NationStates Jolt Archive

The Original Proposal
UNITED NATIONS 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!!!



Repeal of "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" UN Resolution #18

Description: UN Resolution #18 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=15) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

NOTING that the previous UN Resolution was too specific in its requirements.
Realizing that Hydrogen is not the only option for an alternative powered vehicle.

ALSO NOTING that Electric, Solar-powered, Hydrogen, Biodiesel (product made from plant oil or animal fat), alcohols, and many other types of methods are available for research.

PROPOSING that research for alternative sources in the development of environmentally safe vehicles are produced.

ACKNOWLEDGING the dire need to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” in order to re-address important issues regarding the specifics of the research, while promoting a more broad perspective of the promotion of energy-saving vehicles.

It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop more general and more accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding alternative sources at powering vehicles.


((OOC: Also noting that the previous resolution has some RL references, which can be annoying when telling others that RL references should not go in proposals of any sort))

Approved/.

What, am I the only person who has anything to say?

Personally, I do agree that this and other peices of legislation needs to be overhauled.

The origional resolution does not say ONLY hydrogen cars, but I think it should be rteplaced with that the nation must research and develop other forms of fuel/cars etc than oil and gas. However, I am strongely in favour of hydrogen as 70% of the universe is made our of hydrogen.. or is that to much of a real life example? In conclusion, the resolution should be changed to include other forms of fuel, so, yep, I approve.

The origional resolution does not say ONLY hydrogen cars, but I think it should be rteplaced with that the nation must research and develop other forms of fuel/cars etc than oil and gas. However, I am strongely in favour of hydrogen as 70% of the universe is made our of hydrogen.. or is that to much of a real life example? In conclusion, the resolution should be changed to include other forms of fuel, so, yep, I approve.

Correct, the original resolution didn't say only hydrogen cars, but it did promote hydrogen over the rest of the possibilities that are out there. The world should know that the rest of the options are just as conceivable as hydrogen is, and that in the end, more than just hydrogen can help the environment.

It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop a more specific, yet more accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding alternative sources at powering vehicles.



I take issue with this one line....because your proposal takes issue with the old resolution being too specific, yet you call for a more specific resolution. I would like to suggest something to the effect of:

"It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop a more general and accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding the development of alternate sources of powering vehicles"

If you do have a reason for using specific, please do explain your position.

I take issue with this one line....because your proposal takes issue with the old resolution being too specific, yet you call for a more specific resolution. I would like to suggest something to the effect of:

"It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop a more general and accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding the development of alternate sources of powering vehicles"

If you do have a reason for using specific, please do explain your position.

Thanks for pointing that out, it was just bad use of english. :p

.::BUMP::.

Looking for feedback, especially from the UN forum regulars.

I like the repeal. I think it's warranted, and that it's well-written. I have no ability to give it practical support (I'm not a delegate, yet and just can't spare the time for telegramming). However, I support it here on the forum, and will put in good words for it with my regional delegate, when I get the opportunity.

Clerical Notes:
NOTING that the previous UN Resolution was too specific in its requirements.
Realizing that Hydrogen is not the only option for an alternative powered vehicle.

The second line here seems like it needs to have "realizing" capitalized and an extra line placed between it and the NOTING line.

PROPOSING that research for alternative sources in the development of environmentally safe vehicles are produced.

This seems non sequitur with the lines around it. I don't really see what it does, and how it interacts with the lines before and after it.

ACKNOWLEDGING the dire need to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” in order to re-address important issues regarding the specifics of the research, while promoting a more broad perspective of the promotion of energy-saving vehicles.

I, personally would take out the word "dire". The repeal needs to pull in both opponents of the old bill and those that want it replaced. Saying there's a "need" to re-address the issues should suffice, I think. Adding "dire", to me, seems a bit of hyperbole that would only divide some voters more against the bill.

Also, I think you might want a different word than "acknowledging" there. I mean, it just feels like a word like "reaffirming" or "continuing [to believe such and such...]" would pay more homage to the ideas behind the first one--which is what I think this line is needed for.

Anyway, I like it, and I hope the telegramming for it goes well whenever you submit it. I would very much like to see this repeal proposal passed.