NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing

Proposed by: Cmabland

Description:
RECONIZING & KNOWING:
-The fact that cars pollute by generation emission of CO2.
-The fact that CO2 is harmful for our atmosphere.
-The fact that the earth is suffering from the greenhouse effect.
-The fact that heat waves generated by the greenhouse effect killed thousands.
-The fact that CO2 is harmful to our environment.
-The fact that CO2 is dangerous on long term to our planet.
-The fact that pollution can end life prematurely.

INTENTION:
The intention of the resolution is to start reducing our pollution now. This resolution will target the Automobile Industry. The pollution must be reduced for the future for mankind. Pollution will be cut by this first major step to a greener world.

ACTIONS:
1. The United Nations will force [when resolution passed] all nations member to force their Automobile Industry to abolish the manufacturing of fossil fuel car.
2. Automobile Industries worldwide [Only members of the UN when resolution passed] will replace their fossil fuel car industry by hybrid, hydrogen, and electrical car industry.
3. During the construction of new structures allowing the manufacture of hybrid, hydrogen, and electrical cars, Nationals Governments must ensure that the construction of new structures pollutes at least 1/3 less than what a normal industrial construction site does today.
4. The new cars must emit, as a maximum, 49% of CO2 of a what a car produces today [depending on the average of each categories of cars]
5. National Governments have the responsibility to shut down any Automobile Manufacture that refuses to comply with this resolution.

The passing of this resolution will take effect immediately.

Voting Ends: Fri Aug 26 2005

good idea though i would look for current RL proposals about cutting car emissions to make sure your goals are doable and maybe think about giving a time scarerather than making it immediate are Hydrogen fuel pumps are excedingly rare for instance and hydrgen cells are still in the prototype stage, full electric cars are still fairly basic and impractical, only hybrids are really practical but not widely available.

It is realistic.

As up of 2005, we have the technology to produce hydrogen cars..... The Automobile Industry have produced some of the cars right now. But they can't sell it knowing the fact that it is too expensive. If we abolish the sales of fosil car, we will increase demand for it, therefore ajusting the suply; so reducing the price for the population.

Electrical exists already, but same thing with hydrogen, too expensive to sell due to low demand.

Hybrid exists already, they are on sale, but sales are increasing slowly because people are starting to be environment-minded.

This proposition must pass.

Green Car Industry Act

Hmm...how extreme will this one be....

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing

Proposed by: Cmabland

Description:
RECONIZING & KNOWING:
-The fact that cars pollute by generation emission of CO2.

As do human being, most animals, and (believe it or not), plants. The only reason we consider plants to generate oxygen is because they use up more CO2 than they actually produce. CO2, while concerning, is not nearly as dangerous as, say, CO or just plain Carbon - which are produced by the unclean burning of gasoline (at the purest level, you wouldn't see exhaust nor notice it in the air short of, perhaps, a refraction of sunlight or similar light effect)

-The fact that CO2 is harmful for our atmosphere.

Not really. CFCs destroy the atmosphere....CO2 doesn't really do much.

-The fact that the earth is suffering from the greenhouse effect.

This is because of CO2 and unclean burning (amongst other things, though Greenhouse effect isn't caused by the destruction of atmosphere - though it is aided because more warmth gets through). It is the things in our ozone layers (CO2, CO, H2O (vapor), etc) that actually cause the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse doesn't get more energy to go through its windows than, say, out in the open. What it does is it uses its windows to prevent that energy from bouncing out of the greenhouse, thus the greenhouse warms up. The pollutants in the ozone do the same thing.

-The fact that heat waves generated by the greenhouse effect killed thousands.

Debatable. I'm sure there were heatwaves before this. However, certainly there is question about heatwaves in traditionally colder climates that are....odd - not to mention issues such as drought are plaguing the US and global temperatures have risen something like 6 degrees (I think F) in some time frame that I can't remember and floods in various areas due to excess rain....etc. There is no one actual type of weather that suggests we're experiencing global warming (though the rather high number of times that both Pacific and Atlantic oceans have been warmer than usual - El Nino, or is that La Nina? - is probably the biggest one), but together it is giving us a rather concerning trend that links to one logical conclusion: for some reason, the Earth, as a whole, is getting warmer.

-The fact that CO2 is harmful to our environment.

No, it's not. Really high ratios of CO2 relative to O2 is - but we're NO WHERE close to that. O2 is still about 20%, CO2 is still less than 1%. However, in certain major centers, the sheer number of cars, people, and factories make this ratio go whacky. The interesting thing is the city with the second highest cars/capita in North America (Calgary) has much cleaner air than many other industrial centers. Reason: little industry that actually pollutes.

-The fact that CO2 is dangerous on long term to our planet.

CO2 has never gone away. Again, BS

-The fact that pollution can end life prematurely.

Ok

INTENTION:
The intention of the resolution is to start reducing our pollution now. This resolution will target the Automobile Industry. The pollution must be reduced for the future for mankind. Pollution will be cut by this first major step to a greener world.

Debatable. The bigger issue is still consumption

ACTIONS:
1. The United Nations will force [when resolution passed] all nations member to force their Automobile Industry to abolish the manufacturing of fossil fuel car.

*groans
1) Cut the start so the first word is "All". The rest of the line is unnecessary
2) How, pray tell, do you plan to fuel cars? I know one solution, and we actually use more energy making it than it gives us when using it (with our current understanding of science - I continue to invest money into researching because the pure chemical way is not always the best way - as can be proven by the fact that we don't ignite in flames in the process of burning glucose to fuel our bodies)

2. Automobile Industries worldwide [Only members of the UN when resolution passed] will replace their fossil fuel car industry by hybrid, hydrogen, and electrical car industry.

Well....let's see

Fossil fuel user, impractical, fossil fuel user (or unusable for long distance trips)

Hybrid (and I think electrical, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the same thing, or if Electrical works purely on stored electricity) uses fossil fuels combined with stored electrical energy to power itself. It uses both because you can't store enough energy to equate to even close to a full tank of gas and (more importantly), gas can be refilled in 10 minutes at the pumps, electricity in several hours. Also, you have to consider what sort of fuel is being used at the power plants, and whether your current power plants could handle this sudden increase in load of all the new power demands of powering the insane number of cars that are owned by the people. For example, the power plants where I live (in oil-town Alberta) use coal (yep, we use a dirtier method to produce power - because oil is worth more to sell.....). Considering energy loss on power lines, energy deterioration if its stored, etc, I hurt the environment more by plugging in my car (well, ok, my parents' car) than by just dumping more fuel in it

Hydrogen was the form of fuel I mentioned above where we currently are using more energy to produce than we get when we consume it

3. During the construction of new structures allowing the manufacture of hybrid, hydrogen, and electrical cars, Nationals Governments must ensure that the construction of new structures pollutes at least 1/3 less than what a normal industrial construction site does today.

manufacture->production
Nationals -> National
structures (all instances)-> buildings (or factories)
normal ->standard (or average)
"pollutes at least 1/3 less" -> "produces at least 1/3 less pollution"

4. The new cars must emit, as a maximum, 49% of CO2 of a what a car produces today [depending on the average of each categories of cars]

I'm actually more afraid of Hydrogen cars producing too much H20 (vapor)

5. National Governments have the responsibility to shut down any Automobile Manufacture that refuses to comply with this resolution.

Manufacture -> Manufacturer

The passing of this resolution will take effect immediately.

Remove. Unnecessary

Voting Ends: Fri Aug 26 2005[/QUOTE]

Overall, unsupportable position

Yes, Hybrid runs half on gas. But, it generate less CO2 than other cars. CO2 are harfum, denying it is just dumb. Lock yourself in a garage, start your car, and stay there for like 30 minutes, your probably gonna feel it hit you.

Yes, Hybrid runs half on gas. But, it generate less CO2 than other cars. CO2 are harfum, denying it is just dumb. Lock yourself in a garage, start your car, and stay there for like 30 minutes, your probably gonna feel it hit you.

I'm not denying it - article one makes it so that you can't have ANY car that runs on fossil fuels - even if it's a hybrid engine - so therefore, it just was made illegal by this very same resolution (which was my point!)

And CO2 is dangerous when it gets to about 15-20% proportion in air - about where most oxygen normally is (for the average person).

Just thought I point out that cars relase CO3, not CO2. CO2 is good, plants use it, and they make our O from it. CO3 is bad.

Kneejerk pseudoscience aside, this resolution is truly unnecessary. Not only does it offer no viable solution to the problem it supposedly "corrects", but it overstates the effect of carbon dioxide while ignoring the real reasons why fossil fuel powered cars must eventually change - fossil fuels are nonrenewable (in reasonable spans of time). As indicated by others, hydrogen fuel is impractical because it isn't widely available, and more importantly, it takes more energy to produce than can be gained. Unless one has a large supply of pure hydrogen somewhere, it has to be created from other materials, all methods of doing which will be more costly in terms of energy than can be derived from burning it later. Also, hydrogen is rather explosive, which could cause a problem should a fuel cell detonate. Of course, gasoline-powered vehicles have this problem, but hydrogen is orders of magnitude more volatile than gasoline.

Electrically powered vehicles might work, but the primary reason for that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions, and everything to do with the origin of the electrical power. Electricity can be derived from many sources, some of which are renewable, and many of which are more abundant than oil. The problem is that it is difficult to store electricity over long periods of time (it naturally dissipates). This is why power plants need to estimate the level of power consumption needed in an area for a given day so as to not create too large a surplus.

Thus, in conclusion, the proposal as written addresses an important point, namely the difficulties of maintaining fossil fuels in powering automobiles, but does so by focusing on the wrong aspect - carbon dioxide. Instead, by focusing on the nonrenewability of oil, eliminating the garbage about hydrogen, and adding in language about fuel efficiency, hybrid vehicles, and electrical power, a stronger proposal could emerge. Then again, some NS players don't refer back to real-life situations, and may claim sufficiency in fossil fuel levels. In that case, all bets are off.

CO3 (-2) is a carbonate ion (H2CO3 is carbonic acid). I don't know of any process by which this would be formed by combustion of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels does produce CO2 and CO, the latter of which is nastier than the former. Limestone contains a good deal of calcium carbonate, for example, which is not harmful. O3 is ozone, and that is quite harmful to our lungs and mucous membranes, but essential in the upper atmosphere to absorb UV radiation from the sun.

I could be mistaken, however, if there is a nonionic form of CO3 of which I am unaware.

You, you guys are right, tree need CO2. But we are creating excedes of CO2 right now. Plus, we are eliminating trees in a lot of countries. So, we have to get rid of that exede. Doesn't mean that we should not wait and do notthing. Cars emit others gases too huh.

You aren't listening. While your reasons and hopes are logical and applaudable, your science is wrong, your focus is off (for example: as many, including myself, have pointed out, CO is a greater threat than CO2), and the practicality of your resolution is...well....unrealistic to say the least.

No one is saying we need CO2 for plants, nor is no one claiming that there isn't a concerning increase in CO2. We are saying this isn't the solution. This solution is unfeasable and could easily do more harm than good. The technology to make this proposal feasable is still a bit off.

What has been suggested:
1) Keep the stuff about hybrid and electric
2) Work on consumption/fuel efficiency
3) DROP the Hydrogen power stuff. Normally, we'd say make it so that you promote hydrogen fuel research, but that's already been done (Resolution 21?) so it's more likely going to get your proposal deleted than help it (due to duplication infraction).
4) STOP focusing on CO2. It's bad science and flawed arguments. CO2 is far from the most dangerous item; it certainly isn't destroying the ozone, and we simply will never hit a point where CO2 will hit dangerous levels in the actual environment while we're still alive (I mean as a species). We'll be starving the air of oxygen, melting our skin off, and suffocating from CO or carbon particulate or victims of nuclear war before this happens. It is better to use the fact that automobiles are the second biggest polluter (as a category) in the world right now (does anyone know who's #1?) and the effects of pollution in general.
5) Heat waves are not an indication of global warming on their own. Again, don't use bad science.

There's already a hydrogen powered cars resolution on the books, unless it got repealed when I wasn't looking-- thus this proposal is redundant.

There's already a hydrogen powered cars resolution on the books, unless it got repealed when I wasn't looking-- thus this proposal is redundant.

Actually, in its current form, it doesn't duplicate (believe it or not)

Actually, in its current form, it doesn't duplicate (believe it or not)

Is this due to the fact that the first one is so badly written, that this one is also as bad, or both? -_-;

Ahhhh instaad of putting CO i put CO2... I know something wasn't right...

Is this due to the fact that the first one is so badly written, that this one is also as bad, or both? -_-;

First one was too limited in scope - only addressed funding for research in UN nations (and, through consequence, promotion of research for hydrogen fuel). The actual use of cars that use hydrogen fuel is....unlegislated. Considering the fact that its a miniscule overlap if existing at all, considering the fact that it is a minor point in this proposal (one part of one article), the mods aren't going to delete for duplication.

Being one of the larger auto makers in the UN, I thoroughly support this proposal.


Hey we just make the darn things...It really doesn't matter how they run.

You know if you put solar panels on the outside of a car, you almost guarantee never needing a jump.

Pollution fighting has to start somewhere.

Is this due to the fact that the first one is so badly written, that this one is also as bad, or both? -_-;
Well let's take a look at the resolution is question shall we,
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!!!
All this does is say that we need to start developing hydrogen powered cars, it doesn't require us to actually produce any, so there's no conflict.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Wrong on so many levels...

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Why would it be wrong to step in the right directions?
Maybe points have been wrongly said onthe proposition, but still.

Hey - it can start anywhere we want. However, let's start it by using intelligence instead of foolhardy urgings, facts instead of false data, and actually implement ideas that, at this point in time, would actually REDUCE pollution rather than increase it. The fact that this resolution contradicts itself (Hybrids still use fuel - and non-renewable fuels at that) is a significant indicator that not enough thought went into it. We've given you things you can do to improve it. I advise you take them and write the next draft. This draft is not going to be approved.

Oh - and that's part of the reason why TH said it's wrong. He's not talking about the direction, he's talking about the step that was taken. If you took a step to start crossing the river, but missed the bridge when you put the foot down, was that a good step - even if it was a step in the right direction?

Hey - it can start anywhere we want. However, let's start it by using intelligence instead of foolhardy urgings, facts instead of false data, and actually implement ideas that, at this point in time, would actually REDUCE pollution rather than increase it. The fact that this resolution contradicts itself (Hybrids still use fuel - and non-renewable fuels at that) is a significant indicator that not enough thought went into it. We've given you things you can do to improve it. I advise you take them and write the next draft. This draft is not going to be approved.

Oh - and that's part of the reason why TH said it's wrong. He's not talking about the direction, he's talking about the step that was taken. If you took a step to start crossing the river, but missed the bridge when you put the foot down, was that a good step - even if it was a step in the right direction?

There's a few tweaks here and there.

Change fossil fuel cars to the Combustion Automotive Vehicles ( CAV for short, but add that).

Add Military and National security Agencies exemptions.

Add a Bio-diesel or Bio-fuel exemption for CAVs (like propane powered automobiles, this will lesson the impact on developing Nations, since they only have to convert CAV's from fossil fuel to a bio-fuel instead of replacing the entire car).

rephrase a few things here and there...

And I think the proposal would be 90% there, if not higher.

Its to radical this proposal. How are poor'er nations suppose to adopt this new policy? The citizens of many nations can barely buy a used old beat up car for couple houndred dollers. Now they have to but envoirmental friendly cars? Thats not realistic at all. Its way to radical, maybe later on

This proposal seems like a very good one, I often do not support environmental policies but this one has my full backing. I generally don't support environmental policies because the environmentalists that come up with these policies usually refuse to work within the realms of possibility and set unrealistic goals; but this proposal seems to be very sensible and realistic, I commend you. It's refreshing to see an environmental proposal that makes a great deal of sense and damages industries (in this case the car industry) by only a minimal amount. If this resolution comes to a UN vote it will have my support.

Its to radical this proposal. How are poor'er nations suppose to adopt this new policy? The citizens of many nations can barely buy a used old beat up car for couple houndred dollers. Now they have to but envoirmental friendly cars? Thats not realistic at all. Its way to radical, maybe later on

All about suply and demand.

Its to radical this proposal. How are poor'er nations suppose to adopt this new policy? The citizens of many nations can barely buy a used old beat up car for couple houndred dollers. Now they have to but envoirmental friendly cars? Thats not realistic at all. Its way to radical, maybe later on

Cmabland is right if car prices go up less people will buy them, thus the price of cars falls as companies will lower their prices in order to still make profits. If this proposed resolution was adopted it will affect richer countries more because more people are likely to still buy the cars despite the higher price in rich nations because people have more money, meaning the price of a car would remain high. This resolution would help poorer countries the most since the people of poorer nations would, in the long run, get a more environmentally friendly car but at the same price that they had previously paid for older cars.

Ok I know this is a real world problem - but there's actually not enough platinum in the world to replace the engines of normal cars... so unless a new catalyst (that what the platinum does right?) is found then you're arguing a moot point -

If you want less emissions you should also factor in behaviour which will make up most of it - encourage carpooling, use of public transport, decreased use of cars for small journeys, increased use of bikes/walking

New Hamilton beat me to it when they proposed putting in an exception for bio-fuel. How about also making catalytic converters mandatory?

Its to radical this proposal. How are poor'er nations suppose to adopt this new policy? The citizens of many nations can barely buy a used old beat up car for couple houndred dollers. Now they have to but envoirmental friendly cars? Thats not realistic at all. Its way to radical, maybe later on

I do think it needs a Bio-fuel clause.

In fact bio-fuel would be a more sound choice for a Developing Nation than fossil fuels.

Any Nation can produce Ethanol but not every Nation has oil.

And by producing their own Bio-fuel, they can keep their money in their boarders.





But all in all, I think time of the fossil fueled Combustion engine has long gone. It's 100 year old technology that is destroying our planet (Leading cause of Global warming).

I have yet to see a resolution which would so completely destroy the world economy. Was this not thought out at all. And if it was than you need a new thinking platform.

Sustainability is about balancing economy, social and environmental concerns - you can't have just one.

Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs

Maybe you need a new thinking platform?