live there. Please don't tell me how to run my cities, thank you.

This, once again, is another proposal that has no place in the UN. This is a national matter. Please people....Stick to international topics. If this is an international topic, I'll need a lot more convincing. What one nation does about their automobile issues matters not to me. Hence....national issue.

This is not the solution to greenhouse gas emissions. It fails completely to take into account the possibility that "green" SUVs might be produced (what's to stop us replacing the petrol engine with one suitable for bio-ethanol?), and lets drivers of other environmentally destructive vehicles off the hook.

I recommend attacking the problem directly and dealing with greenhouse gas emissions themselves, through taxation, rationing, or some other similar system.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that this is not a serious problem. What insentive does any nation have to slightly damage their economy to help save the planet if the rest of their competing countries refuse to do so. This needs to be a national effort. Unlike some other countries, I want to see my grandchildren reach their 50th year. This law must pass. Not just to lower pollution rates but to stop spending so much money on the fuel that will progressively become spendier as the years roll by. Normally I would not want the U.N. to have any control over what individual countries want to do but this, like I said earlier, needs to be a national effort. This needs to be acted upon now. I fully endorse the proposal to ban SUV's and you have the full support and cooperation of the glorious Empire of Combiland.

With each new country that joins this policy, we may be able to add months or years to the time that Earth will still be able to be inhabited by Humans. Combiland is asking from the bottom of our hearts for all of you nations to think beyond your sovereignty and your wallets and think of the future of the human race!

dont tell me how to run my nation thank you:)

Ill drive whatever i want to drive its a freedom of choice. And if you ban SUVS it will destroy many economies.

Im sorry but this will never get my support.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia finds this proposed resolution untenable.

Banning "Sports Utility Vehicles" from "city centres" seems like to vague a proposition. Both of these terms must be more adequetly defined.

Additionally, the proposal appears to give the impression that the main reason for the propsed ban is to limit greenhouse gases and conserve the natural resource of fuel.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia, despite being recognised for it's pictueresque environment, finds this concept at best ineffective. There are far more efficient ways of limiting greenhouse gas emission than to target larger vehicles owned by the minority.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia believes a more effective way of limiting the usage of "Sports Utility Vehicles" would be to change the licencing structure of UN nations by reducing the weight limit for vehicles considered "light trucks".

If "Sports Utility Vehicles" were considered "light trucks", then only people with a licence to drive "light trucks" would be allowed to drive "Sports Utility Vehicles". This would mean that agricultural workers would not be affected, as they already require such licences for tractors and other larger vehicles.

In this way, the benefits would be two-fold. Firstly, less people would drive "Sports Utility Vehicles" generally, meaning that there would be less of the greenhouse gases of which you are fighting to defeat.

Secondly, by increasing the licence requirement, drivers of "Sports Utility Vehicles" would be generally safer, meaning less road deaths across all UN nations.

If you nations intends to go ahead with your proposal on "Sports Utility Vehicles", please try and incorporate some of these notions into your resolution framework.

If the above listed notions are considered, then the People's Republic of Coquetvia may be able to support your resolution.

The Automotive Manufacturing Industry is a major component of our tiny nation's economy. Passage of this resolution would force us to choose between 40% unemployment or withdraw from the UN. We will support this resolution only when you include a clause to subsidize the portion of our economy lost as a result of its passage.

I fail to see how this affects my armed "republic"

After all, it floats OVER this cloud of pollution you so suffer from...

Fool! Go hug a tree and eat some sprouts. Driving SUV's is mandatory in the Holy Empire of Seagrove!

This isn't an international issue; it's domestic.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that this is not a serious problem. What insentive does any nation have to slightly damage their economy to help save the planet if the rest of their competing countries refuse to do so. This needs to be a national effort. Unlike some other countries, I want to see my grandchildren reach their 50th year. This law must pass. Not just to lower pollution rates but to stop spending so much money on the fuel that will progressively become spendier as the years roll by. Normally I would not want the U.N. to have any control over what individual countries want to do but this, like I said earlier, needs to be a national effort. This needs to be acted upon now. I fully endorse the proposal to ban SUV's and you have the full support and cooperation of the glorious Empire of Combiland.

With each new country that joins this policy, we may be able to add months or years to the time that Earth will still be able to be inhabited by Humans. Combiland is asking from the bottom of our hearts for all of you nations to think beyond your sovereignty and your wallets and think of the future of the human race!

Saving the world and preventing global warming are all very well, but this is a particularly poorly thought-out approach. SUVs are not the only vehicles known for high emissions, and they don't necessarily have to be fuel-inefficient. There are a few car enthusiasts in my nation who like to obtain various foreign cars which often have high CO2 emissions - but because of our emissions regulations, they often have to modify the cars to take alternative fuels such as bioethanol, so that cars which are still classed as SUVs or some other type which is usually regarded as highly polluting actually become very environmentally friendly.

This proposal is therefore an ineffective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because it fails to take into account "green" SUVs, and lets all other polluting vehicles off the hook. As I said earlier, emissions themselves need to be regulated.