NationStates Jolt Archive

BEING a fact that the burning of Fossil Fuels in order to make electricity is fast destroying the environment.

AWARE that there are other means of making electricity other than Solar Panels and Fossil Fuels.

NOTING that Solar Panels provide each home with the most reliable source of electricity.

REALISING the expense that the promotion of Solar Panels incurs,

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all it's members will -
1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work.

2) Will set aside an amount of government funds going to the environment into the project of manufacturing and distributing Solar Panels.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project.

ASSUMING and REALSING that not all nations may be able to make the transition in the time period given above -
1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation depending on the amount of wealth of the nation.

MAKING note that -

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.

FINALLY NOTING that the mass introduction of Solar Panels everywhere will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.

I would appreciate all Delegate approvals if you like the proposal. Voting ends Tuesday 30th.

Thanks ;)
Starcra.

We believe any proposal that empowers Nations with energy Independence. Is a good proposal.

we approved it

When you say "the Ozone Layer," you mean to say "Global Warming," right? The Ozone Layer has absolutely nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels or melting ice caps.

Though I'm not sure how fossil fuels affect such things community gardens, either.

At the most technical of levels, I oppose it - just something about my belief in the need for thorough editing. However, if it were to come to a vote, I will support it. I disagree with the statement that it is the most reliable form of energy insofar as it is the most reliable in terms of the actual equipment, but the source of energy is less than reliable - being available for only half a day on average - sometimes, in some nations, disappearing for days on end. Add on that, on average, 50% of the world is covered by cloud. By sheer probability, you're looking at these power sources only being able to collect power, on average, for 25% of the time. That said, a planetary electrical network that is hooked up to these solar panels means that we'd be able to supply energy to the entire planet at all times.

I also have a minor complaint about the science of global warming thanks to the by-products of burning fossil fuels, but the end result (including, but not limited to, the polar ice caps melting) is the same.

As I said, at the most technical of levels....

the source of energy is less than reliable - being available for only half a day on average - sometimes, in some nations, disappearing for days on end. Add on that, on average, 50% of the world is covered by cloud. By sheer probability, you're looking at these power sources only being able to collect power, on average, for 25% of the time.

we support this resolution, but we must agree with the remark of Forgottenlands

While the proposal author no doubt has good intentions, one must question his technical knowledge.

One must point out that it is quite impossible to run, say, a steel mill, using entirely solar power. There are many other power intensive industries that would be similarly affected.

One must also point out the inherent inefficiencies of solar panels as well as the many toxic byproducts from their construction. Finally, one must point out that as solar panels are useless at night and when it is cloudy.

One therefore points out that expecting solar panels to completely replace fossil fuels is quite impossible unless the author wishes for industrialized society as we know it to screech to a halt.

Thank you for all your feed back (And support if you approved it)

Greater Boblandia - The Ozone layer is what help create the greenhouse effect which causes global warming and melts the ice caps. Also, Fossil fuels, when burnt create pollution in the air, which affects the general environment such as community gardens.

Forgottenlands - I understand what you're trying to say, however you must take into consideration that one 24 hour period of sun is enough to last for a year, so assuming a country gets 12 hours of clear sunshine, that's lasting for about 6 months. (This is assuming the visibility is 100 % throughout all the 12 hours)

Axis Nova - Any nation has it in his/her right to introduce other methods of achieving electricity so long as it does not include the burning of fossil fuels and includes solar panels.

Thanks again to everyone for their responces.

When you say "the Ozone Layer," you mean to say "Global Warming," right? The Ozone Layer has absolutely nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels or melting ice caps.

In case there's any confusion, I've looked up some data on the differences between ozone deterioration and greenhouse gases :).

From here:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/what.html


The difference between the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion is often a source of confusion.

Both are important environmental issues. They are related, but different. Both result from chemicals released into the atmosphere by humans.

The greenhouse effect refers to the ability of some gases, known as the greenhouse gases, to trap heat within the atmosphere. These gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would not be possible. The problem is that we are increasing the greenhouse effect, and this is likely to change the earth's climate.

Ozone depletion refers to the destruction of the ozone layer, the commonly used name for a part of the atmosphere about 20 to 30 kilometres above the earth. The ozone layer prevents the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Exposure to this radiation can cause skin cancer, eye damage and other health problems.

Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons (known as CFCs, and which are also powerful greenhouse gases) and halons. These chemicals destroy atmospheric ozone. Ozone depletion has occurred since the late 1970s and in many parts of the planet more ultraviolet radiation reaches the Earth's surface than in the past.

Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is believed to have caused the upper part of the atmosphere to become cooler. At the Earth's surface, however, pollution has increased the amount of ozone, which is believed to have caused some warming.

Link to Environment Australia web site: www.ea.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone


If I remember my chemistry well enough, ozone deterioration occurs because CFC's and halons can break down in the atmosphere to form free radical(s) which then create a chain reaction of conversion of O3 into O2 or H2O2 or some other Oxide which lacks the positive properties of Ozone (deflecting UV rays). Greenhouse gases on the other hand do not require a breaking down of their molecular structure to create a harmful effect. In fact, greenhouse gases are dangerous because they do, essentially, what intact ozone does: reflect energy. Except greenhouse gases can reflect it back towards the surface of the earth, rather than out from earths outer armosphere.

So, according to my understanding, greenhouses gases are dangerous because they are reflecting energy, and ozone molecules are dangerous when they can't reflect energy when they are broken down by free radicals from organic molecules containing chlorine or fluorine.

Cheers Powerhungry,

But they are related then when it comes to my proposal and the argument that the burning of the fossil fuels causes both.

In other news, my Proposal achieved quorum so thanks to everyone who supported it :).

ASSUMING and REALSING that not all nations may be able to make the transition in the time period given above -

...

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation depending on the amount of wealth of the nation.
Heh. That seems to mean that since my nation is wealthy (and my government is willing to "share" that wealth with UN officials) I can get an extension of time. I mean, I'm sure it was meant to mean that poor nations could get extensions, but it never mentions low wealth as a signal for extension. It just says that the time extensions will be based on "wealth"...

"So, can a few hundred thousand of my green and red friends persuade you to extend my deadline, say, indefinitely?"

Cheers Powerhungry,

But they are related then when it comes to my proposal and the argument that the burning of the fossil fuels causes both.
That's just it: CFC's and Halons (which break down the ozone) aren't products of fossil fuels, they're products of aerosol cans and refridgerators and so forth.

Poor science, an unreasonably narrow view of viable solutions to the environmental issues concerned and an outrageously punitive prescription: could this be the straw that breaks many a grudging UN camel's back?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

But it is a common fact, common knowledge, that the fumes from the burning of fossil fuels is thinning away the ozone layer.

But it is a common fact, common knowledge, that the fumes from the burning of fossil fuels is thinning away the ozone layer.

This is false.

This is false.

No it is not.

This website (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html) proves what I'm saying.

Here, is an extract

Aerosols are emitted naturally (e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as the result of human activities (e.g., by burning fossil fuels)

No it is not.

This website (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html) proves what I'm saying.

Here, is an extract

Aerosols are not, in fact, causes of depletion of ozone. One form of aerosol, CFCs, is.

Fossil Fuel burning is much less concerning in the effect of "thinning" the ozone (if it does that at all) than it is about creating a greenhouse effect. The extra water vapor and carbon dioxide (not to mention carbon monoxide and carbon particulate) in the ozone thanks to the burning of fossil fuels do wonders at trapping energy on the surface. The concept of fossil fuels depleting the atmosphere is a....weak argument at best. At worst, it'll actually hurt your battle because of the falsity of that statement.

Also, I take issue at the "24hrs = 1 year" concept. The problem this planet has right now more than ANYTHING else is the fact that consumption of energy is on the rise, even though the energy being invested into the planet (arguably) hasn't changed. A Solar power cell can only supply so much energy. Further, you also need to take into consideration the issue of storing power - which is not exactly the easiest thing to do, and certainly made even more difficult when you want to take an issue like efficiency of storage and deterioration of power into consideration. Unless you're proposing the charge of massive batteries (which has its own environmental considerations in its own right), you're back to the question of planetary electrical network (which will be enough to sustain the planet, but without it, the viability of this project is questionable).

Regardless, I need to see your source on the 24hrs = 1year

Let's see the quote in context.
Aerosol:
1) small droplet or particle suspended in the atmosphere, typically containing sulfur
Aerosols are emitted naturally (e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as the result of human activities (e.g., by burning fossil fuels). There is no connection between particulate aerosols and pressurized products also called aerosols (see below).
Hm, seems that what you quoted was part of the definition of the word aerosol.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll find the proof of the 24 hours = 365 days thing later, as well as answer all your other questions, but I'd like to point out a part of the proposal everyone seems to have missed.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with any environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

Cheers,
Starcra

Let's see the quote in context.

Hm, seems that what you quoted was part of the definition of the word aerosol.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Now to reply to that -

That makes no difference, the aerosel it mentions is the one that damages the ozone, it's just acknowledging that the other aeresol(The product) is not connected to the ozone-damaging one(air particles cause by the burning of fossil fuels).

Now to reply to that -

That makes no difference, the aerosel it mentions is the one that damages the ozone, it's just acknowledging that the other aeresol(The product) is not connected to the ozone-damaging one(air particles cause by the burning of fossil fuels).
Let's get away from aerosol for a moment. Aerosol is a fairly unimportant nomenclature that really, as Forgottenlands points out, has no bearing on what does or does not deplete ozone.

Let's, instead, focus on the chemistry. CFC's (e.g. CF4, CCl4 etc.) deplete ozone by breaking it down from O3 into O2 and other Oxygen-based substances (I believe among them hydroxides and such). The recation involves a free radical, F- or Cl-, breaking off of the organic molecule and creating a series of reactions of an Ozone molecule breaking apart and forming anopther free radical, whic hmoves on to another ozone and breaks down another ozone molecule, etc.

CFC's are, almost 99.9% of the time, not products of fossil fuel use. Fossil Fuels create energy through what's called a combustion reaction. A hydrocarbon (say, Methane CH4) is broken down in the prescence of Oxygen (O2) to create Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Water (H2O). The reaction looks like this:

CH4(g) + O2(g) -(delta J)-> CO2(g) + H2O(g) + Energy(in J)

It is the creation of these gases that creates global warming, and the reason some people are against fossil fuel use. These gases are not CFC's. There is not a Chlorine or Fluroine atom anywhere in the equation, or just about any other combustion equation used in industrial fossil fuel comustion. These gases, however reprehensible their creation, cannot be the cause of Ozone depletion.

Back to aerosols, aerosols are not the name of a substance that depletes ozone, but the name of a state those substances (CFC's) are often released in:Aerosols are powders, or droplets, suspended in a gas, with a typical particle diameter of about one micrometer. (from here: http://www.aerosol-soc.org.uk/aerosols.asp)

If this is accurate, then it doesn't matter if aerosols are naturally occuring as aerosols are not what is depleting ozone, but rather, what is in aerosol form (CFC's). I would suspect the aerosol produced by human burning of fossil fuels (the article you quoted) is referring to smoke, or uncombusted hydrocarbons that are emitted from mufflers, smokestacks, etc. Regardless of them being in aerosol form, they are not CFC's and thus do not break down O3.

I'm not a chemistry student so I don't understand a lot of the equation and symbols you used, but what you said seemed reasonable.

No fossil fuels to be exploited in ten years from now. This, for us, is too prohibitive. It's another example of a proposal where we would have little trouble with compliance, yet remain unpersuaded of the merit of applying such measures in wholesale fashion.

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Starcra II

Description: BEING a fact that the burning of Fossil Fuels in order to make electricity is fast destroying the environment.

AWARE that there are other means of making electricity other than Solar Panels and Fossil Fuels.

NOTING that Solar Panels provide each home with the most reliable source of electricity.

REALISING the expense that the promotion of Solar Panels incurs,

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all it's members will -
1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work.

2) Will set aside an amount of government funds going to the environment into the project of manufacturing and distributing Solar Panels.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project.

ASSUMING and REALSING that not all nations may be able to make the transition in the time period given above -
1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation depending on the amount of wealth of the nation.

MAKING note that -

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.

FINALLY NOTING that the mass introduction of Solar Panels everywhere will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.

Approvals: 309 (Neo-Pangaea, Love and esterel, Republic of Freedonia, OBSA, Shiaze, Eve the First, Mikeswill, Cmabland, Betelgeuse XII, The Tri Alliance, Clintoned, Albinis, Kapellen, New Hamilton, Blamange, Sobusa, Kittycow, Mommy D, Darth Mall, Traffic Lights 2, Sinsvyka, Brunelian BG advocates, Theorb, Iustinia, Smiley Icons, Velenora, Synnenodel, Gaiah, Jamesburgh, Englandlland, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Yugobolvaniaria, Novaya Zemlaya, Unsubstantiation, Caradune, Eastern Martinsylvania, Luxus Mond, Nelvaan, Aquarian Arcadia, Isistan, Yissing Scalies, Freedom in Tibet, Blauhimmel, SouthFerns, Kypseli, Newcastle Seperate, Gunfreak, Eldin, Super Shiny Happy PPL, Waterana, Purpleation, Green Wik, Jolaba, Ostrichstan, Rioki, Faradawn, Naaaaaaaaaavanites, Gitchee Manitou, The Shaft, Baudrillard, Trillobytes, Intangelon, Moborith, Anteitam, True-wisdom, Phatom Pirates, Bordoria, Rycochenia, The Talisman, Of Cascadia, WZ Forums, Basilicata Potenza, Caer Rialis, Elika, Rolling Stone, Not So Bad, The Grand Mystic, Vathras, PEEB, Jusma Kullailie, Knakworst, Harafat, Worldia555, Aris-Connistan, Fergistania, Dsjtuj, Jello Biafra, Richard2008, Al Tira, Athens and Midlands, Gaelen, SovietRepublicofRussia, Arnoc, Lunaria Mirandia, New Rootopia, Yentay, Lumberjacks and Ninjas, Balboa Island, Bibbletang, Vanilla Cake, Zadinya, The Amazingly Crooked, Aldurr, Elvish Fondue, The Great Bud, Karl-topia, Palteau, Skandango, Jimoria, Spiritbw, Ychat, Serenitacious Sereness, Wondering Beavers, Bakaraka, Ant e dopping, Pines, Laurinians, Guiuan, Spaz Land, McGranaghanataria, Lyonors, Leonstein, Eatpieville, Chaucerin, Aborlau, Bloody Heck, Kowalskistan, Xelleron, Hosepipes, Carainia, Leylsh, Rullan, Tzorsland, Thereunto, Calisan, Judices, Flecs, Setats Deilla, Finbergia, My Oedipus Complex, JOHNATHAN CENA, Sel Appa, Norma Dia, The Great Giggles, Cole-slaw, EntParadise, Neff Union, Tangentopoli, Tatuk, Liberialand, Jey, Hogs Head, AwalKB, Shazbotdom, Aztec National League, Anarcho - Syndicalism, The Tennessee River, Arkimus, The moon wolf, Bobaflex warriors, The Zeph, Ytre Himmel, Bellaben, Skyscraper Island, Zoetopiaa, Garlie, Eneres, Parudai, Southwest Asia, KnowBeDo, Kavenna, Shabish, Bobton-on-sea, United States of Mars, Nordur, Insequa, BlueTiger, Mouseincheek, GVincent, Greater Tiki, The EGI, Sobri, Callisdrun, CZJ, Lofeca, The County of Worksop, Warabania, McBootle, Dun Eideann, Peace love and spatula, Forumwalker, Liek, Blah Meh To Death, Manhattan Prime, Beezer, Denbur, The Bruce, Corona Drinkers, Spooky Cthulu, Flowie, New Fantasticland, YaAllWantASingle, Pmace, Libera Insubria, Teatroia, Freedomstaki, New Orkland, JMayo, Kansas and Wisconsin, Italia Major, Betas, Punrovia, Elghinn, Jjuulliiaann, Upper Gornal, The Most Majestic Stu, Omegastar, Two Forks, Katheryne, Raregrove, Lunatic Retard Robots, Pongo-Pongo, Kevin Islands, Danitoria, Acroppolis, Gymnophobia, Witchcraft Wizardry, Dragonions, Snello, Crusaders Kingdom, The Iron Curten, Moroboshi, Jacordia, Emochny, Gerolsteiner, Maxovia, Soulja slim, Humabon, Realta Banrion, Lord Teufel, New Javert, Mi Mi Wu, Hakenium, Lythonia, Homieville, Schlonoic, The WYN starcluster, Olworth, Blue Buddhas, Bizshraff, Sinaasappel, Karaghord, Absolutely Anywhere, Universitus, Josquinia, The United Animals, Tsel, BrCru, The Louis Islands, Bucknerdom, Alfred and Garfield, Drunken Butterfly, Catholic Stoners, Desartha, Morvonia, Sincracy, Dmytri, Tir, Freedom For Most, Hypnotic Waves, Ireland eye, The Socialist Canadian, New Modern Egypt, Luna Amore, Jaghur, Crazyvichistan, Gateborg, Koalatea, L-A-S, Anser, FC Dallas, North Dutchfieldia, Freedmark, FWEDD, Maciavely, Scheelia, Gadiristan, Siull, Marion Oaks 2, Winterdom, UntamedFangirls, Pharan, Cornflake Gremlins, Conchland, The 1st Kemdoph Army, Hysnia, Seattletonia, Klashonite, Aneioeica, King Islands, Holyguard, Costanzia, Entropyville, Nevareion, Rhinoceros, Absimlard, Saint Jorge, USSNA, The Free Dragons)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

If this passes, I have no choice but to be in permanent noncompliance.

This thing didn't die in miserable oblivion? Do these 309 people realize that the Ozone layer and global warming have NOTHING to do with each other? Do they really think that fossil fuels are destroying our oceans and "community gardens"?

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.
Eh? This seems a bit severe and restrictive to me. What about FT nations who have developed something better than solar panels? And the way I'm reading it, even if a nation develops something better they still must use it in conjunction with solar panels. Another thing, what about industries such as steel which require intense heat in their manufacturing process?

[The FT portion is why I cannot be in compliance. The nearest star to my nation is about six lightyears away at the moment. The distance is variable, of course.]

This thing didn't die in miserable oblivion? Do these 309 people realize that the Ozone layer and global warming have NOTHING to do with each other? Do they really think that fossil fuels are destroying our oceans and "community gardens"?

No, I don't. On the other hand, using solar panels over things like oil prevent accidents like oil spills, making the environment cleaner. Also, the sun isn't going to run out of energy anytime soon.

Bumping so that everyone knows this is the official topic for this resolution.

Cheers ;)
Dgdg

Guys, lets wait until it becomes the proposal for vote, then I'll take my resolution paragraph by paragraph and describe it further in case you missed something. Then, if you still have concerns questions, ask them to me again.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Originally Posted by [NS]BlueTiger
No, I don't. On the other hand, using solar panels over things like oil prevent accidents like oil spills, making the environment cleaner. Also, the sun isn't going to run out of energy anytime soon.
Preventing oil spills could be done via methods far less drastic than the complete abolition of fossil fuel buring. Resolution 11, for example, has already banned single-hulled oil tankers. Really, the steps this resolution takes are impractical to an extreme.

I made a mistake in my posting of a topic without searching far enough.

agreed

I made a mistake in my posting of a topic without searching far enough.

No worries mate ;) All Good and sorted ^_^.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I'll find the proof of the 24 hours = 365 days thing later,
I doubt it. The TOTAL OUTPUT of the solar energy hitting the Earth in any given day might in fact be equivalent to a year's worth of energy consumption by the people of Earth, but a) you're not covering the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, b) solar panels are not particularly efficient at capturing the energy output that strikes them, and c) solar panels do not appear instantly upon demand. The energy cost to create them may not justify the energy generated from them over their effective lifetime. The possibility of capturing and storing a year's supply of energy in a couple of 12 hour periods is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It's Bad Science.

This proposal, as written, would be the most economically catastrophic UN proposal ever voted on by this body, due to the requirement of utterly changing the way the world uses energy. I urge all UN members to vote AGAINST.

I doubt it. The TOTAL OUTPUT of the solar energy hitting the Earth in any given day might in fact be equivalent to a year's worth of energy consumption by the people of Earth, but a) you're not covering the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, b) solar panels are not particularly efficient at capturing the energy output that strikes them, and c) solar panels do not appear instantly upon demand. The energy cost to create them may not justify the energy generated from them over their effective lifetime. The possibility of capturing and storing a year's supply of energy in a couple of 12 hour periods is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It's Bad Science.

I've been searching on the internet for the proof, unfortunately I can't find it. It was a note I had taken on a trip to a renewable energy institute. However, I did not take into consideration that we may need to cover the whole NS world. But believe me, Solar Panels in the long term more than justify the energy needed to produce them, much more.

Cheers (Oh and remember I'll be explaining every clause as soon as it goes to vote)
Starcra ;)

Dear Leader has instructed me to pass on our nation's support for this resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN. We will also go beyond the requirements of the Resolution and actively research other alternative methods of power generation. We will also implement joined-up government in this respect to allow interlinking of the various power sources to overcome the very real problem of not enough sun during the course of the day causing power shortages.

My country has noticed an increase in pollution in our airspace. This would be a good way of reducing pollution and saving on our not inconsiderable welfare costs arising from increasing Illness Benefit payouts as a result of pollution related illnesses.

If I had attended debates on this issue before it was submitted as a proposal, (I had unfortunately suffered from a bout of gout,) I would have raised concerns over the issue of the ozone layer mentioned within the text and pressed for its removal. But I still feel that the Resolution as a whole stands up even with this bad science included.

I urge all nations to support this Resolution.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Reducing the amount of air pollution in the world should not come at the cost of regressing to a pre-industrialized state. Once again, this resolution is an absurd solution to a problem better addressed with more reserved methods. For goodness sakes, even primitive blast furnaces are fuelled by charcoal. So where will this resolution leave the U.N.?

As promiced, the paragraph by paragraph description -

BEING a fact that the burning of Fossil Fuels in order to make electricity is fast destroying the environment.

I don't think I need to explain this, it is fast destroying the environment.

AWARE that there are other means of making electricity other than Solar Panels and Fossil Fuels.

Makes a note that other than the main energy sources mentioned, we are aware there are others.

Now this needs explanation -
I was basing this on countries, such as my own in RL and on NS, where sun is abundant at least 10 months a year and can provide the whole country with lots of energy.

However, every populated country(In RL, I don't know if you guys made your nations sun-less) has enough sun to last at least a quarter of the year. For the remaining three quarters see later part of document.

REALISING the expense that the promotion of Solar Panels incurs,

Makes a note that we are not making this proposal/resolution while being ignorant to this fact.

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all it's members will -
1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work.

Simple, such as seminars and in the education syllabus (Assuming your nation has one).

2) Will set aside an amount of government funds going to the environment into the project of manufacturing and distributing Solar Panels.

Basically, as Solar Panels help to improve the environment some funds from each respective government go towards the manufacturing/importing and distributing of Solar Panels throughout their nation.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

An aim for the UN to follow instead of wondering aimlessly.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with any environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

Basically six months after the implementation of Solar Panels, the burning of fossil fuels shall no longer take place and a nation is free to use Solar Panels, and in the event the nation cannot survive on Solar Panels alone, any other environmentally friendly methods (Wind, geothermal, tidal) may be used if they are easier to obtain. The resolution does not restict or promote nuclear energy, that is up to individual governments to decide.

5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project.

This basically is to discuss methods for assisting each other with funds or seeking out new ways of bringing in funds.

ASSUMING and REALSING that not all nations may be able to make the transition in the time period given above -
1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

This takes note that some nations have a slightly worse off economy and may need help. Article one brings up the possibilities of international aid.

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation depending on the amount of wealth of the nation.

Article 2 gives an extension of time for the transition, giving larger periods of time to those with the worst off economies.

MAKING note that -

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

Gives the individual nation freedom when it comes to cost.

2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

I give you the example of acid rain, particularily those nations which are adjacent to each other.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

Fresh Air - No description necessary I believe, pollution that comes from burning the fossil fuels.
Clean Oceans - Waste incurred through burning and the increased risk of an oil spill by importing/exporting.
Community Gardens - Used as an example for the green earth. As fossil fuels are burnt, the substances released into the air ruin such things as trees for example. Along with of course, having to dig them out which may lead to the, at an extreme case, the clearance of a rain forest.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.

Ah. The Big Berta of them all. Let me explain this -

Burning fossil fuels releases substances. These substances mix with the substances released from waste and waste dumps. These together deplete the ozone. The thinner the ozone gets, the more sun comes through, and this sun melts the ice caps. Also, though admittedly it is not made clear in the statement, the burning of fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases which also cause the melting of the polar ice caps.

FINALLY NOTING that the mass introduction of Solar Panels everywhere will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.

An ending note :D.

That's it basically. Now, may I please request that we wait until this is actually moved to the voting page before comments are made. To avoid repetition of statement.

Sincerely,
Starcra ;)

Promoting solar power is obviously a good start towards making sure that all future energy sources, for industrial and domestic purposes, are sustainable and enviromentally friendly. But I dispute whether a period of ten years, seven months, is long enough to implement such changes. Major changes in industrial practice and energy policy would be required and this could be too difficult for some countries, that rely on heavy industry or fossil fuels as key components of their GDP and GNP. Reviewing this would be useful.

Equally, other alternate power sources must be explored, i.e. hydroelectric, geothermic, nuclear (fusion). All of these have great possibilities, particularly nuclear fusion, which could solve almost all our energy problems in one stroke, though naturally this would come with risks.

Finally, there must be greater emphasis on personal energy management, i.e. simple energy preservation, such as turning lights of after leaving a room. This is as important as a clean fuel source, because so much energy is wasted this way and contributes to the problem.

Until these aspects are adressed, we will remain neutral towards the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambssador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'm actually going to withdraw my support from the current draft. Article 4 is bugging me too much. While I agree that Solar Power should be greatly increased, and the timeline given may be useful, to state that it will fully replace oil and gas is...optimistic.

Promoting solar power is obviously a good start towards making sure that all future energy sources, for industrial and domestic purposes, are sustainable and enviromentally friendly. But I dispute whether a period of ten years, seven months, is long enough to implement such changes. Major changes in industrial practice and energy policy would be required and this could be too difficult for some countries, that rely on heavy industry or fossil fuels as key components of their GDP and GNP. Reviewing this would be useful.

Equally, other alternate power sources must be explored, i.e. hydroelectric, geothermic, nuclear (fusion). All of these have great possibilities, particularly nuclear fusion, which could solve almost all our energy problems in one stroke, though naturally this would come with risks.

Finally, there must be greater emphasis on personal energy management, i.e. simple energy preservation, such as turning lights of after leaving a room. This is as important as a clean fuel source, because so much energy is wasted this way and contributes to the problem.

Until these aspects are adressed, we will remain neutral towards the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambssador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.


Just a quick answer before I leave -

Other energy sources are encouraged in this resolution, solar Panels just take a greater 'share', not sure if my answer made sense, I'm a bit tired.

Secondly - The education of individual energy saving is left up to individual nations, it's not up to the UN to decide what or how individual nations will go about promoting energy saving on an individual scale.

Promoting solar power is obviously a good start towards making sure that all future energy sources, for industrial and domestic purposes, are sustainable and enviromentally friendly. But I dispute whether a period of ten years, seven months, is long enough to implement such changes. Major changes in industrial practice and energy policy would be required and this could be too difficult for some countries, that rely on heavy industry or fossil fuels as key components of their GDP and GNP. Reviewing this would be useful.

Equally, other alternate power sources must be explored, i.e. hydroelectric, geothermic, nuclear (fusion). All of these have great possibilities, particularly nuclear fusion, which could solve almost all our energy problems in one stroke, though naturally this would come with risks.

Finally, there must be greater emphasis on personal energy management, i.e. simple energy preservation, such as turning lights of after leaving a room. This is as important as a clean fuel source, because so much energy is wasted this way and contributes to the problem.

Until these aspects are adressed, we will remain neutral towards the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambssador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Our Grand Republic concurs, additionally we would like to say that within the international community we think our first step to promoting environmentally friendly fuels should not be the prohibition of fossil fuels, even over a period of ten years. Financial excepmtions should be the first step (and I assume there are no previous UN resolutions that garuntee that because this would then be an ammendment).

As an aside, we'd like to point out that the first active clause is very ambiguous and can be defined multiple ways:
1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work.

From the desk of Abraham Brogan
Minister of Foriegn Affairs
Central-Eastern NJ

As an aside, we'd like to point out that the first active clause is very ambiguous and can be defined multiple ways:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But if it is what I'm thinking, naturally it would be up to an individual nation, as I think I said before, to decide what type of projects they will take up.
Cheers ;)
Starcra

While I agree with the basic idea, unfortunately, the scale of the proposal is just too much. While not a great fan of the "National Sovereignty" argument used by so many in NationStates UN debates, this, I believe, goes way over that lines.

For my part, I would not be able to guarantee these commitments for my own country (which is pretty wealthy). Poorer countries will be crippled and the costs to nations in colder climates would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

In short, a more moderate proposal would probably have got my support.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But if it is what I'm thinking, naturally it would be up to an individual nation, as I think I said before, to decide what type of projects they will take up.
Cheers ;)
Starcra

Well wait a minute, isn't it already up to each nation what program they will take up (if any)? So the differnece made but this clause would be that having a program would be mandatory?

I don't quite understand how it can masquerade as giving us all choices and than force us to obey such a stringent line.

Also, we concur with Barnabas Butterbur.

Office of Abraham Brogan
Minister of Foriegn Affairs
Monmouth City, Central-Eastern NJ

Whilst we agree in principle with the rapid adoption of alternative energy sources, this proposal is flawed. By focussing on solar energy, its parameters are too narrow. It is too draconian and it is based on bad science. As said before, the hole in the ozone layer, whilst potentially devestating, has nothing to do with global warming.

If the proposal is completely rewritten, with an emphasis on encouraging nations to adopt "green" policies rather than punishing them, Flanagania will vote for it, otherwise, no.

Well wait a minute, isn't it already up to each nation what program they will take up (if any)? So the differnece made but this clause would be that having a program would be mandatory?

I don't quite understand how it can masquerade as giving us all choices and than force us to obey such a stringent line.

Also, we concur with Barnabas Butterbur.

Office of Abraham Brogan
Minister of Foriegn Affairs
Monmouth City, Central-Eastern NJ

Yes, it's already up to the nations. This clause confirms that nothing will change with the exception that a minimal form of promotion be taken up.

As said before, the hole in the ozone layer, whilst potentially devestating, has nothing to do with global warming.

I do not mention the words 'Global Warming' in the resolution. I refer to the holes being made into the ozone, when fossil fuels released chemicals are mixed with waste chemicals, allows more of the sun's heat to come through which then melts the polar ice caps. One can obviously take into pure knowledge that there is also the factor of Global Warming even though it is not mentioned in the resolution.

Makes a note that we are not making this proposal/resolution while being ignorant to this fact.

However we believe you may be ignorant to the degree of cost involved to accomplish what you are demanding in this proposal.

Basically, as Solar Panels help to improve the environment some funds from each respective government go towards the manufacturing/importing and distributing of Solar Panels throughout their nation.

It will take considerably more than "some" funds to replace the energy produced with fossil fuels with energy produced by solar panels. On the order of building planetary diameter orbital solar collectors and really efficient power transmission hardware.

You really should have tried crunching the numbers on this before proposing it.

The average single home in the US (switching to RL for a moment) uses almost 9000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year. In order to provide that kind of power, in a sunny climate, I believe you would need a solar collector capable of putting out about 5 kilowatts under peak conditions (directly illuminated, strong sunlight).

A 1 kilowatt system costs about 9,000 US dollars to produce and install, on average. At least according to these guys (http://www.solarbuzz.com/Consumer/FastFacts.htm) and since they're pro-solar I'll take it on faith they're not over exagerrating the costs. So you're talking about approximately a $45,000US expenditure. Per home. In predominantly SUNNY places like Southern California. And that's not taking into account the power requirements of heavy industry. And where the heck are all these panels supposed to be placed?

We may have supported a resolution that stopped at promoting greater use of solar panels and other alternate enrgy sources, but trying for the total replacement of fossil fuel energy production within 10 years is completely unrealistic.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by flourocarbons. Since the almost complete elimination of flourocarbon use in the last 20yrs, the hole in the ozone layer has almost disappeared.

The proposal, whilst noble in spirit, is weak in substance. Rewrite it.

This proposal is ridiculous. It places an unnecessary burden upon struggling businesses and shall only benefit members of non United Nations States, it has a totally unrealistic timetable, fossil fuels could never be simply disregarded within ten years. It is very similar to the farcical nature of the Kyoto Agreement which was simply ignored by the real pollution generators in the world (China, India). A new proposal should be drafted which argues for increased use of nuclear fission and greater research funds for nuclear fusion which will in the future create huge amounts of energy with basically no radioactive waste.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

- The period is really unrealistic .There is no way Solar Panels could be installed in such a short notice .Therefore , we do not have the luxury of halting the burning of all fossil fuels in the near future .

ASSUMING and REALSING that not all nations may be able to make the transition in the time period given above -
1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

2) A time extension shall be given , the amount will be decided individually for each nation depending on the amount of wealth of the nation .
- We highly doubt the fact that extremely rich and powerful nations would be willing to participate at aiding all the others who just aren't capable of helping themselves. This is one problem . The other is that the time extension could go on forever ! Let's put it this way : we have an extremely poor nation which cannot finish the project in time (let's assume that 25% of all homes would have solar panels in 10 years time) . It would then need another 30 years. That's kind of a long , isn't it ?

MAKING note that -

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.
- We ask how will it be possible for all Solar Panels to have the same features since some of them would be a lot cheaper than others. A standard ought to be adopted.

- As a conclusion : although we all agree with the fact that alternative energy sources must be adopted as soon as possible , we sugest a little more caution . Action should not be taken hastily . We will consult other nations in our regions , but at this moment we oppose the Solar Panel Resolution . It can have disastrous consequences .

Looks like a good enough proposal that I'll support when it comes up for vote.

Pity about the ASSUMING and REALSING typo though.

While the government of The Allied States of Rabetia agrees with the general principles of this resolution, we cannot vote for it at its current state. The reasons for this have mostly been explained by the leaders of other UN members already, so it would be very redundant to list them again. Let it be noted that a proposal for replacing fossil fuels with environmentally cleaner sources of power in a reasonable timespan will certainly not be opposed by Rabetia.

Whilst we agree in principle with the rapid adoption of alternative energy sources, this proposal is flawed. By focussing on solar energy, its parameters are too narrow. It is too draconian and it is based on bad science. As said before, the hole in the ozone layer, whilst potentially devestating, has nothing to do with global warming.

Good thing the ozone layer isn't mentioned in the resolution then, eh? However the burning of fossil fuels does create a large environmental hazard, apart from not being renewable (at least not fast enough to keep up with current use).

It would have been better if it'd been more broad, not just solar panels, but I see very little wrong with this resolution.

If the proposal is completely rewritten, with an emphasis on encouraging nations to adopt "green" policies rather than punishing them, Flanagania will vote for it, otherwise, no.

So you prefer a weak resolution that nobody will follow? Whether in the NS world or the Real World, nations will ignore "encouraging" resolutions, while they are more likely to follow punishing resolutions. The environment is nobody's possession, so everybody pillages it to get the most advantage. And then one day, the cake runs out and we're in trouble, but the decisionmakers have already pocketed their money by then. It's good that someone tries to force some common sense to all UN nations. it will also make solar energy a lot cheaper, which is an advantage. Soon we'll laugh at the silly oil-using countries!

This proposal, as written, would be the most economically catastrophic UN proposal ever voted on by this body, due to the requirement of utterly changing the way the world uses energy. I urge all UN members to vote AGAINST.

How would the economic catastrophe compare to running out of fossil fuels?

Good thing the ozone layer isn't mentioned in the resolution then, eh?

It actually is.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.

Canada6 will be voting against this proposal. It is a horrid aberration.

We support the use of Solar Energy, but Canada6 feels that it is a clear demonstration of lack of knowledge concerning clean, renewable energy sources, and an assassination of individual freedom when any nation forces upon it's citizens, solar energy sources while disregarding many others. It is scientificaly and morally wrong to abandon so many perfectly good, renewable, eco-friendly energy sources.

Water-mills
Wind-mills
Geothermal energy

We also have sustainable energy sources:

Nuclear-Power plants.

None of these energy sources, pollute, and they require many highly trained employees, many of which are engineers and technicians. Solar panels require little, and will cuase the loss of jobs as other energy sources are abandoned.

On with the critique:

NOTING that Solar Panels provide each home with the most reliable source of electricity.No it does not. There are SEVERAL energy sources that are alot more reliable than solar panels.

Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.Canada6 feels that the cumpulsory installation of solar panels is a valuable measure, however the 'ten years and a month' period is the most proposterous time table Canada6 has ever come across.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce. Canada6 feels that the long term goal of halting all burning of fossil fuels is worth pursuing. However. The blunt statement, 'and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels', is ridiculous. There are SEVERAL more reliable sources than the sun, that produce energy in far greater ratios, of production. A full replacement and dependancy on Solar Energy is impossible, impractical, and absurd.

2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps. Yes fossil fuels pollute and damage the environment and have several effects on public health, etc, etc, etc.
Canada6 is fully aware of all this and has supported construction of Water-Mills in dams, reservoirs, and rivers, as well as Nuclear Power stations. In terms of limiting how free our children and future generations will be in the world... I forsee MANY individual freedoms going down the drain with the passing of this resolution. The Government should not impose an energy source upon it's citizens forcefully. Canada6 will never stand for this resolution.

Canada6 will vote against this awfull resolution, and urges all UN member nations to consider the implications carefully before casting it's vote carelessly.

The people of Canada6 will now begin preparing a series of nationwide debates on television and radio and internet, discussing what the government's course of action should be in case this resolution is passed.
An intense parliamentary debate will ensue if in fact it does pass, and we will publicly present our decision to the people of Canada6 and also to this body, the NS United Nations.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by flourocarbons. Since the almost complete elimination of flourocarbon use in the last 20yrs, the hole in the ozone layer has almost disappeared.

Are you joking?? The hole doesn't 'disappear', it's permanent. All we can do is prevent any furhter holes.

We highly doubt the fact that extremely rich and powerful nations would be willing to participate at aiding all the others who just aren't capable of helping themselves. This is one problem . The other is that the time extension could go on forever ! Let's put it this way : we have an extremely poor nation which cannot finish the project in time (let's assume that 25% of all homes would have solar panels in 10 years time) . It would then need another 30 years. That's kind of a long , isn't it ?

It may be longer but at least something is being done contrary to how things are at the moment.

We ask how will it be possible for all Solar Panels to have the same features since some of them would be a lot cheaper than others. A standard ought to be adopted.

No, no standards. It's not up to the UN to decide individual prices and/or subsidies. Besides, in places where weather is different the costs may vary to make people more willing to purchase.

A 1 kilowatt system costs about 9,000 US dollars to produce and install, on average. At least according to these guys (http://www.solarbuzz.com/Consumer/FastFacts.htm) and since they're pro-solar I'll take it on faith they're not over exagerrating the costs. So you're talking about approximately a $45,000US expenditure. Per home. In predominantly SUNNY places like Southern California. And that's not taking into account the power requirements of heavy industry. And where the heck are all these panels supposed to be placed?

45,000 *Insert currency here* is not the cost for one panel, according to the link you gave, but the cost to cover the whole home, which is unnecessary especially in sunny climates. In other climates it may be a bit more necessary, admittedly.(If I understood the link correctly at least).

And just by using that link, one can see so many advantages of solar panels.

And what do you mean where are the panels supposed to be placed??? On roof tops! Where else? :rolleyes:

It is scientificaly and morally wrong to abandon so many perfectly good, renewable, eco-friendly energy sources.

Water-mills
Wind-mills
Geothermal energy

We also have sustainable energy sources:

Nuclear-Power plants.

One last time. We do not, repeat, do not pose restriction on the usage of other renewable energy sources or nuclear. In fact the resolution states, as you quoted, that -

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

And it says nothing about abandoning Nuclear generated power.

None of these energy sources, pollute, and they require many highly trained employees, many of which are engineers and technicians. Solar panels require little, and will cuase the loss of jobs as other energy sources are abandoned.

Ah, so you're saying Nuclear does not polute, what about in the event of a malfunction in nuclear stations? That is one of the most catastrophic events that happens and remains for hundreds of years. And don't tell me happening like these are rare - at least one station every ten years has a malfunction. But anyway, as I said the resolution does not impose Nuclear restrictions.

And you are wrong about Solar Panels needing little jobs, there will be an increase in employment for the manufacturing, distributing, maintaing etc. As well as the jobs that come up from any NOT FOSSIL FUEL generated methods.

The people of Canada6 will now begin preparing a series of nationwide debates on television and radio and internet, discussing what the government's course of action should be in case this resolution is passed.

If you need any representatives from my nation, drop me a telegram :P.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

10 years to ban the burning of all fossil-fuels!!!

How do you propose that we will travel around in ten years

Having considered the arguments made thus far, the Delegate for Sanctius wishes to make it known that she will not be supporting this resolution.

The original proposer clearly does not have sufficient knowledge of the level of energy efficiency, environmental impact of, and reliability of his chosen power source, has left aside any proposals for a world energy grid, to allow transmission of power across the nationstates world, allowing for periods of darkness / inclement weather, and has included faulty scientific reasoning in the text of the proposal.

It is the experience of this delegate that UN Resolutions already have a tendancy to be poorly worded and reactionary, and this does not need to be encouraged. We also feel it is wrong to advocate a specific means of energy generation in such a way, perhaps a more general commitment to renewable sources? Has the proposing nation investigated the concept of 'solar chimneys' being built in desert areas, for example? Tidal power generation, either in barrier or fixed unit form? why not harness the power of the oceans? Tidal forces are present and functioning 24/7.

The Delegate for Sanctius will be voting against this proposal, and will be encouraging her regional delegate to do the same. Please reconsider, redraft and repropose.

Are you joking?? The hole doesn't 'disappear', it's permanent. All we can do is prevent any furhter holes.

Actually, the hole does dissapear if it is filled back in.


45,000 *Insert currency here* is not the cost for one panel, according to the link you gave, but the cost to cover the whole home, which is unnecessary especially in sunny climates.


Ahem, it was the cost to cover the energy consumption requirements of one home, which is necessary. Obviously. If they can't produce enough energy to meet their requirements they have a problem.

And just by using that link, one can see so many advantages of solar panels.

As supplemental (not replacement!) energy sources.

And what do you mean where are the panels supposed to be placed??? On roof tops! Where else? :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how much square footage we're talking about? Want to tell me where the panels for a 30 story apartment building go? I suppose the tiny cross section of roof is enough to power all 30 floors? Or for an industrial manufacturing plant?

I must be against this proposal for several reasons.

1) It should be each nation's choice as to what source of power they use, not the UN. The UN is really starting to destroy national sovereignty of member nation's and it's starting to really frustrate me. It's just another push to make the UN a dictatorship by the majority.

2) With the passing of this proposal, you would be DESTROYING the largest industry in my region, which is Auto Racing. With the banning of Fossil Fuels, we would have no means of running races, which would put MILLIONS of Tundrans out of jobs. We can not and WILL NOT use any other fuel to run our races because they are terribly inefficient and would require too much money to even come close to working.

3) Which a large amount of nations in the world not members of the UN, this proposal is irrelevent, redundant, and the non-UN members will not follow it. Therefore, we will not pay for, install, or outright follow this proposal if passed.

4) Solar cells are one of the least efficient forms of energy you can use. Now, I'm not an enviromental engineer, but I've taken several enviromental science classes to know that what you propose is nothing more than a pipe dream that will be a nightmare in 10 years when you find out nothing has changed.

As the delegate to the region of Tundra, the owner and operator of the largest, most popular racing series in Tundra, and the CEO of the Incorporated States of Thermolia, I will be enthusiastically voting against this proposal and any other like it along with every UN state in Tundra

we support this resolution, but we must agree with the remark of Forgottenlands

If you know the resolution will not work, why support it? We have finished grinding our punchcard factories to produce some numbers for perusal. This would have been prepared earlier but our country is unaccustomed to being forced to use the metric system.

First off, given the sun puts out 3.83x10^26 Watts of light energy, the distance of the Earth from the sun (1.5x10^11m), the albedo of the earth (.367), and the average efficiency of a mass produced solar cell (11%) this gives you an optimal power of 9.48 kW/m^2. Please note this does not take into account atmospheric absorption. Assuming you consistantly get 8 hours of good sunlight every day (which is a very liberal estimate in most climates) this comes out to 277 kW-hr for each square meter of solar cell each year.

So, what does this mean? Well, the average "efficiency" household in an industrialized country uses 6,700 kW-hr a year. So to be completely solar, one would need 24 square meters of solar panels and some reasonably sunny real-estate. At today's cost, that would be $15,918 to install.

Please reference this number against you nation's GDP per capita. Or, multiply it by the number of households in your nation (say, population divided by four) to see the total cost. Also note that this is only *household* energy cost. For the Dominion of the Machine Spirit alone it would cost $91.5 billion dollars over ten years to implement which is a very substantial number for a country with 23 million souls; and it only includes household costs, not travel or industry.

Please note the figures for these calculations were very liberal in favor of solar power. The truth is actually much harsher. I believe $45,000 per household instead of $15,000 per household was quoted by someone on this forum?

May your gears not be marred by dirt. - End Statement -

IC: Dan Yeoman gaped.

Dan Yeoman scoffed.

Dan Yeoman almost struck his desk with his forehead, but decided that this proposal had already produced enough flumoxation in his cranium.

He read and re-read the proposal--it was everything he hated to see: over-reaching, based on false precepts, not written according to modern convention. He had a slight inclination towards tearing to bits the proposal copy he know surveyed, if only it could somehow convince him that the actual proposed legislation shared an equally reduced and ragged status.

He was reminded, in every way, of "The Global Library", and of Gatesville's belief in "the lemming vote", that works like these came to quorum, and passed, by the extreme apathy all across the United Nations; that nations were lemmings voting "yes" on any proposal, regardless of merit.

Luckily, Johan Arnaen entered his office before Yeoman could exact any vengeance on the proposed resolution, or his own skull.

"It's sad, isn't it?" He offered. Yeoman exhaled unevenly, without the will to explicate as he felt inclined. "I've talked to Sam, and I've communicated across departments, with Sorvoje and others, they both say we have neither the manpower, nor the support from the top to go ahead with any sort of a campaign."

"Then what do we do?" Yeoman laboriously enunciated, suppressing his impulse to lash out at the news, "are we just going to wait and hope the UN can take it's head out of its--"

"Well, there have been successes in that approach before." Arnaen interrupted, not allowing Yeoman to become fully worked up, "Biological Weapons Ban: after a solid argument against it in the forum and very limited telegramming, we were lucky enough to get it down to a two thousand-vote majority, very repeal-able. Adoption and IVF: enough of the old crew opposed it--since we were in repose at the time--to get that down to a similar status." Arnaen sat down in the chair across from Yeoman, "We have to be long-sighted. And remember that the 'UN Resolution Interpretation Department' can work wonders. This resolution will likely have little to no actual impact on home..."

"But it says, right, um, right there, 'in ten years all fossil fuels will be abandoned', how can we get around that?" Yeoman began winding up.

Yeoman hadn't possessed much of a temper when he was first appointed tothe delegateship. In fact, he was appointed to avoid the occasionally snippiness the other could produce--Johan had little tolerance for child's play from other delegateships, being a father of eight himself--Yeoman was supposed to represent a rescinding of stand-offish politics from Powerhungry Chipmunks. Little could stop him from almost throbbing with anger, though, once he was appointed. The antics of various nations with obvious grudges against Powerhungry Chipmunks as well as the deterioration of the United Nations proposal writing corps, and United Nations Forum as a place for advice had only catalyzed any embryonic anger he'd carried with him into the office.

Arnaen, on the other hand, had mellowed dramatically since being forced to resign. He seemed hardly to miss stress the representative-ship brought, and was fortunate enough to have already been good friends with Yeoman, who he'd worked with years ago in the Office of Linguistics and Artistic Appreciation. Yeoman had appointed him 'Deputy Emeritus to the Proposal Writing Department', along with the legendary Sam Palleel, within a week of moving into his office. They, as a trio, were jokingly referred to by other departmental staff as the "Powerhungry Chipmunks Dream Team", as among the three of them they accounted for almost every telegram and proposal sent or submitted.

Arnaen furtively leaned in, as if he and Yeoman were about to arrange ‘a hit’ on someone,

"It's being outsourced."

Yeoman threw a very curious glance back at his, apparent, co-conspirator.

"You know that puppet government the Defense Department set up a month ago? To run our alliances with biological weapons-using nations by proxy?" Arnaen continued, adding to the drama of his monologue by glancing feverishly around the office for other listening ears "Well, rumor has it we'll cede the land under our important fossil fuel facilities to that government. It's, technically, importing the energy, or outsourcing the production, but there's really no change involved. It's just a change of name."

Yeoman smiled. It sort of makes it all worthwhile he thought, knowing that we can give the stupid resolutions the screw--And, knowing we can do it without giving me a headache.

and the average efficiency of a mass produced solar cell (11%) this gives you an optimal power of 9.48 kW/m^2.

11% in climates where sunlight is the least abundant. In climates such as my nation (NS and RL) efficiency is greatly higher (Rl reference : In my country, for example, we have about 85% efficiency in summer)

Can we please remember the rights of the member nations? Why do UN members insist on promoting resolutions that trump the rights of other nations? As The Machine Spirit pointed out, this resolution will be EXTREMELY expensive and impractical. My sole problem with this resolution is the extremism. Could we maybe revise it so that a gradual plan could be implemented on a LIMITED basis. My country, while reasonably economically secure CANNOT afford to follow this resolution. We cannot obey the rules it imposes. I want to participate in the UN but it's becoming hard, now economically.

I am a strong proponent for alternative energy, but this is far too extreme. First of all, solar energy is extremely inefficient compared to fossil fuel burning. I believe a lot more research should be encouraged FIRST, before a mass solar power switch should be taken. Also, why solar power? It is not a magic bullet for fossil fuel burning. Even in sunny places, a single hailstorm will cause massive power outages. And ten years to stop all fossil fuel burning? I'm sure we could do it if all of us are willing to give up our backyards and parks and all public areas for solar panels to power our infrastructure.

I am voting a strong NAY in this resolution.

Gary Savage
Chief Science Planner
The Global Illuminati

11% in climates where sunlight is the least abundant. In climates such as my nation (NS and RL) efficiency is greatly higher (Rl reference : In my country, for example, we have about 85% efficiency in summer)

Wrong. The 11% is the efficiency of the solar cell itself. It has nothing to do with weather or quality of the sunlight. This is up from twenty years ago when it was 8%. There is no possible way that 85% can be achieved in 100 years much less the required ten no matter where your country is.

To recap, the inefficiencies of the system have to do with the technology (11%), the amount of daylight (currently liberally estimated at 8 hours a day) and the reflectivity of Earth's atmosphere. If you are assuming an 85% efficiency overall then your country does not have any night time (or bad weather) which is impossible, unless you are in outer space, which we are assuming your country is not. Even there you will be limited to the 11% inherent to the technology.

A UN resolution does not change the laws of physics.

- End Statement -

Wrong. The 11% is the efficiency of the solar cell itself.

Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. Either way, the 85% I was talking about in that case was thanks to the sunny climate I have, 11%(assuming what you're saying is true) is still a lot.

If solar panels are not as efficient in other nations, you can back it up with the other modes of renewable energy sources (And nuclear if so wished) that my resolution allows.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. Either way, the 85% I was talking about in that case was thanks to the sunny climate I have, 11%(assuming what you're saying is true) is still a lot.

If solar panels are not as efficient in other nations, you can back it up with the other modes of renewable energy sources (And nuclear if so wished) that my resolution allows.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

That is 11% efficiency from the technology. If you want to reduce things to one single efficiency number that takes all inefficiencies between the sun and your battery into account it would be more like 2.3%. This includes 11% on the technology, 63% because of the reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere and 33% because of things like nighttime and weather and such. Since efficiencies multiply 11% x 63% x 33% = 2.3%. The reason I've been using the 11% number is it the only thing we have any modicrum of control over. Best estimates for solar power in ten years bumps this up to 18% with a much larger increase in cost. I suppose you could have big solar farms in sunny places to get that 33% number up, but more then likely you will loose that advantage and more in transmission losses.

And again, this is just for household power. This does not include industry or transportation. It also is incredibly unfair and impractical to small countries or countries that do not exist on flat sunny plains.

- End Statement -

Why not expand this to seek out other renewable sources of energy, such as wind power? It's not good to force all into only one source of power.

First off, given the sun puts out 3.83x10^26 Watts of light energy, the distance of the Earth from the sun (1.5x10^11m), the albedo of the earth (.367), and the average efficiency of a mass produced solar cell (11%) this gives you an optimal power of 9.48 kW/m^2. Please note this does not take into account atmospheric absorption. Assuming you consistantly get 8 hours of good sunlight every day (which is a very liberal estimate in most climates) this comes out to 277 kW-hr for each square meter of solar cell each year.

So, what does this mean? Well, the average "efficiency" household in an industrialized country uses 6,700 kW-hr a year. So to be completely solar, one would need 24 square meters of solar panels and some reasonably sunny real-estate. At today's cost, that would be $15,918 to install.

Please reference this number against you nation's GDP per capita. Or, multiply it by the number of households in your nation (say, population divided by four) to see the total cost. Also note that this is only *household* energy cost. For the Dominion of the Machine Spirit alone it would cost $91.5 billion dollars over ten years to implement which is a very substantial number for a country with 23 million souls; and it only includes household costs, not travel or industry.

Please note the figures for these calculations were very liberal in favor of solar power. The truth is actually much harsher. I believe $45,000 per household instead of $15,000 per household was quoted by someone on this forum?



The fact that Our state simply cannot afford this aside, it is clear to Us that it will also force Us to violate both Resolutions #23 (Replanting Trees) and #48 (Save the Forests of the World).

Because of the Queendom of Me's "many lush forests" (in which our most beloved penguins somehow frolic without dying of heat exposure), without massive deforestation, We simply do not have the available acres (or I suppose that is Square Kilometers in this age of Politically Correct Tyranny) on which to construct all of the solar panels that will be required to provide Our citizens and industry enough power to function.

Of course given the exponential taxes that will be required to support this measure, I doubt We will have any industry left to worry about.

- Me

Also consider the other costs of implementation. Just to power households, my Dominion of 23 million souls would need 138 square kilometers of solar panels. That is a considerable amount of space and material. Additionally, because the sun is not always shining, we would require batteries to store power for periods of bad weather or night time. Batteries are notorious for being constructed of very enviornmentally unfriendly materials. Additionally, accepting that not everyone lives in a single family home, large fields of solar panels would have to be built to power the cities where population density is higher. This would require turning arable land and forests (138 square kilometers worth) into solar fields.

For larger countries, here are some rules of thumb;

A country of 200 million would require a solar field of 1,200 square kilometers. This is a square 35 kilometers on a side or roughly the size of a major city.

A country of 500 million would require a solar field of 3,000 square kilometers (55 km on a side) which is roughly the size of a major metropolitan city and its adjoining suburbs.

A country of one billion would require a solar field of 6,000 square kilometers. We are now talking about counties or small states or provinces.

Any of these would have the associated thousands of tons of hazardous chemicals required for the batteries to make the system work.

Again, note, this is just for household power needs. It neglects industry and transportation.

The reperesentative of Mirftopia feels that this idea could not only destroy the economies of countries that export fossil fuels, it could destroy the economies of nations that are fragile enough as it is without having to add the additional burden of becoming completely solar dependant.

What this resolution fails to realize is, the reason other forms of energy started to be used in the first place is the sun was too unreliable to count on. What about nations that are mostly rainforests? What about nations in the north, where the sun is only out for a limited time? Places such as Alaska have no sunlight for months on end, and you're going to require them to put in solar panals?

What is also at risk is the sacred family barbecue. By outlawing fossil fuels, you outlaw charcoal and gas. By outlawing these fuels, you are not allowing people to use their grills, and thus you could be jeapordizing something that families hold near and dear to their hearts. Occasions such as the 4th of July in the United States, and Labor Day, and Memorial Day, and, in Mirftopia, the great Father's birthday, are all celebrated by the population having an old-fashioned BBQ, drinking beer, and watching whatever sports are on. This resolution will destroy family values.

Thus, Mirftopia not only will vote against this resolution, we urge you to do the same. This proposal is going to send economies into a tailspin, and take away from families what they cherish. Are you willing to have your residents, who might take the small things personally, lose something that might push them over the edge? Hopefully not.

It may be longer but at least something is being done contrary to how things are at the moment.

Thank you for reminding us about the very important issue of correctingly typing "longer" and for ignoring the flaws of this resolution .

Therefore we urge all nations to take into account all factors and to make the right decision by voting against it. If the resolution does pass , we will surely vote in favor of striking it out and rendering it null and void .

IC: Jude was lying on his bed, alone in his royal room as he contemplated his struggles to keep power over Cuation. His elder brother Jared was always trying to take over, after all the throne had been left to him till Jude stole power. The interference of the Empress Dowager had prevented an assassination or execution so Jude had to be wary. As it was Jared had fair amount of control over the southern island.

Jude pondered if he should risk building a port and airbase in an island so under Jared's control when his older sister burst in, holding a letter from the foreign office with the latest UN resolution up for vote. Idly taking the letter, Jude ignored the sister who was attempting to persuade Jude to become more democratic and "fair" to the people he ruled.

Jude read the letter three times, growing increasingly dismayed. "No, I can not allow this to go through! The last resolution was heart-warming in intentions, like this but the last one can at least be implemented without bankrupting Cuation and destroying its business. Tell Jared to run the Holy Empire like last time, I will deal with this myself." Muttering about finding an ambassador, Jude stormed out of his room to prepare for the journey.

48 hours later

Jude prepared to cast his nations vote, well dressed as always but scowling. "My nation will take too much time to implement this resolution, by the time Cuation does so, it will be bankrupt and technology now doubt improved so it will be far behind other nations in environment friendly ways. Well it would be if the other nations didn't have to suffer the same thing if thing got passed. Besides I do not have the space to power enough engery for everything needed under this scheme. Too expensive, too little time, too ineffective in my view, Cuation votes against this."

While I do agree with the proposed resolution and I would almost support it, after all Hinterlutschistan is a very "green" and environmentally considerate country that did its best so far to rely on environmentally friendly sources of energy and does promote solar, wind and regrowing sources of energy actively, I am not sure if the "wealthier" countries do understand what a resolution like this would mean to those of us who are first of all not able to simply subidy solar panels or even manufactore them ourselves.

We, in Hinterlutschistan, lack the capacity and the industry to produce the required amount of solar panels in the required time. This, in turn, means that we will have to import them for expensive foreign currency. Our foreign trade debt is already outragous, and to cover the additional expenses, we'll have to find sources of income to balance it.

But how? Should we lumber our rainforests? Or overturn our resolution to keep the ecosystem intact to mine for Uranium that's found under large parts of our timberwolf reservations?

This would most certainly cause more harm than good to the environment. If this proposal is supposed to pass, it's required to give the poorer, less economically developed countries, a way to afford it. If you fail to provide it, countries will have to exploit their natural resources in ways that cause a lot more damage to the very ecological system you try to protect with this proposal.

But there are several things about this specific resolution that I do not like, so much so that I've voted against it.

"On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all it's members will -
1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work."

This is a great part of the resolution. I think nations should promote soloar panels. I see nothing wrong with that.

"2) Will set aside an amount of government funds going to the environment into the project of manufacturing and distributing Solar Panels."

Not as thrilled about this section, but I don't think its enough to make me vote against it. Of course the question is, how many funds? Is setting aside $1 enough to fulfill this?

"3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure."

This is where I begin to doubt this resolution. This isn't just a resolution promoting solar power, but one which is mandating solar power, and I have a problem with that. One is, in essense, forcing nations to put all their eggs in one basket by making absolutely everything based on solar power. One might argue "well, they can implement other types of power production as well!" Well, yes, but why if they're going to have to put solar panels on everything anyway?

"4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce. "

Define "environmentall friendly?" There is no definition, and one nation's defintion may be different. Is hydroelectric "environmentall friendly" for example?

A second problem is that, if a nation doesn't create another source of alternative energy, there is basically no backup system if the solar panel system should somehow fail...whether it be faulty panels or wacky weather.

Also, does this provision prohibit the refining of oil which is needed to make more products that we use in our daily life than I can list here?

"5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project. "

This is kind of a pointless provision since there is no provision stating that the UN will help fund this project in the first place. Unless this is giving the UN the power to take money from one nation and give it to another to fund this project, which I would be against, I don't see why this provision even exists.

I'm stunned.

We were painfully aware that the resolution in question had somehow gained quite a few endorsements, but that it has made quorum, and is at this early point being supported three-to-one in the General Assembly, is something that our delegacy thought impossible.

This entire resolution is based on bad science. Permeated by bad science. Almost nothing asserted by the text of this resolution has any base in scientific fact. As others have pointed out, the costs and inefficiencies of a solar panel-based power grid are prohibitive, and as I will again point out, the abandonment of fossil fuels would require the abandonment of iron smelting. This is ridiculous.

Any resolution that asserts that we will be destroying community gardens, the Ozone layer, and the very freedoms of our children by continuing to use fossil fuels should not be allowed to pass. The only positive about this resolution that I can see is that it gives a ten-year window for its repeal.

We agree with the proposed resolution and are already making the necessary alterations in our country constituiton to provide the people with the fiscal beneficts for making such changes.
The governamental instituitions are the ones to set the first exemple and its starting right this moment.Part of the funding for this project will come from the concession of our country Island of Tortuga to realstate and turism corporations who whish to develop it.

A country of 200 million would require a solar field of 1,200 square kilometers. This is a square 35 kilometers on a side or roughly the size of a major city.

A country of 500 million would require a solar field of 3,000 square kilometers (55 km on a side) which is roughly the size of a major metropolitan city and its adjoining suburbs.

A country of one billion would require a solar field of 6,000 square kilometers. We are now talking about counties or small states or provinces.

Hang on, you must bear in mind that that is one billion individuals, not families. When people are living in the same house the amount of energy consumed is decresed (I can give examples if so desired).

Of course the question is, how many funds?

I trust the respective governments to decide on an adequate amount depending on the situation of their nation (Geographically, economically etc.)

Define "environmentall friendly?" There is no definition, and one nation's defintion may be different. Is hydroelectric "environmentall friendly" for example?

Personally I define, environmentally friendly as renewable energy sources. (I know about tidal and wave causing a small amount of pollution in the building process but I'm taking into consideration the period when energy is actually produced).

Also, does this provision prohibit the refining of oil which is needed to make more products that we use in our daily life than I can list here?

If I understand what you're saying, then no. Fossil fuels will not be used for the electrical requirements. Transport and some other means will not be effected by this.

This is kind of a pointless provision since there is no provision stating that the UN will help fund this project in the first place. Unless this is giving the UN the power to take money from one nation and give it to another to fund this project, which I would be against, I don't see why this provision even exists.

No, the UN will not take funds from one nation and give them to another. The meeting shall be to discuss the state of individual nations and on any agreements nations should wish to come too for 'sharing of resources'.

Also, on a different note. Those worrying about their economies should know that citizens pay for the solar panels (assuming the government doesn't give it to them for free). Naturally, citizens will not benefit in the short term but on the long term they will with the ommission of elecrticity bills (unless the respective nations introduce energy methods such as nuclear and other methods which will require 'energy purchasing' from the government.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I trust the respective governments to decide on an adequate amount depending on the situation of their nation (Geographically, economically etc.)

And as I said, what if mine were to give, say, $1 towards it? That clearly seems to go against the spirit of the resolution, yet doesn't appear to actually violate it, since there is no dollar amount or % of gdp or % of the total cost of the project or anything like that specified


Personally I define, environmentally friendly as renewable energy sources. (I know about tidal and wave causing a small amount of pollution in the building process but I'm taking into consideration the period when energy is actually produced).

Frankly, what you personally believe is irrelevent if this resolution wins it's vote. If you meant "environmentally friendly" to mean renewable energy sources, then one probably should have put that. It is much less vauge. As it is, I'm not sure who will ultimately decide what is "environmentall friendly" if there is a dispute somewhere.


If I understand what you're saying, then no. Fossil fuels will not be used for the electrical requirements. Transport and some other means will not be effected by this.

Quite the contrary, the resolution says "After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted" Thats not vague at all. ALL burning of fossil fuels shall be halted. That would seem to include automobiles and things like oil refineries and industries such as the before mentioned steel mills, among others.

Originally Posted by Starcra II
If I understand what you're saying, then no. Fossil fuels will not be used for the electrical requirements. Transport and some other means will not be effected by this.

I will quote the resolution:
After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

There is no stipulation here that allows for non-electrical burning of fossil fuels. The resolution says, in black and white, that all fossil fuel use shall be stopped, period. That means no use in refining, no use in smelting, no use for heating, no use for vehicles. At all. As I've said, a pre-industrial state.

Also, on a different note. Those worrying about their economies should know that citizens pay for the solar panels (assuming the government doesn't give it to them for free). Naturally, citizens will not benefit in the short term but on the long term they will with the ommission of elecrticity bills (unless the respective nations introduce energy methods such as nuclear and other methods which will require 'energy purchasing' from the government.

or they may be happy with what they have and not buy such things. If I then go say "If you don't do this, you will not have any power in ten years time." I face riots. I have 18.35% unemployed, how will they afford it without the goverment dipping into its pocket? I would have to rasie tax to get it for them while having to lower taxes so my people can actully afford solar power.

With the prices I have seen, my people are going to be unable to afford it themselves without a) applying for loans thus getting into debt, B) saving up for long time, c) taking out morgate on house. A) and C) will make my people unhappy and does risk dehousing people. B) is something I don't see most people doing unless forced which I may be unable to do. So I have to pay anyway and I am unwilling to bankrupt my nation and unable to pay for it without doing so.

Also consider the other costs of implementation.

Consider the oil price when it starts to run out.

This resolution might cost you, but voting it down will cost you even more in the long run. There are no specific goals mentioned, so your nation can get away with quite a bit. You'll have to install solar panels everywhere, but it doesn't say you're not allowed to use other renewable energy sources as well.

Compare that to a situation where the oil price is rising because supplies get depleted, and you'll be glad that your economy is running on cheap solar power.

"Cheap?" they cry? "But it's expensive!". Yes, but because of the scale of this resolutions, solar panels will get very cheap very soon. But if we all sit and wait, that doesn't happen. Large demand means it's viable to step up production and R&D in this field, more than when we can sit around and wait till the oil and gas are gone.

Lydia took a deep breath before she stood up to address her colleagues. It had been a while since she made a public address but felt at ease having noted a few familiar faces.

The government of Telidia stands firmly against this resolution though we do commend the honourable member from Starcra II in highlighting once again the importance of the environment to the member body.

Unfortunately due to recent domestic circumstances in our region, our government cannot allow treasury funds to be diverted to an endeavour such as this. Had it been at any other time we may have been able to be persuaded to the contrary, however considering the text of the document before us I doubt very much even that possibility would have been available. Many of my learned colleagues have already made excellent points in this debate and whilst I do not wish to labour on these I would like to point out some of our government’s concerns.

Firstly, the assumption that a 'one size fits all' energy policy can be attained in a member body in excess of (at last count) 31,000 nations I find hard to fathom. All of us rely on varying forms of energy particularly those nations based on Earth. Telidia has strived for some time to bring about a change on its reliance of fossil fuels and have long-term goals to help both sustain and grow our economy, whilst achieving our energy goals. This resolution simply assumes no of us have any of those plans and dictates a ten year plan regardless of the consequences to it’s members. With complete respect to the author we find this attitude wholly inconsiderate of the sacrifices and intelligent planning by many members of this body.

Secondly when speaking in terms of power generation when will the realisation finally happen that no matter how much energy we create, it’s the efficiency where the problem lies. Conversion and transport losses account in some cases for almost half the power actually generated. If we really want to spend money on something worthy and make a difference let’s spend it on ensuring the power we generate actually gets to where it needs to go in the first place, efficiently. The point is simple, how we generate the energy is important yes; how we use it is fundamental. If we don’t resolve this issue we can cover our planet with solar panels and radiate enough light back to the universe so we appear like super nova and I will guarantee that next to that very building with it shiny panels, will be a smoky old oil power station. The more we generate, the more we use and above all the more we waste!

Most respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Consider the oil price when it starts to run out.

This resolution might cost you, but voting it down will cost you even more in the long run. There are no specific goals mentioned, so your nation can get away with quite a bit. You'll have to install solar panels everywhere, but it doesn't say you're not allowed to use other renewable energy sources as well.


But thats why I would be fore a resolution which truely does promote the use of renewable energy, but doesn't necessarily mandate the use of renewable energy, and on a time table as short as ten years.

why say no to this topic it seems good to me

(mentioning ozone layer)
It actually is.

Gah. Missed it.

Now that would be a good reason to vote against.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by flourocarbons. Since the almost complete elimination of flourocarbon use in the last 20yrs, the hole in the ozone layer has almost disappeared.

Are you joking?? The hole doesn't 'disappear', it's permanent. All we can do is prevent any furhter holes.

It's not some kind of puncturing. Only the poles (and mostly the south pole) tend to suffer thinning of the Ozone Layer. And the hole in the Ozone layer isn't permanent. There's a lot of natural fluctuation as well, and the layer can become thicker.

In any case, it has little to do with the melting of the ice caps, and more with health problems.

And as I said, what if mine were to give, say, $1 towards it? That clearly seems to go against the spirit of the resolution, yet doesn't appear to actually violate it, since there is no dollar amount or % of gdp or % of the total cost of the project or anything like that specified

That would just be poor governing. I'm sorry to say it but it is. 1 of whatever currency you have, may not be breaking the rules but it would be harder for YOU to bring your nation up to standard which the compliance ministry sees to anyway.


Frankly, what you personally believe is irrelevent if this resolution wins it's vote. If you meant "environmentally friendly" to mean renewable energy sources, then one probably should have put that. It is much less vauge. As it is, I'm not sure who will ultimately decide what is "environmentall friendly" if there is a dispute somewhere.

In that case, it take no genius to realise that environmentally friendly would refer to methods that don't harm the environment.


Quite the contrary, the resolution says "After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted" Thats not vague at all. ALL burning of fossil fuels shall be halted. That would seem to include automobiles and things like oil refineries and industries such as the before mentioned steel mills, among others.

Well, according to the resolution 'Hydrogen Powered Vehicles', every UN nations should be developing hydrogen powered cars so that would not be a problem.

Consider the oil price when it starts to run out.

Excellent argument by itself. And one should note (If I may make an RL reference) that it's not too far away.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

But thats why I would be fore a resolution which truely does promote the use of renewable energy, but doesn't necessarily mandate the use of renewable energy, and on a time table as short as ten years.

Ten years is fairly short, I agree, but as I have said before, promoting isn't enough. Not unless solar panels are subsidized heavily and oil/gas is taxed heavily so there is a large difference. And then everybody will cry "it's too expensive!" too.

So, what does this mean? Well, the average "efficiency" household in an industrialized country uses 6,700 kW-hr a year. So to be completely solar, one would need 24 square meters of solar panels and some reasonably sunny real-estate.

Why would you need that if you use other renewable energy forms as well?

That would just be poor governing. I'm sorry to say it but it is. 1 of whatever currency you have, may not be breaking the rules but it would be harder for YOU to bring your nation up to standard which the compliance ministry sees to anyway.

Ah, but the resolution gives us 10 years to stop using fossil fuels, which means that by only spending $1 we are in compliance and those of us who are opposed have time to get this idiotic thing repealed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would love to vote for this sort of proposal, as I believe in stoping fossil feuls. But this resolution seems to me to be inherintly flawed.

1. Fossil feul burning has nothing to do with the Ozone layer, and the Ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming or the ice caps. Burning fossil feuls is to do with global warming however.

2. Solar pannels are not very efficient, and to think that it could replace fossil feuls entirely within 10 years is just not right. It would help to decrease the burning of fossil feuls, but at their current efficiency, esspecially in temperate climates with lots of clouds, they cannot make up for the energy obtained by fossil feuls.

Its a great idea, but the resolution has some major corrections needed to be made to it.

My question and problem with this resolution stems from the focus on solar energy. Why should be use solar power, knowing that it is totally dependant on the environment? Plus realizing that it may take between 10 and 20 square meters of solar panels, the cost outweighs the benefits. Instead of a focus on solar power, the real solution would be to use the money to invest in hydrogen power instead.

In that case, it take no genius to realise that environmentally friendly would refer to methods that don't harm the environment.


It may be harder as you might think. Is hydroelectric environmentally friendly? some may say that the creation of dams is more harmful than the clean energy it produces. How about nuclear power? Is that considered environmentally friendly with the waste it produces?


Well, according to the resolution 'Hydrogen Powered Vehicles', every UN nations should be developing hydrogen powered cars so that would not be a problem.


Not necessarily. It merely states that "every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars" whatever that means. Ok, so I have research going on to make hydrogen powered cars. There is no mandate that any % of cars become hydrogen powered, much less that all cars should.

The Yuunli Federation is against this proposal.

NOTING that Solar Panels provide each home with the most reliable source of electricity.
What makes solar panels more reliable than any other source of electricity? Of course we might run out of coal, and nuclear energy is dangerous (Chernobyl). But in many regions of the world, the sun doesn't shine very often. Wind energy might be better there.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.
Why does every single home in the world need a solar panel? Where I live (IRL), the sun shines 1400 hours a year. We have an average of 6.6 sunshine hours per day in July, and only 1 hour of sunshine per day in January. No wonder you rarely see any solar panels here.

That's not because I'm so far north (49°15'), but because it rains very often. It doesn't rain a lot either (820 mm per year, all year round), it's just a cloudy climate. ;-)

Providing every single house in the world with solar panels is a waste of resources.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.
Solar panels exclusively? Maybe that gives enough energy to the Sahara, but not here. Besides, all cars would have to run with electricity or solar panels by then.

5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project.
Too much bureaucracy IMHO.

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation.
So the national government make the prices for the solar panels, not the markets? I'm not a supporter of state monopolies.

FINALLY NOTING that the mass introduction of Solar Panels everywhere will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.
Can't this be said about (almost) all other resolutions, too?

Well said Yuunli.

I voted against the proposal.

Our nation is promoting enviromental issues as one of its government's priorities but we cast a vote: NAY
Our nation is heavly based on geothermical energy and switching to solar energy is impossible. There are many settlements in subpolar territories of our homeland and half of the year the sun don't apear at all. Our nation would like to appeal to all nations: don't approve this discriminating resolution!

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.
Is that 10 years and seven months in RL time or NS time?

Its all a simple case of geographics. VL is a warm and sunny place and as a nation we are wealthy and are able to take the massive cost associated with passing this resolution proposal.
However what of the sub artic and sub antartic nations not to mention the sub Aquatic Nations whom see little or no sun light ever? Are they to be forced to adopt solar power? Now that would be just wasteful and silly and as such we cant support this.
Had a clause been added that "Where the climate permits the Efficient generation of solar power" this would have had My delegations support.

We completely oppose this resolution. Let's be perfectly honest here, the use of fossil fuels are a negative thing. However, there are many studies which show that a completely solar cell based system would be ineffective, expensive and illogical.

Firstly, solar panels are an EXPENSIVE source of energy. How can any other nation demand that smaller nations pay for this; when they don't have the economic resources to do so?!

Secondly, solar panels aren't completely feasible! There are places across the globe, that don't have the required day-light time to make this a viable alternative to fossil fuel use.

And lastly, how do you think solar panels are created?! It requires the burning of fossil fuels to create these panels. How do you disagree with the burning of these fuels in one case, yet approve of them in another.

I think we should support resolutions that promote ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES; not specifically solar, wind, water or hydrogen. Each UN member should then do what they feel is acceptable to work towards those ends. Any policy as vague, illogical and ignorant as this, doesn't deserve the consideration, much less, the approval of this body.

We completely oppose this resolution. Let's be perfectly honest here, the use of fossil fuels are a negative thing. However, there are many studies which show that a completely solar cell based system would be ineffective, expensive and illogical.

Firstly, solar panels are an EXPENSIVE source of energy. How can any other nation demand that smaller nations pay for this; when they don't have the economic resources to do so?!

Secondly, solar panels aren't completely feasible! There are places across the globe, that don't have the required day-light time to make this a viable alternative to fossil fuel use.

And lastly, how do you think solar panels are created?! It requires the burning of fossil fuels to create these panels. How do you disagree with the burning of these fuels in one case, yet approve of them in another.

I think we should support resolutions that promote ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES; not specifically solar, wind, water or hydrogen. Each UN member should then do what they feel is acceptable to work towards those ends. Any policy as vague, illogical and ignorant as this, doesn't deserve the consideration, much less, the approval of this body.

We agree with Eurinia and several others nation comments.
We like very much solar power but there are others clean sources of energy and the proposition sounds as an utopia ... 10 years....
it's sad because otherwise we like some points very much

This resolution will have no effect whatsoever on my nation, because by law, all electrial power is generated by nuclear reactors - the most environmentally safe method of generating power.

3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

Section 3) does not state any specific area of solar panels for each home so I guess I could simply make sure that they receive a small solar panel (say the size of a credit card) with their census papers. Might be difficult to enforce this with travelling communities.

Section 4) only requires that burning of fossil fuels shall be halted. Does this necessarily imply that I can't start up again immediately after the stop. No doubt the administration involved in stopping all flights during that period would be enough trouble anyway.

Of course the manner in which I might interpret these clauses might be open to debate which itself will cause lots of bureaucracy when the UN Compliance bods come around.

But if they are strictly following the rules then I guess I'll never see them since they have no means of travelling to my nation.

In short
1) An ill-conceived idea
2) A flawed drafting
3) It simply won't happen because the costs or scale are prohibitive even for the most wealthy nations - particular since that wealth will disappear once the basic structure of their economies cannot handle the change
4) Unenforceable.

Nevertheless I may be required to vote for this resolution on the grounds that my regional members think that this is a harmless environmental proposal.

The only redeeming feature is the 10 year time it allows for its repeal.

This proposal is appallingly short-sighted. The industrial drive required to equip every building in every nation with solar panelling and build replacements for evergy single vehicle fuelled by petrol in a mere decade, as directly required by this resolution, would do immeasurable harm to our environment. To provide the required energy to build more renewable power plants than we have now, we would either have to massively increase our use of fossil fuels or bulldoze our forests in search of uranium.

The total ban on burning fossil fuels completely ignores the applications for which there isn't a viable alternative. As has been pointed out, how does Starcra expect us to extract metals such as iron from their ores without reduction by carbon? What exactly are our schools' and labs' Bunsen burners meant to burn? How are our scientists to research organic chemistry if the police are forced to arrest them for combusting any hydrocarbons?

_Myopia_ is a very environmentally friendly country. We have drastically reduced our use of fossil fuels, and are using a sustainable plan to gradually phase them out completely, which we have projected to be the optimum way without either the short term burst in fossil fuel use which is required to rapidly replace all power generation, or the depths of economic recession and technological regression which would be inherent to immediately abandoning fossil fuels without viable alternatives.

Our civilisation's reliance on fossil fuels is much like an addiction to a drug like heroin. It is immensely harmful and there is great resistance to quitting, which must be overcome if we are to have any hope for a happy, healthy future. But simply to go 'cold turkey' involves massive pain and in the long-term is far less stable. We need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels with long-term sustainable planning which balances the urgency of threats like global warming with the reality of our situation - something that this resolution fails miserably to achieve.

Hang on, you must bear in mind that that is one billion individuals, not families. When people are living in the same house the amount of energy consumed is decresed (I can give examples if so desired).

This was taken into account. Our articifer/analysts are very thorough. Also, as previously stated, our estimates were very liberal. A more conservative real world estimate would have higher costs and cover more land area.

If I understand what you're saying, then no. Fossil fuels will not be used for the electrical requirements. Transport and some other means will not be effected by this.

Transport and industry will be affected as all burning of fossil fuels is prohibited. Hydrogen power may or may not be ready. Battery vehicles are horribly inefficient (equivalent to 20 mpg or less after generation/transmission losses are taken into account). Biogas and natural gas will be considered "fossil fuel". We are also afraid atomic cars are just not feasable in this time frame.

So, transport will be crippled which means the cost of transporting goods will increase astronomically. Cites will become unlivable as goods will not be able to be brought into the cities (for trade or survival). Air travel will become a thing of the past (which will also leave the militaries of UN members open to attack from rogue nations). The list goes on.

In addition to all other arguments, there is the cost to be considered. Estimates state that this will cost between $15,000 and $45,000 per household to implement. It has been stated by the delegate from Starcra II that this cost is to be met by the households themselves. This delegate would like to know how the government of Starcra II is going to convince its own citizens to pay two to six times their GDP per capita for solar panels for thier own home. The Dominion of the Machine Spirit has a similar GDP per capita and cannot imagine a way to tell their citizens they cannot eat for two to six years because they need solar panels.

This delegate is aware of the line;

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the Solar Panels distributed in their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

This delegate would also like to know how this is true. The price of solar panels is not set by governments. Solar panels cost money to make, install and maintain. They are not free and do not come out of thin air. If the burden is shouldered by the government (which it would have to be by nations like the Dominion of the Machine Spirit and the Republic of Starcra II) where will the money come from? Please note that the cost to the Republic of Starcra II will be roughly half (51%) your nation's GDP. Again, that is just the cost for home use - not industry or transportation.

- End Statement -

will also leave the militaries of UN members open to attack from rogue nations.

Too damn right. If it looks like this'll pass I'll leave the UN, wait 10 years and a month and then start bombing you all. It'll amuse me to watch your amphibious assault on my country crossing the Ocean in your enviromentally friendly log canoes as my jets roar overhead. This bill is simply ludicrous, fossil fuels are the foundation of our society, like it or not. We can slowly reduce their use but not replace them with solar panels in 10 years.

1. What some nations here fail to realise is that the burning of fossile fuels are only a small percentage of what is used from crude oil. Only aproximately 10% of a barrel of oil is used in the production of machine opperating fuels. The rest goes into the production of products like, paints, hair products, skin products, cleaning agents, shoes, clothing, and things like these PC's that we love so much. Most of the chemical agents causing damage to our enviroment is the end result of the production of petrolium & plastic products. Which our friendly eviromentalist say are better for our enviroments than the use of natural resources like lumber, coal, animal, and natural gas. We polute our eviroments every day with the waste produced from the production of these plastic products. It seems to members of the UGN (United Greaser Nations) that a 10% reduction in polution would only be a token gesture at coming to a sensible solution to polution reduction. We would be better served to reduce our production of plastic products and take a better look at natural resources.

2. Another source of global warming that supporters of enviromental causes fail to look at is the Earths natural magnectic polarity changes that protect us from the suns damaging particals. Our Earth goes through natural polarity changes which actually put us in a reverse magnetic "pull" instead of "push". We go through this cycle every 20 thousand years, which causes flooding, loss of plant life and animal life do to the heat increases.

The UGN will post a link with scientic research which which will support both of our cases on this matter in a day or two. As for now, the UGN can not support this measure. It's too broad, and causes 3 times more problems than it will solve. Plus, will the rich nations of the UN pay for the implimentations for the poorer nations? Or will we be starved out or invaded and forced to apply these measures? It seems that the proposers of this measure did not do enough homework on this matter.

"in a separate issue: Memebers of the UGN have been accepted in the UN and have received our confirmations. But as of yet we have not received emails or any other notices confirming our membership. We have reapplied 3 times and been accepted 3 times but as of yet are not shown as members. Please help us with this issue. Thank you, President Hosa of the U.G.N."

:sniper: The People's Republic of Razatavia strongly OPPOSE this resolution. Quite frankly I am suprised at how much support this proposal has garnered since it's inception. Razatavia is most definantly for alternative forms of energy production, but the rate and scale that this resolution suggests is ludicris. Not to mention this resolution seems to minimalize the great costs that are to be passed on to every nations citizens, A great cost that I believe is a fruitless enterprise do to the gross unreliability of these proposed energy sources. VOTE AGAINST this resolution, I know that I am.

Prime Minister of The People's Republic of Razatavia

Raaz Sayalotto

This resolution is a pipe dream.
It’s not logical to believe that these goals can be met. You will not be able to stop the use of fossil fuels in ten years and we don’t have the money to get each home a solar panel.

if this looks as if it is going to pass, Terioamo , delegate of New Mexico will leave the UN.

It may be harder as you might think. Is hydroelectric environmentally friendly? some may say that the creation of dams is more harmful than the clean energy it produces. How about nuclear power? Is that considered environmentally friendly with the waste it produces?

Nuclear power is clearly not. The risks are too high and causes too much damage if it malfunctions. Wind and Solar are clean, Hydroelectric is debatable, depends how it is used, geothermal and biomass are also sgnificantly friendly in comparison.


Not necessarily. It merely states that "every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars" whatever that means. Ok, so I have research going on to make hydrogen powered cars. There is no mandate that any % of cars become hydrogen powered, much less that all cars should.

In that case the implementation of this resolution would pressure governments into following the previously passed resolutions.

Our nation is heavly based on geothermical energy and switching to solar energy is impossible.

Then you shouldn't have so much of a problem...you will not have to remove your current method of achieving electricity. In fact, your nation can be commended for using minimal fossil fuels.

Is that 10 years and seven months in RL time or NS time?

Are we making an RL resolution or an NS resolution?

This resolution will have no effect whatsoever on my nation, because by law, all electrial power is generated by nuclear reactors - the most environmentally safe method of generating power.

While I congratulate your decision to not burn fossil fuels I must point out that nuclear reactors are far from the most environmentally safe method.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I know this proposal is well intended, but give me a break. If the author truly "realised" the expense involved in creating that many solar panels next to the amount of energy that can actually be extracted from the solar panel (even if it were running 100% of the time), they would realize how ridiculous the idea of replacing all fossil fuels with solar power is. The best analogy that I have ever come across said that to meet all the power demands of the United States with silicon-based solar panels, you would have to cover all of California and part of Nevada with solar panels.

Oh and by the way, does the author realize that there is a global shortage of solar panels right now (has been for years) and that it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce solar panels (specifically the refined silicon, which has to be thermodynamically extracted from silicon dioxide, not an easy thing to do).

What this resolution calls for is just not feasible.

1. What some nations here fail to realise is that the burning of fossile fuels are only a small percentage of what is used from crude oil. Only aproximately 10% of a barrel of oil is used in the production of machine opperating fuels. The rest goes into the production of products like, paints, hair products, skin products, cleaning agents, shoes, clothing, and things like these PC's that we love so much. Most of the chemical agents causing damage to our enviroment is the end result of the production of petrolium & plastic products. Which our friendly eviromentalist say are better for our enviroments than the use of natural resources like lumber, coal, animal, and natural gas. We polute our eviroments every day with the waste produced from the production of these plastic products. It seems to members of the UGN (United Greaser Nations) that a 10% reduction in polution would only be a token gesture at coming to a sensible solution to polution reduction. We would be better served to reduce our production of plastic products and take a better look at natural resources.

Quite right. For example, fossil fuels are used in the production of the plastic that solar cells must use.

- End Statement -

The best analogy that I have ever come across said that to meet all the power demands of the United States with silicon-based solar panels, you would have to cover all of California and part of Nevada with solar panels.

Once again, that is RL.

Oh and by the way, does the author realize that there is a global shortage of solar panels right now (has been for years)

And what about the shortage of oil that if we base it on RL (I have to since we have no figures for NS supplies) is not too far away and is closely followed by Natural Gas. When Oil and Natural Gas run out (In NS I'm saying now) we would have to rely on Coal as the other fossil fuel and that, my friends, we'll bring about a greater electricity shortage than any mentioned if we don't start using Alternate methods.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

If all of this pro-solar cell BS is true, why dont we all just buy a bunch of Sun Lamps, hook them to the solar cells, and shine the lamps on the cells! That would work...

Oh wait... that's just another pipe dream.

Once again, that is RL.

And what about the shortage of oil that if we base it on RL (I have to since we have no figures for NS supplies) is not too far away and is closely followed by Natural Gas. When Oil and Natural Gas run out (In NS I'm saying now) we would have to rely on Coal as the other fossil fuel and that, my friends, we'll bring about a greater electricity shortage than any mentioned if we don't start using Alternate methods.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Once again, the laws of physics can not be changed by UN resolutions.

- End Statement -

Nuclear power is clearly not. The risks are too high and causes too much damage if it malfunctions. Wind and Solar are clean, Hydroelectric is debatable, depends how it is used, geothermal and biomass are also sgnificantly friendly in comparison.

All known cases of nuclear meltdown or malfunction have resulted from either mishandling or a lack of proper maintenance. Like most highly dangerous items, nuclear reactors tend to explode if you don't know what you're doing.

Wind and Solar are not clean due to the materials necessary to produce them and the space they must take up. Hydroelectric is already known for causing damage, while geothermal is impractical without potentially damaging the Earth in a very permanent way and biomass has the same problems as gasoline.

In that case the implementation of this resolution would pressure governments into following the previously passed resolutions.

No, all passing this does is give me a way around it and a way to make a military strike against the UN members on Earth without ever firing a shot. Let's see how well your solar panels work when I block off the Sun for a couple of weeks.

Then you shouldn't have so much of a problem...you will not have to remove your current method of achieving electricity. In fact, your nation can be commended for using minimal fossil fuels.

Your own resolution says otherwise.

Are we making an RL resolution or an NS resolution?

I'm not sure. This is a RL issue applied to NS in a way that is not feasible in either.

While I congratulate your decision to not burn fossil fuels I must point out that nuclear reactors are far from the most environmentally safe method.

Actually, the only thing nonsafe about them is the waste, and someone who knows what they are doing can prevent that from damaging the environment. The rest of the safety concerns are answered with common sense and experience.

There is no shortage of oil. It's called withholding supplies, creating a bidding war to drive up prices! This goes to say that we will still eventually run out, but not as soon as everyone thinks. But solar panels will "not" solve this issue. Plus what happens when these panels stop functioning? Do you nations know how poisoness they are to dispose of them? Where will you dispose of them? Think! All sensible nations, do not support this measure!

Um what about CARS they need fossil fuels to work, And our weather would not let us use solar panels very often or at all. BAD IDEA

Your own resolution says otherwise.

No. It doesn't say that the nation must halt using geothermal energy. It says it must halt all FOSSIL FUEL generated energy. Of course, yes, they must also include Solar Panels along the way :).

I'm not sure. This is a RL issue applied to NS in a way that is not feasible in either.

That's a rediculous statement. This is also an NS issue.

Actually, the only thing nonsafe about them is the waste, and someone who knows what they are doing can prevent that from damaging the environment. The rest of the safety concerns are answered with common sense and experience.

No. There have been cases where reactors just overloaded with nothing the people could have done about it. And either way, do you think there aren't people who wouldn't know what they're doing? :rolleyes:

Dozens of Strobanian electrical engineers were found on the streets without a job today as they were caught laughing uncontrollably at their workplaces rather than working. When asked about their stance on the current agenda facing the UN, replies ranged from "You gotta be kidding!" to "Roll up your shirtsleeves, boys, we're going back to the stone age!"

In response, President Benjamin Russou intervened on their behalf and offered them new jobs at the Prosperpina fusion plant, stating "Hah hahah, now shut up and get back to work."

The Strobanian delegation to the UN would like to affirm everyone that, despite what is said to the contrary, this proposal on solar panels should never see the light of day (pun intended), and should not be allowed to pass. Instead, the UN should be looking at the feasability of launching solar power arrays into orbit. Any attempt to throttle the world energy market and force the world to rely on solar power will ultimately end in failure, widespread economic and ecologic collapse, and resource wars.

Buring of fossel fuels isnt ruining things like fresh air. Plants recycle used air for us making more for us to breath. I dont think there is any risk of loseing fresh air unless we distroy all our plant life.

Also what are you going to do about poorer nations that cant afford to build up all sorts of solar refletors? Whos going to pay for them? My nations wouldnt want to have to pay for another nation when we have our own problems.

No. It doesn't say that the nation must halt using geothermal energy. It says it must halt all FOSSIL FUEL generated energy. Of course, yes, they must also include Solar Panels along the way :).

The problem is that you are forcing them to at least partially switch their power sources. So, yes, your resolution states that they must change their power systems.

That's a rediculous statement. This is also an NS issue.

No, your resolution is rediculous. All of the reasons why have been supplied over the past 8 or more pages. The fact is that you are trying a solution which simply won't work without having to move away from anything even remotely resembling realism. And, no, this is not an NS issue. Not all NS nations have this problem, and most of the ones that do are likely solving it, have already solved it, or know someone who solved it.

No. There have been cases where reactors just overloaded with nothing the people could have done about it. And either way, do you think there aren't people who wouldn't know what they're doing? :rolleyes:

What, you mean like Chernoble? A reactor that was neglected and mistreated for years before it finally lost containment? Part of proper maintenance is updating with current technology, something that many nuclear reactors still fail to do. I'm pretty damned sure you can't find an example of a nuclear reactor going critical without there having been some human error made, whether in the mainenance, in failing to notice a problem, or in the construction. Properly maintained, properly used, and properly built is the way to prevent these meltdowns, and it always does.

its just not practical. even if this does pass none of th businesses or homes will put it into effect until the last day(10 years and seven months or something), it wont work and it will be too expensive.

what will the back-up power be? what kind of reserves will we have? what will automobiles use? submarines? your conuntries underground bomb shelters?

it wont and cant work. you might as well convert everything to wind power.

Peace

-psbass

Has it occured to any one at all what kind of waste is produced by the manufacture of solar panels and that essentially you'll need to burn "fossil fuels" ten years in the future to make these solar panels?

It will always be this way. So this resolution is like a snake eating its tail.

What, you mean like Chernoble? A reactor that was neglected and mistreated for years before it finally lost containment? Part of proper maintenance is updating with current technology, something that many nuclear reactors still fail to do. I'm pretty damned sure you can't find an example of a nuclear reactor going critical without there having been some human error made, whether in the mainenance, in failing to notice a problem, or in the construction. Properly maintained, properly used, and properly built is the way to prevent these meltdowns, and it always does.

I'd like you to find me the hundreds of people required, all of them exempt from natural human error, willing to work in a potentially dangerous area. There are people willing to work in dangerous areas like this, but very few are as skilled as you claim them to be. Human error = natural and in everybody.

But either way I don't see why we're debating this issue - I do not restrict Nuclear Power in my resolution.

Has it occured to any one at all what kind of waste is produced by the manufacture of solar panels and that essentially you'll need to burn "fossil fuels" ten years in the future to make these solar panels?

It will always be this way. So this resolution is like a snake eating its tail.

It has been brought up, and speaking for myself, I'd rather use fossil fuels to provide a clear future now (While the 10 year process is still intact), rather than use them up then be stuck in limbo.

Besides, one need not use fossil fuels to make these panels, one can use solar energy itself :P or any other alternative energy source ranging from nuclear to wind.

The snake would only start to eat it's tail, where it would then stop intermittently due to gaps caused by bad weather, night, and cloud coverage, then be attacked by the field mouse because no food is available and the only way for him to survive is to eat the snake's tail himself, which will then bring thousands of other field mice to argue in a room on behalf of all the mice in the world before they figure out that, hey, perhaps passing this proposal wasn't a good idea.

I'd like you to find me the hundreds of people required, all of them exempt from natural human error, willing to work in a potentially dangerous area. There are people willing to work in dangerous areas like this, but very few are as skilled as you claim them to be. Human error = natural and in everybody.

Once again, dancing in lala land. It's not just the people. Multi-tiered check system utilizing the latest technology with backup plants. If you have to take a power plant offline for any real length of time, use one of the backups. Remember to keep upgrading and replacing parts that need it.

But either way I don't see why we're debating this issue - I do not restrict Nuclear Power in my resolution.

Because I'm trying to present a solution not grounded farther out of reality than my fleet of space ships able to exceed the speed of light.

Besides, one need not use fossil fuels to make these panels, one can use solar energy itself :P or any other alternative energy source ranging from nuclear to wind.

No can do. The fossil fuels are required due to the specific manufacturing process. The only way an alternative method works is if you use fusion to piece the solar panels together one atom at a time, and it shouldn't take a genius to tell you why that's a bad idea.

No. There have been cases where reactors just overloaded with nothing the people could have done about it.

When?

- Me

When?

I don't even know the places let alone the dates, but there have been - before anyone accuses me of using poor history or something like that.

And besides, usually when a reactor is exploding - there is nothing anyone can do about it :rolleyes: :P.

I understand what you're trying to say, however you must take into consideration that one 24 hour period of sun is enough to last for a year, so assuming a country gets 12 hours of clear sunshine, that's lasting for about 6 months. (This is assuming the visibility is 100 % throughout all the 12 hours)

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation behind this one.

Hell, I'd probably have better success coaxing an An-225 off the runway and into the air with one turbine only.

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation behind this one.

I believe I said that I couldn't find it on the internet but it was from some notes I had taken on a trip to the Institute of Energy Technology. That is in fact, correct for a place where there are no clouds at all and it is a bright day. So my statement there was slightly correct it just didn't take into consideration cloud coverage.

I don't even know the places let alone the dates, but there have been - before anyone accuses me of using poor history or something like that.

Still waiting on which ones. Wait, you mean that explosion in Nevada in the 40s? Sorry, that was a nuclear bomb, not a nuclear reactor.

And besides, usually when a reactor is exploding - there is nothing anyone can do about it :rolleyes: :P.

If a reactor explodes, you either did something monumentally stupid and deserve a Darwin Award or someone blew it up. Even when a reactor begins to overload, there are basic shutdown procedures, backup shutdown procedures, and emergency shutdown procedures to prevent the reactor from exploding.

I'm pretty sure someone already covered this, but in order to generate that much power in a 24-hour period, you would literally need to cover the entire globe in solar cell arrays. And let's ignore the fact that that's never going to happen for just a moment; now you have to store all that energy, which brings about a whole new can of worms.

It will be a mistake of unprecedented proportions if this proposal passes.

I don't even know the places let alone the dates, but there have been - before anyone accuses me of using poor history or something like that.

And besides, usually when a reactor is exploding - there is nothing anyone can do about it

Actually, every meltdown has been the result of either poor safeguards or human factors engineering and could easily have been prevented in the design phase.

- Me

I'm pretty sure someone already covered this, but in order to generate that much power in a 24-hour period, you would literally need to cover the entire globe in solar cell arrays. And let's ignore the fact that that's never going to happen for just a moment; now you have to store all that energy, which brings about a whole new can of worms.

A 24-hour period is not practical. That's why I broke it down into a straight 12-hour period, and again it's only in nations where sun is abundant.

I would like to express my disagreement towards this proposal which is though based on good intentions. Which is why I think that some of the comments are a tad harsh on Starcra II.

Let me put it straight :
- We need to protect the environment.
- We need therefore green energies (I insist on the plural).
- We need to avoid any "solar discrimination" as some countries cannot afford it or cannot receive enough energy from the sun.
- We need to adapt an energy source to what would be used basically by countries in consideration of their needs.
- We need something that does not dent our National sovereignity.

I think that solar panel can be kept as a very good energy source. Of course it could not be the only one as it is impossible to just rely on this but it could be a very good incentive to use green energies.

Many of you were watching the sky procrastinating over the ozone layer, green house effect etc ... Did you realise that the solution could actually come from the sky?

Say a solar panel system is set up in space. The funds would be shared proportionately to the needs of a country. But this would not be a compulsory source (National sovereignity saved).
The problem of stocking the energy would be avoided because the energy from one side of the earth could circulate to another.

However, there is some problems in the application :
- The cost is tremendous and the setting up of the system would not be possible if the richest countries were not involved.
- Scientific problem : How to transfer the energy from the sky to the earth?

If these issues could be overcome, we could improve the system and actually install it on the most useless land of the world : the moon (except for werewolves and surfers maybe ...).
Can you imagine the possibility for each country to be part of a spatial project? This in itself is a leitmotiv!

Thank you for your time and excuse my English (I'm French).

Actually, every meltdown has been the result of either poor safeguards or human factors engineering and could easily been prevented in the design phase.

Once again, Human Error, which is not preventable, and will continue to happen.

But...

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE!!!

I would like to express my disagreement towards this proposal which is though based on good intention. Which is why I think that some of the comments are a tad harsh on Starcra II.

Let me put it staight :
- We need to protect the environment.
- We need therefore green energies (I insist on the plural).
- We need to avoid any "solar discrimination" as some countries cannot afford it or cannot receive enough energy from the sun.
- We need to adapt an energy source to what would be used basically by countries in consideration of their needs.
- We need something that does not dent our National sovereignity.

I think that solar panel can be kept as a very good energy source. Of course it could not be the only one as it is impossible to just rely on this but it could be a very good incentive to use green energies.

Many of you were watching the sky procrastinating over the ozone layer, green house effect etc ... Did you realise that the solution could actually come from the sky?

Say a solar panel system is set up in space. The funds would be shared proportionately to the needs of a country. But this would not be a compulsory source (National sovereignity saved).
The problem of stocking the energy would be avoided because the energy from one side of the earth could circulate to another.

However, there is some problems in the application :
- The cost is tremendous and the setting up of the system would not be possible if the richest countries were not involved.
- Scientific problem : How to transfer the energy from the sky to the earth?

If these issues could be overcome, we could improve the system and actually install it on the most useless land of the world : the moon (except for werewolves and surfers maybe ...).
Can you imagine the possibility for each country to be part of a spatial project? This in itself is a leitmotiv!

Thank you for your time and excuse my English (I'm French).

I found no problems with your English :).

And considering my national animal is the werewolf I'd be against putting on the moon but joking apart I like how you've put this all together. With further study into transferring energy down from above ground it may be the solution to most of this.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Made mistakes though ... you should read "intentions" with an "s" and "straight" with an "r" ... I knew it :mad:

Made mistakes though ... you should read "intentions" with an "s" and "straight" with an "r" ... I knew it :mad:

I just realised I could correct my own text ... I'm new sorry, I'm learning !

Once again, Human Error, which is not preventable, and will continue to happen.



By that logic, we should abandon all technologies and return to the trees.

But I will leave this alone, since my real objection is based on operational impossibilities of the proposal.

- Me

[QUOTE=Starcra II]
With further study into transferring energy down from above ground it may be the solution to most of this.

I suppose that everybody has gone quiet to find if there is a solution to this scientific challenge !

Once again, Human Error, which is not preventable, and will continue to happen.

Easily prevented and dealt with human error. It's no excuse, and not acceptable as an argument due to how easily solved it is.

But...

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE!!!

It's related, in the category of "more realistic and feasible than the fantasy the resolution at vote presents."

I would like to express my disagreement towards this proposal which is though based on good intention. Which is why I think that some of the comments are a tad harsh on Starcra II.

They're harsh because he's not listening and refuses to pay attention to the major problems, all of which are essentially insurmountable within anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.

Let me put it staight :
- We need to protect the environment.
- We need therefore green energies (I insist on the plural).
- We need to avoid any "solar discrimination" as some countries cannot afford it or cannot receive enough energy from the sun.
- We need to adapt an energy source to what would be used basically by countries in consideration of their needs.
- We need something that does not dent our National sovereignity.

You forgot two.

- We need something that is feasible and can last the long term.
- We need something that doesn't cost more than it puts out.

I think that solar panel can be kept as a very good energy source. Of course it could not be the only one as it is impossible to just rely on this but it could be a very good incentive to use green energies.

Not really. As a "green" energy it is unreliable, expensive, extremely pollutive, and essentially worthless for most applications. All it does is give further incentive to ignore "green" energies and concentrate in other areas.

Many of you were watching the sky procrastinating over the ozone layer, green house effect etc ... Did you realise that the solution could actually come from the sky?

Actually, the sky is a good place to get fuel from. But, not in the way you are thinking. You don't look to it as providing the fuel directly. You look at it as a place to go to get the fuel.

Say a solar panel system is set up in space. The funds would be shared proportionately to the needs of a country. But this would not be a compulsory source (National sovereignity saved).
The problem of stocking the energy would be avoided because the energy from one side of the earth could circulate to another.

However, there is some problems in the application :
- The cost is tremendous and the setting up of the system would not be possible if the richest countries were not involved.
- Scientific problem : How to transfer the energy from the sky to the earth?

The second one is easy. Microwaves. The first one is also extremely pollutive, and the entire setup results in a form of pollution when the satellites wear out.

If these issues could be overcome, we could improve the system and actually install it on the most useless land of the world : the moon (except for werewolves and surfers maybe ...).
Can you imagine the possibility for each country to be part of a spatial project? This in itself is a leitmotiv!

The Lunar Republic would be annoyed if you tried to install on their land. Then again, they're going to be annoyed at me after my next RP anyway, so meh.

Thank you for your time and excuse my English (I'm French).

It's better than some I have seen from native speakers.

yah... I hate to tell you guys this, but the fact is that Global warming is caused by a natural cycle of warming and cooling in the earth. Also. I saw that someone pointed something out close to this, and I did not read the entire forum, but the fact of the matter is places like Alaska have somewhere around 6 months of darkness.. as do most regions around that longitude. I agree that we need to swtich off of fossil fuels, because smog is still an issue, and also they will be depleted, however, ideas like hydrogen powering is not a good idea either, because a large of the worlds hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels... and to convert water to hydrogen/ oxygen would be a process still requiring a good amount of energy, where would we get this? Might I point people in the direction of wind power? Many places get enough wind to power large amounts of the world (also they are currently attempting to harvest it, bt not a large scale) If we want environmentally friendly alternatives we have to have just that, plural... alternatives... one method wont power it but I digress... needless to say I oppose this resolution for the ideas pointed out above, also because this would be more costly then its worth, and people shouldnt be forced to throw money out the window for such a large scale without being assured (with scientific evidence) and thorugh experiments that this would be able to power entire countries. I assure all of you that it cant be backed. and as I said before, the reasons for alternative off fossil fuels arent because its costly, but because of a term Im sure everyone learned in school Non renewable resources.

They're harsh because he's not listening and refuses to pay attention to the major problems, all of which are essentially insurmountable within anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.

I'm not listening? At least I don't keep bringing up Nuclear energy as an argument to put this bill down when it isn't even mentioned :rolleyes:

I believe I said that I couldn't find it on the internet but it was from some notes I had taken on a trip to the Institute of Energy Technology. That is in fact, correct for a place where there are no clouds at all and it is a bright day. So my statement there was slightly correct it just didn't take into consideration cloud coverage.

I previously showed the numbers based on how much energy the sun puts out that showed this is nowhere near true. In absolutely ideal conditions, twenty four hours of charging on a 1 meter square panel, will produce about 2.4 kW-hour of power. This is enough to run one 100 Watt bulb for 24 hours, a 300 Watt computer for eight hours or a six hundred Watt air conditioner for four hours. The only electrical device that will run for a year (8760 hours) is a 0.27 Watt device. A digital watch maybe? Possibly a cell phone (depending on use)? That is also assuming the battery stored the power perfectly with no trickle.

I'm sorry Delegate from Starcra II, there is no way that your figures add up clear day or no.

- End Statement -

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with any environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

I'm afraid this is a bit optimsitic in many ways. Ten years and seven months (by the way that is a really odd time limit) is far too little time for such a major change. There is no way that solar panels could replace fossil fuels entirely, especially in those countries which are not particularly sunny. This is especially true in the case of industries which require large amoutns of power, such as steel. It is also difficult for nations with not particularly good economies to produce such a large amount of solar panels without other sectors suffering drastically. Overall, though I agree with the general ideas and principles, this proposal is far too drastic and is unrealistic and I will therefore have to vote no towards it.

A 24-hour period is not practical. That's why I broke it down into a straight 12-hour period, and again it's only in nations where sun is abundant.
Starcra II, I've got solar powered lights in my yard. They have a few square inches of solar cells, and perhaps a 5 watt light. They're in sun at least 12 hours a day during the summer, but somehow don't manage to last all the way to midnight with their dim glow.

The crux of your argument is this ludicrous claim that 24 hours of sunlight can provide 365 days of your energy needs. Now I don't care whether that's one square meter, or the entire roof, or all of Death Valley - you need to FIND that source and PROVE your case. Until you do that, your entire proposal is a house of cards, resting entirely on a supposition that multiple posters have challenged. Some of us have even given you empirical data, indicating that the present real world applications cannot do what you claim they can.

Now the proposal is up for vote, and there is nothing we can do but vote Yes or No ... but you owe it to your readership to PROVE your claim or back off. Either would be fine.

Speaking semi-unofficially,
Frisbeeteria, NS Game Moderator and frequent UN Mod.

I'm not listening? At least I don't keep bringing up Nuclear energy as an argument to put this bill down when it isn't even mentioned :rolleyes:

Then answer the following three applicable questions:

1) How will countries pay for it? As previously mentioned, to equip your or my country would cost at least half the GDP (if paid for by the government) or twice the GDP per capita (if the people pay). This is very conservative and only takes household energy use into account.

2) How will this be implemented? Whole states of solar cells would need to be built *in ten years*. There is currently no way solar cell production can be ramped up that fast.

3) How will the issue of transportation be addressed? The transportation infrastructure can not exist as a solar powered one, and ten years is not nearly enough time to change.

The burning of fossil fuels does not deplete the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are responsible. CFCs were used as propellents, solvents and refrigerants but were banned in the 1990s.Because CFC's are stable compounds that catalyze the breakdown of ozone, it will be decades before we see any positive effects of the ban. I will vote against this bill because it it obviously based on faulty science.

*MESSAGE TO ALL UN MEMBERS*

I, Emperor Mothy see many flaws with this resolution.

For one:
3) Over the period of ten years and a month after this proposal passes Solar Panels should be installed in all homes and places of work and leisure.

In this section it unintentionally forces nations and citizens who do not wish to use power at all to have solar panels. Thus the Amish and other groups who reside in a UN nation will be forced to use solar power. I am sure that the author meant that solar power shall be the only form of power harvested and was not trying to force it on those who wish not to have electricity at all.

Secondly:
5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project.

Not only will UN member nations need to meet the cost of putting solar panels in all the residential units and public places, but will also be forced to aid other nations that cannot support themselves. I am sure that each nation has their priorities, and it is a fact that some nations have more important things to worry about then the pollution of their methods of harvesting power, such as hunger, welfare and industry which would be needed to be taken care of first in order for the nation to survive.

My concern is also evident in this part:
1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.
The UN has no bank or reserve, only the money of its members. Now every UN nation once doing all possible to make their nation meet the standards without seeing their nations end must then aid the nations that have not yet done so. Considering the number of UN nations and the rate of increase the cost of this act would be nothing short of trilions.

Now I agree with many of the points that the author has, such as:
2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.


However I strongly believe that, the mass introduction of Solar Panels everywhere will give us many unforeseen consequences and will devastate more than it could aid.

I would love for the world to use only solar panels, but I am afraid that this is definitely not the way to do it. Thus I am strongly against this resolution, and hope that all voting members note its cost.

Sincerely,

M

I myself am completley against this proposal. While I do believe that solar power is a better source of energy than say coal, and by better I mean cleaner, solar power is not as effecient as say hydro electric power. To use solar power to supply energy for entire nations is simply unfeesable. The sheer amount of money that would be needed to carry out a project such as that would break most countries economies. Not too mention, the project would take up huge amounts of a nations land, land that could be used for farming, land that could be turned into a nature preserve, land that could be used to manufacture a good that the whole world could use. If a country wishes to convert over to solar power, more power to them. I dont care. But it should not be a mandatory switch. In my opinion, it would be better for a country to invest in hydro electric dams, which last for at least fifty years with minimal repairs and provide huge amounts of power to large areas, or to invest in nuclear power, which is more dangerous than other forms, but the energy payout is enormous. But solar power is not the way to go, at least not nationally. Maybe individual buildings, or individual street lights, or something. But not an entire nation.

The burning of fossil fuels does not deplete the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are responsible. CFCs were used as propellents, solvents and refrigerants but were banned in the 1990s.Because CFC's are stable compounds that catalyze the breakdown of ozone, it will be decades before we see any positive effects of the ban. I will vote against this bill because it it obviously based on faulty science.

True, yet voting against this bill simply because it contains a slight factual error, would be short-sighted, as you would be ignoring the strong committment it would make in theory to renewable energies, its true focus.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'm not sure the total abolition of fossil fuel energy sources, even eventual, is the way to go. I support the use of alternate energy sources, certainly, but my understanding is that they are not as efficient as more polluting energy sources, such as fossil fuels. I support the use of solar panels (and other sources) to augment our current energy supply, but not totally replace it.

Not to mention the idiocy of forcing nations who are in black darkness all year round to use solar power! (Sub Aquatic Nations/Regions) Had this proposal clause whereby it only affected nations where solar power was feasable it may have had my support. As of this time we do not support this.

True, yet voting against this bill simply because it contains a slight factual error, would be short-sighted, as you would be ignoring the strong committment it would make in theory to renewable energies, its true focus.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We had not noted a dearth of Resolutions, committed to renewable resources and the environment. So, if the spirit of the law is really your concern, fear not, laws are already in place.

We can not begin to comprehend supporting a demonstrably bad Resolution, simply because the author meant well. UN Resolutions are mandated in all member nations, making it foolhardy to knowingly subject oneself to impractical, unfeasible, and unimplementable laws. UN Resolutions are not merely intellectual exercises and essays on political theory; they have real affects on our actual states and citizens.

If the intent is really that important, then the Resolution should be rewritten to take into account the laws of physics and the practical considerations of GDP, etc.

- Me

I cannot at this time speak for my Regions vote, but my personal vote stands against this resolution.

I am all for removing fossil fuels from being used in the world at large, greener and better methods exist. But solar cells are not one of the better options, for reasons that have already been discussed.

I would like to see this resolution rewritten to include research funding for additional green power sources, and the requirement to 'transition away from fossil fuel sources of power'. Specifically, I'd like to see it direct UN funding to researching Cold Fusion. Not ONLY cold fusion, but as one of the options to a cleaner fuel source.

I like the proprosal in principle, but not in practice. I hope to see it shot down that the author my pen a more expansive one.

We had not noted a dearth of Resolutions, committed to renewable resources and the environment. So, if the spirit of the law is really your concern, fear not, laws are already in place.

We can not begin to comprehend supporting a demonstrably bad Resolution, simply because the author meant well. UN Resolutions are mandated in all member nations, making it foolhardy to knowingly subject oneself to impractical, unfeasible, and unimplementable laws. UN Resolutions are not merely intellectual exercises and essays on political theory; they have real affects on our actual states and citizens.

If the intent is really that important, then the Resolution should be rewritten to take into account the laws of physics and the practical considerations of GDP, etc.

- Me


Considering the large quantity of redundant resolutions currently in place, the Cogs of the Machine Spirit could not agree more. Fewer well written and well thought out resolutions is more effective then a maelstrom of badly executed ones.

The Great Gear teaches that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. More effort needs to be put into what is practical and feasable, not what sounds nice. A well meant failure benefits no one.

- End Statement -

The Union of Tinis votes AGAINST this resolution.

My government has taken this position for three reasons. The first being unreasonable control of national laws, the second being the selectivity of the initiative, the third being that the resolution contains out right falsehoods.

The sovereignty problem is very obvious. Requiring an end to fossil fuel use in its entirety is unreasonable to the extreme. The Union of Tinis gets 95% of its electrical power from wind, water, and nuclear power sources. The remaining 5% is mainly made up of several alternative energy sources such as geothermal, but also by burning ethanol, natural gas, and coal. We are working to phase out the gas and coal portions and are very quickly nearing that goal. So there is no doubt about my government's commitment to the environment. But that being said, there are several specific uses of fossil fuels that we do not plan to phase out in the near term. Personal transport vehicles run off of battery power charged by our countries power grid, but certain emergency vehicles and heavy machinery of certain types only use gasoline. There are also remote parts of Tinis where in the winter the locals burn coal, among other things like wood, for heat. Out right banning these things is completely unreasonable. And this is in Tinis, a nation which prides itself on environmental cleanliness. For nations that don't care at all its an even greater intrusion into their civil law!

The selectivity is very disturbing. Only solar panels are to be installed in all homes and businesses? Sure this makes for a rather strong electric network as each node can self sustain up to a certain point, but some parts of my home land, and many places in other UN nations are unfit for solar power. This makes this resolution, besides short sighted in only requiring solar panels, but also economically foolish. Why purchase solar panels for homes that only get an hour of sunlight a day on average? Or businesses that would benefit more from putting up wind turbines? A poorly thought out move on the writer's part.

Finally, the statement "4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps." is FALSE. The ozone layer is depleted not by CO2, but such nastiness as CFCs which are very rarely a by product of fossil fuel use (and if it is, there's something wrong with the refinery you got your fuel from). And on top of that, the creation of ozone holes does not lead to global warming. Ozone holes create patches where ultraviolet light from the sun can reach the surface in greater quantities than normal. Global warming occurs by a general increase in CO2, methane, and water vapor in the atmosphere trapping heat. The writer of the bill may be trying to use scary buzz words to fool the casual voter into thinking the issue of the ozone layer and global warming are directly related, when they are not, in order to drum up more support. This is dishonest and such lies should not be enshrined in the United Nations.

Thank you.

We had not noted a dearth of Resolutions, committed to renewable resources and the environment. So, if the spirit of the law is really your concern, fear not, laws are already in place.

We can not begin to comprehend supporting a demonstrably bad Resolution, simply because the author meant well. UN Resolutions are mandated in all member nations, making it foolhardy to knowingly subject oneself to impractical, unfeasible, and unimplementable laws. UN Resolutions are not merely intellectual exercises and essays on political theory; they have real affects on our actual states and citizens.

If the intent is really that important, then the Resolution should be rewritten to take into account the laws of physics and the practical considerations of GDP, etc.

- Me

I take issue with your interpretation of U.N. Resolutions. They are intellectual exercises and essays on political theory, because to engage in a series of debates based on Realpolitik, would be impossible. Ideology is the driving force behind change and whether or not it has an affect on citizens and states is a by-product of its creation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

because to engage in a series of debates based on Realpolitik, would be impossible.

Hundreds of diplomats will be devastated to know that their careers did not exist.

- Me

Ideology is the driving force behind change and whether or not it has an affect on citizens and states is a by-product of its creation.



Actually, the driving force behind change is self-interest or in this case national-interest.

- Me

Since this resolution is so broad, it would have to include automobiles, many airplanes, and many other modes of transportation. It would also include military vehicles, as I interpret it. It isn't reasonable to expect tanks and fighter jets to be powered by solar panels, especially at night. The only solar powered car so far is a one seater, and it's completely covered in panels. It would be unrealistic to expect the government and private companies to develop solar powered airplanes and cars by the deadline, and what about emergency generators? I'm all for transitioning from fossil fuel to a cleaner and renewable resource, but this resolution is unrealistic in it's expectations of modern technology.

I take issue with your interpretation of U.N. Resolutions. They are intellectual exercises and essays on political theory, because to engage in a series of debates based on Realpolitik, would be impossible. Ideology is the driving force behind change and whether or not it has an affect on citizens and states is a by-product of its creation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The Citizens of the Machine Spirit assure you that they do exist and that their lives are not a excersize in theory for others to play with casually.

One thing to think of if you try to vote along the "global good" lines is that the more poorly thought out idealistic legislation that gets passed pushes more pragmatic member nations out of the UN. Rouge nations do not adhere to UN mandates so your ultimate goal is nill. If you want to promote "global good" to the maximum extent, do not throw your power around about willy nilly but rather use it in a well thought out manner.

This resolution, althogh well intentioned, is not well thought out. This has been proven several times over through rational discourse in this forum. Additionally, there exists several existing resolutions that address the concerns here. They include;

(18) Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (which also suffers from the flaw of implementation and specificity)

(39) Alternate Fuels (which oblivates the need for 18)

(71) Sustainable Energy Sources (which addresses the exact concerns of this resolution and even mentions solar specifically in article 3).

So, what does this proposal add?

- End Statement -

Honorable members of the United Nations

At first, I voted in favor of this resolution. However, after thinking about it, it seems more of a far fetched dream than anything else. Solar Panels would get, obviously, little power during heavy cloud cover. Industries could collapse quickly. So, the Democratic Nations of Haughey shall vote against this resolution.

Cordially,
President Cornelius Haughey

Several facts:

- The output of a solar panel is quite low, the theoretical output is 35%, the real output will be much more in the range of 15%: Solar Panels are inefficient.
- Solar Panels are fragile, they easily brake (think off a rooftile hitting one, and especially with a natural disaster like a tidle wave, storm, allbeit a small one, or even just severe rain and hail.)
- It costs money to make Solar Panels, money not every nation can make in 10 years.
- It costs energy to make Solar Panels, energy gathered from cokes, coal, gas and oil. With all of these fuels, CO2 is emitted, which damages the environment.
- The destruction/demolition of devices, powerhouses and engines, based on fossil fuels, also costs energy. We will also need the same fuels as mentioned before with the same effects.
- As mentioned earlier: the sun doesn´t always shine.

Conclusions: I can conclude that solar panels are only efficient on the long term (they have a relatively low output, combined with a small given amount of hours of sunshine possible), if they live that long (they are fragile). Furthermore, I can conclude that the Proposal is unachievable for many poor nations, unless a UN subsidy is given to speed up that process, I can say that it is unfair for those poor nations if they do not receive subsidies. Finally, I say that it would be unfair for those nations in rainy areas of the world, or at least areas where the sun doesn´t shine. Their energy income will be low, probably lower than with the fossil fuel industry, they would (still) have to rely on other nations for their energy supply.

As a note I need to say that is rediculous to enforce such an action. I would much rather have seen that these actions will be strongly recommended, but not enforced.

As a secundary note, I wish to add that I am against the burning of fossil fuels, however, there are more efficient and economic ways of making energy than Solar Panels. For instance: Nuclear Power is clean (no pollution, except of a few grams(oz.) of radio-active material per several tons of Uranium or Plutonium. The risks are fairly slim: the chance of a meltdown is very, VERY small. And even then, it doesn´t have to go wrong. The Nuclear Power Plant at Chernobyl exploded, not because of the Uranium, but as a result of growing pressure by steam, that´s right: H2O. Furthermore: containmentwalls fo Nuclear Power Plants are stronger, thicker -> better. And finally: Chernobyl exploded as a result of bad management. That is also better now.

I wish you wisdom in your choice

I agree that solar panels should be encouraged, but fossil fuels are a reliable source of energy and if a percentage could be worked out of the amount of fossi fuel used to provide energy maybe i would agree with this, however this is a bit too radical for me if resubmitted with a hybrid system i would agree

My personal vote would have to go against.

While the resolution is noble in its cause, it is non-practical and will do more harm than good.

The solar panel while environment-friendly is a wild card of the energy sources. The electricity it produces is inconsistent and not really a form of energy that can be best relied on. Perhaps as a secondary or supporting form of energy, but never a primary source of energy. Plus we do have to take into account that nations here may or may not receive enough sunlight to even survive off of. Simply, it is just unrealistic to just try to convert each and every member nation to change its energy base. I also would like to point out that others before me have contributed good points as well.

I will vote against

I am all for solar power but I strongly oppose forced "progress" such as Mao was into.

forcing solar panels on all houses will reduce availability of low cost housing, it might unveil unforseen problems - and in the extreme, what if a comet hits us in 15 years time? What are we to do for power then?

a planetary electrical network that is hooked up to these solar panels means that we'd be able to supply energy to the entire planet at all times.

i think that the idea for introducing a global solar arrangement is a good idea, but a world wide power grid could not opperate on solar power alone.

the sheer amount of panels would be inconceivable, and the technology to distrobute power over that amount of area just doesnt exist.

i believe how ever, if you divide the globe into planetary bands, to which would vary on obvious land area, and combineing with tidal, wind, and geothermal methods of collecting energy, and also possibly developing fussion reactors (risque subject that bit).
but we have a wide spread global system of hydrogen cells to acctually store surplus energy indifferent regions.
it would be a big long shot to impliment, regardless of any time given,
the 10 year gap is downright impossible, it would put far too much strain on the economy, and then destroy it to lack of energy for the globe,

i am against this proposal as too little is thought about the conciquences it would have on people, yes they coudl breath, but there would be no economy for them, and only about 8 hours average amounts of full power, (also, solar power gives a DC current, and 98% of all mains opperated systems would have to be modified)

not enough thought..

I would like to extend a personal greetings to all delegates from Emperor Brian I of Feltoria. Both he and I have sincere hopes that we can work well with each other. After all, diplomacy is the purpose of the United Nations.

We do have objections to this resolution, but those can wait. It is obvious that Starcra and others want this resolution passed, and it would be a better use of my efforts to offer suggestions on how to amend it than to be adversarial about it. After all, it is evident from the other posts, and the fact that this resolution has come to a vote, that there is enough support for it to pass.

With this in mind, it is in Feltoria's (as well as many other nations') best interests to shape the resolutions so we can comply.

The changes Feltoria proposes are as follows:

1. One recurring objection is transportation. Being able to convert our power grid to another energy source may take slightly more than ten years, but converting our cars and other forms of transportation may take longer. Feltoria is currently looking for a replacement energy source for cars and such, since Feltoria has very limited oil resources, but we are still years away from even having a working design. Unfortunately I can give no estimates of when such a design will be finished; you can be sure that, when it is, Feltorian vendors will be more than happy to sell you them.
If there were a clause that granted more time for the design of such technology, we could potentially see Feltorian support.

2. There is major concern over conversion to solar power, as well. Feltoria has avoided solar power use, mainly because, like many nations, we do not have a warm, sunny climate. One way that we recommend to make this resolution more agreeable would be to tone down the emphasis on solar energy. This resolution seems to be fiercely threatening to many smaller and darker nations, which is the reason for such fiery opposition.
Feltoria recommends changing, specifically, the requirement to have solar panels installed. We understand the motivation, but Feltoria does not have the financial resources or the climate to comply.

Feltoria is loathe to give up its choice for energy freedom, but we believe that this international body has potential and, to be honest, we need its support to keep our new government stable and legitimate. In the interests of cooperation I submit these points. I hope they should prove useful.

Regards,
Ambassador Alana Griego, Feltorian Ambassador to the UN, representing
Emperor Brian I, Emperor of Feltoria

"Ex excellentia, imperium."

i voted for, since Fossil fuel is now "forced" to being used instead of Solar energy and i want Solar energy too be the new "forced" Used energy source.

i do however oppose the Fossil feuls being blamed for the thin ozon layer. While that has neve been scientificly proven and noting Volcanoes blow out more CO2 gases then all Fossil Feul Electricity factories and cars put together.
Which indicates it is a natural process and is no reason for alarm.

Starcra, it doesn't matter how often you repeat the statement that the resolution doesn't force us to use only solar power. You won't change the fact that you have mandated that essentially every building ("homes and places of work and leisure") be installed with solar panels, regardless of the practicality or the usefulness. This is utterly absurd, for several reasons:

a) This much solar-generated electricity may well be utterly unnecessary, as some nations already generate sufficient power from other renewable sources - yet you force them to install solar panels on every building regardless
b) Some buildings never see the light of day - technically, your resolution forces us to install solar panels on underground bunkers and other structures, buildings that are permanently in shade, buildings in the polar regions that are in darkness half the year, etc. etc. despite the fact that these panels will not generate sufficient electricity supply to justify their construction
c) Building unneeded solar panels is not only destructive to the economies of our nations, it is immensely destructive to the environment. Production uses up our finite hydrocarbon supply (oil), involves unavoidable pollutant waste products, and requires large amounts of energy - many countries are not yet using renewable energy resources, this means that the amount of fossil fuels being burnt will skyrocket over the next decade as nations rush to meet your foolish and irresponsible targets. The resultant rise in oil prices could well tip the global economy into deep trouble, making it even harder to invest in advanced green technologies

You've still failed to respond to people's concerns about your total ban on burning fossil fuels. I ask again, how are we supposed to extract iron from its ore without reduction in blast furnaces, which requires coke? What are our Bunsen burners in labs supposed to run on? And how can we continue research into organic chemistry if the police have to arrest any scientist who combusts a gram of hydrocarbon?

The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions. This resolution, if passed and not repealed, will lead to the collapse of civilisation as we know it (you're throwing us back before the IRON age, for heaven's sake), economic collapse, and quite possibly environmental disaster. Congratulations.

EDIT: Oh, and you can post smileys and make approving noises about the solar space arrays suggested by other posters all you like - by the time we've installed solar panelling in every single building in the UN as your resolution requires, there'll barely be a single nation in the UN with an economy capable of sustaining any kind of space programme, let alone a project of this magnitude.

Finally, what do you expect of nations joining the UN after the 10 years changeover period is finished? In order to be in compliance with the resolution, they will have to halt all burning of fossil fuels the moment they join the UN. Nobody with any sense would do this except the few nations that had already undegone such changes anyway - so you'll have made the UN powerless to attract new members, thus nullifying its ability to cause any meaningful change (apart of, course, from your legacy of global depression).

Destroying the World's Economy,

Though it has been previously mentioned, I would like to add my disapproval of this proposel. Look at the size of a standard seventeen inch computer monitor. For that size of a solar panel to be installed, it would cost over ten thousand dollars. Couple this with the fact that those in poverty cannot afford such cost, this proposel cripples the poor people of the world.

Additionally, the proposel only says to have the panels installed. It fails to take into account that any sizeable computer labrotory, or skyscraper for that matter, would be unable to provide enough electricity to meet the needs of the inhabitants. Though it is mentioned that other means for producing electricity can be used, diverting this massive amount of funds into solar panels would likewise cripple many nations electricity grid.

Finally, there's no mention of storing the energy in batteries. This cost, and need for storage, would mean that... well, again with the poor people thing, they're ------.

|Daniel

i voted for, since Fossil fuel is now "forced" to being used instead of Solar energy and i want Solar energy too be the new "forced" Used energy source.

I apologize if I seem a little picky, but fossil fuels aren't "forced" right now. They are just currently the most used fuels as of the moment either by necessity or by choice. I merely wanted to clear that up.

I apologize if I seem a little picky, but fossil fuels aren't "forced" right now. They are just currently the most used fuels as of the moment either by necessity or by choice.
They may as well be forced, what with the millions of dollars oil companies associated with the US vice pres pay to biotech agencies and other scientific research centers to keep their products secret, quiet, and off the market. And for what???? Oh yeah, the good of the American economy. (Dripping with sarcasm)
:(

To Starcra,

The general thrust of this debate supports the notion of alternative energy use.
However, it is also obvious that this proposal seems like a first draft. Some of the "facts" presented, although I agree, are only opinions. You keep on defending badly worded and ill-informed proposals. Don't take it personally. Withdraw the proposal and redraft it!!!!!!!!!

The nation of Caimex voted against this resolution due to the fact that Caimex doubts in the reliability of this technology.

- Delegation of CAIMEX

If solar energy is really better, then people will do it without any bureaucratic prompting. There is no point in forcing such a resolution on any nation because not all nations have the same problems. Some, for instance, don't have fossil fuels, lack cars, or are already developing other forms of energy (wind power, perhaps). So, what are those nations supposed to do about a resolution like this? The world is too broad and diverse a place to expect all its nations to comply with a request like this. If solar energy is really better then people will do it on their own. There is no point in forcing such a resolution on any nation because not all nations have the same problems. Some, for instance, don't have fossil fuels, lack cars, or are already developing other forms of energy (wind power, perhaps). So, what are those nations supposed to do about a resolution like this? The world is too broad and diverse a place to expect all its nations to comply with a request like this.

Poor science, unacheivable demands. I'm afraid we cannot support.
Trying to clean up our environmental mistakes is a great thing, something we endorse wholeheartedly, but your proposal makes demands that simply cannot be achieved that quickly, and this would put rather a strain on the technology necessary to hold our civilization together. We find that the road to environmentally-friendly technology is a long road of many small steps, rather than one giant leap.

King Hassan the Chop stands up to walk to the podium. Once again the assembly floor hushes with intense apprehension, and yes even Canada6 elbows the delegate from the spoon saving nation and says: "Oh Boy, now we will get real wisdom on the matter at hand!"

My fellow member member nations:

We are indeed gathered here today to help out the whole world by telling them that in 10 years they can no longer use fossil fuels, and that everyone must make solar provisions to their houses if they want to be in comfort:rolleyes:

Cmon now, how the hell is this gonna help some third world nation that is using a hospital made out of a canvas tent in 90+ degree weather that can barely afford a lawn-mower sized generator. :headbang:

Or how about the rich northern/southern nations that have a half a year of daylight and then a half year of nightlight??? How will they warm themselves during the night-time cycle.

My scientists are doing all they can to get us away from relying on fossil fuels and I am pleased to say that in less than 10 years, fossil fuel consumption will be a small piece of The City by the Live's Sea's energy pie. But it is through my nations choice that it will happen--and not from a mandate from the world that thinks they are better than the whole NationStates worlds.

I implore all of you to rethink this proposal and vote no. If you do like this proposal, fine put it to work in your own nations, but leave the rest of the world(s) out of your desires.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

They may as well be forced, what with the millions of dollars oil companies associated with the US vice pres pay to biotech agencies and other scientific research centers to keep their products secret, quiet, and off the market. And for what???? Oh yeah, the good of the American economy. (Dripping with sarcasm)
:(

Do you have any evidence of this. If not, I'd suggest a radical left-wing talk show to be a more appropriate place for your speculations and conspiracy theories.

I'm going to agree with Strobania. Solar power is expensive to deploy. It is also inefficient. But since it'll pass no matter what we do, you guys better start writing up proposals to repeal it. It will kill everyone's economies.

King Hassan the Chop stands up to walk to the podium. Once again the assembly floor hushes with intense apprehension, and yes even Canada6 elbows the delegate from the spoon saving nation and says: "Oh Boy, now we will get real wisdom on the matter at hand!"

My fellow member member nations:

We are indeed gathered here today to help out the whole world by telling them that in 10 years they can no longer use fossil fuels, and that everyone must make solar provisions to their houses if they want to be in comfort:rolleyes:

Cmon now, how the hell is this gonna help some third world nation that is using a hospital made out of a canvas tent in 90+ degree weather that can barely afford a lawn-mower sized generator. :headbang:

Or how about the rich northern/southern nations that have a half a year of daylight and then a half year of nightlight??? How will they warm themselves during the night-time cycle.

My scientists are doing all they can to get us away from relying on fossil fuels and I am pleased to say that in less than 10 years, fossil fuel consumption will be a small piece of The City by the Live's Sea's energy pie. But it is through my nations choice that it will happen--and not from a mandate from the world that thinks they are better than the whole NationStates worlds.

I implore all of you to rethink this proposal and vote no. If you do like this proposal, fine put it to work in your own nations, but leave the rest of the world(s) out of your desires.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
In a rare stunning decision Canada6 has decided to publicly state that it is in full support of The City by the Live S' recent statement.

Though this nation would heartily love to accept this proposal, it is not practical. We can't force more than 100 billion citizens to install solar panels on their houses and places of business. The size of our country will not allow it. Furthermore, what would we do with the people who refused to install the panels. We refuse to arrest anyone not complying with this order. It is UnConstitutional in our country. If this law gets passed the United States Of Kraku will NOT follow it. We are taking a stand. No one can force us to comply with this order. Please tell me that there are other nations that would stand with us in protesting this proposal.

Who is voting yes on this joke???

How is it that the yes's are ahead??

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Though this nation would heartily love to accept this proposal, it is not practical. We can't force more than 100 billion citizens to install solar panels on their houses and places of business. The size of our country will not allow it. Furthermore, what would we do with the people who refused to install the panels. We refuse to arrest anyone not complying with this order. It is UnConstitutional in our country. If this law gets passed the United States Of Kraku will NOT follow it. We are taking a stand. No one can force us to comply with this order. Please tell me that there are other nations that would stand with us in protesting this proposal.
(( Anyone with common sense agrees with you. ))

Even Captain Planet and the Planeteers are against this!

Let our powers combine!


:D
lllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllll
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Earth! Fire! Wind! Water! Heart! By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet! GO PLANET!

We're sorry, but we shot down Captain Planet when he tried to abort our nuclear tests, 300 miles from a major urban center. We didn't necessarily shoot him down. The idiot stood in the test area, trying to shoot down the ballistic missile warhead. Of course, he didn't know that a ballistic missile falling at hundreds of feet per second couldn't be blown away with the power of wind. So he was vaporized. No one cared.

I utterly oppose this, not that I don't support alternate forms of energy, but it's unrealistic, expensive, and how would you like to have to produce 100 million solar panels? MINIMUM! As such, my vote goes against. We also threaten to resign at hte last mintue if it looks like it will definately pass.

I'm afriad there are too many people who see "solar panels" and don't bother reading the rest.

I'm afriad there are too many people who see "solar panels" and don't bother reading the rest.

My advisors are now coming to me with statistics:

It would appear to us that the main nations pushing for this proposal have a national income tax of greater than 50%--Heck this nation of Zatarak has a tax rate of 75%.

I say this because when you actually go over a 30% tax rate, you are taking away your very own people's livelyhood and making them a form of identured servant for your governments. These things ought not to be soooo :rolleyes:

Anyway's let us look at responses from shall we say, nations that care about their peoples and let them enjoy the fruits of their own incomes instead of giving it all to the government and just being dependent on the government for your next drink of water...ie spoon savers.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Zat, you are correct, I know that one of my best friends will be voting yes (especialy if I told him to vote no (he gets kind of itchy sometimes)) as he porbably won't stop to consider all impacts.

Is it possible that we will be kicked out of the UN for refusing to honor this BS law? If so than Our country will be a martyer.

Zat, you are correct, I know that one of my best friends will be voting yes (especialy if I told him to vote no (he gets kind of itchy sometimes)) as he porbably won't stop to consider all impacts.
:rolleyes:

The People's Republic of Te Lyubam is shocked that such an impractical, unrealistic, ill-informed resolution looks like it will be passed. Te Lyubam plans to do nothing about implementing this unfeasible proposal while campaigning for a repeal to be passed. If this does not occur within ten years, Te Lyubam will be forced to resign from the United Nations, rather than implementing this destructive proposal, which would undoubtedly devastate our economy and lead to civil war and revolution.

The United Nations Delegate for Te Lyubam
Baroness Julie Andrews

The only silver lining in this sad episode is the fact that we have ten years to repeal it.

The United Nations should not be used as a vehicle for global economic collapse.

(( I would bet that this was drafted to measure the ignorance of the NSUN community. ))

My advisors are now coming to me with statistics:

It would appear to us that the main nations pushing for this proposal have a national income tax of greater than 50%--Heck this nation of Zatarak has a tax rate of 75%.

I say this because when you actually go over a 30% tax rate, you are taking away your very own people's livelyhood and making them a form of identured servant for your governments. These things ought not to be soooo :rolleyes:

Anyway's let us look at responses from shall we say, nations that care about their peoples and let them enjoy the fruits of their own incomes instead of giving it all to the government and just being dependent on the government for your next drink of water...ie spoon savers.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Oh no, I only tax the poor and those without jobs that much. And what does this have to do with what I said?

Caddistan, with its copius sunlight, welcomes this proposal and votes for. :cool:

Opprusia believes in the importance of solar energy and other alternative energy sources, and thinks that some of the ideas here are good, but the proposal itself is far too radical, and too far-reaching to apply to every nation with in the UN.

Okay you Greenpeace Liberals!

1. The manufactur of solar cells creates more environmental toxins than the fossil fuel emissions they prevent. Perhaps when the technology overcomes this obstacle you will still be green and promote it again.

2. You will impoverish your nations and the rest of us with this initiative and place us at a tremendous economic disadvantage versus all non- U.N member states.

3. Every fact you listed to promote this is either blatantly false or disputable and not one shred of evidence was offered to support those assertions.

We all want clean air and water. We all want the ice-caps to stay right where they are, but there are more sensible means to obtain those goals.

Are you joking?? The hole doesn't 'disappear', it's permanent. All we can do is prevent any furhter holes.


Woo Woo Woo, Factually Incorrect Statement!!!!!!!!

This makes it sound like the ozone layer is like a piece of metal, and you can punch a hole in it and it will just stay there.

The reaction that breaks 03 down into regular oxygen is reversible. When Ultraviolet rays strike oxygen up there it can turn back into ozone.

The hole size fluctuates seasonally, morphs into figure eights, and even disappears for amounts of time.

Also there is no connection between fossil fuels and the ozone layer. Sorry to reiterate this but its true.


Overall this has got to be one of the worst proposals I have ever seen in my entire lifetime, even before I started playing NS...

Enough common sense was displayed by the opponents of this in this thread, I hope there is enough common sense among the rest of the NS users.
Last time I checked, it was winning! :eek: :confused: :( :headbang:


We're sorry, but we shot down Captain Planet when he tried to abort our nuclear tests, 300 miles from a major urban center. We didn't necessarily shoot him down. The idiot stood in the test area, trying to shoot down the ballistic missile warhead. Of course, he didn't know that a ballistic missile falling at hundreds of feet per second couldn't be blown away with the power of wind. So he was vaporized. No one cared.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL HAHAHAHAH Thats hilarious

[From the HOCEK NSUN Nunciate e-mail system]

TO: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, Diplomatic Affairs Office
CC: HOCEK Conclave of Wisdom, Friendship Liaison

FROM: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, NSUN Nuncio

SUBJECT: Responsible Voting

REF: NSUN Proposed Resolution, "Promotion of Solar Panels" (attached)

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

Your Graces:

I respectfully request a ruling on a matter of doctrine from the Conclave of Wisdom. In brief, would it be a violation of the Church's "friendly neighbor" principle to vote in favor of the attached resolution? It is so utterly impractical and potentially destructive, its passage could serve as a useful rebuke to those nations here in the NSUN who seem intent on using this body as a sledgehammer against nations like Ours which speak up for national sovereignity. Given our recent battering with the last batch of resolutions up for vote, it would seem only just.

Awaiting your reply,
Your dutiful servant and Nuncio

We would like to make just two points:
1. That the resolution would end all use of fossil fuels in ten years is a nice sentiment, but one must look at the logistics. We speak not of the monetary costs (which are enormous), the resources (which will last at least 40 more years), or the fact that the number one polluter in the world is not addressed here (the automobile). Just to put these new systems in place would take far longer than ten years, and would disrupt the very fabric of life for out citizens. We endorse a more "green" policy of energy production and consumption, including an increase in solar, wind, water, and geothermal power, but we must be realistic in our application. The technology just isn't there yet (and we cannot count on that to change magically by 2015), and we cannot replace our entire infrastructure in a matter of years. That takes decades.
2. That while we do hold certain things on our member nations (some of which we do not agree with, but abide by), those that are not in the United Nations (which is a substantial number, nearly half of all nations in Jennifer Government, including many of the largest and most powerful nations) would not have to abide by these very restrictive rules. The pollution would still occur, and it may increase, as our nations will outsource production to places that are more lax in pollution standards. It will simply be a boon to them and an eventual erosion of our own economies. The sentiment is there, but to bind member nations to this resolution is to bind their hands behind their back while non member nations rob us, not blind, but in broad daylight. And we, the member nations of these United Nations, would lose, and would have no choice but to lose.
Do not fate us to be a weak organization of restrictions, but rather an empowering organization that works proactively for good.

Flanagania will resign from the UN if this resolution is passed. We will be recommending all other Southern Cross Alliance members to do likewise.

It is a foolish proposal! :headbang: :headbang:

NOTING that Solar Panels provide each home with the most reliable source of electricity.



A question for all those opposed to this resolution:

How do these resolutions keep getting through?


Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

Just to let the fools who proposed this resolution know, my country is resigning effective immediately. I really hoped the UN would be cool but a few nutso nations have begun to destroy it by pushing their own agendas. My country cannot afford to participate in this program should it pass and judging by the number of votes it has already received, it probably will. These last two resolutions have been utterly foolish. Should the UN decide to respect national sovereignty and realize its actual purpose, international unity rather than division, someone let me know. For now, you can push whatever you want on other nations, but I won't put up with it.

Peace

A question for all those supporting this resolution:

How do you spell "Global Economic Collapse"?

They may as well be forced, what with the millions of dollars oil companies associated with the US vice pres pay to biotech agencies and other scientific research centers to keep their products secret, quiet, and off the market. And for what???? Oh yeah, the good of the American economy. (Dripping with sarcasm)
:(

The Dominion of the Machine Spirit would like to export tin foil hats to your nation to block out the government's mind control lasers. The Illuminati has already bought several cases.

- End Statement -

Its rather unfortunate that 3000 or so people saw the good points of the proposal, but only those. This could easily destroy the economies of thousands of Nations. Sure, its the internet, thats ok, but it makes it really difficult say, to roleplay a massive empiristic-nation with the economy of Malawi.

A question for all those opposed to this resolution:

How do these resolutions keep getting through?


Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

Possibly for two reasons.

1) People don't read the proposal, don't participate in discussion and vote with ther heart without considering implications.

2) The rational balance to #1 leaves the UN which disbalances the organization further.

- End Statement -

hum, we voted AGAINST this proposition
watching early results, it appears it will pass:
Votes For: 3,361
Votes Against: 1,466

so, we would like to express a hope message for every Nations who are concerned about this utopia (even if we think this proposition is well intentionned):

"Don't worry, we will have 10 years to pass a repeal, before this proposition will do anything"

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill, UN Delegate of NationStates Region, submits 188 Endorsements AGAINST this breech of National Soveriegnty.

Although the Resolution claims to PROMOTE Solar Energy; in fact this Resolution COMPELS Nations to completely alter their current Energy Programs, regardless of ability or choice, toward solely Solar Energy.

This action of COMPELLING Nations to the whims of altruistic yet narrow~minded "Sun Worshipers" is in direct violation of our Region's belief, as stated in our World Factbook:... "...freedom for all nations to control their own destinies...".

Although our Region is Pro-UN we believe that:
"By Pro-UN we mean that it is our opinion that the UN ought to exist as a community of Nations dedicated to a Global view of the World.

By no means does this infer that we are necessarily in agreement with many of the Resolutions this UN Community passes. On the contrary!

We adhere to the belief that Self-Government (Sovereignty) is sacrosanct. However, in a Global community the UN can provide for rules of engagement between Nations."

With continued Resolutions such as this one The UN is no longer providing for Rules of Engagement rather The UN is circumventing the Sovereignty of EVERY Nation in the JenGuv Land.

We seek all Nations to impose Sun Block on this Resolution lest the Cancer of its rule destroy the UN Body in the quest for some altruistic feel-good but mis-applied sense of looking good.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

MEMO
TO: RESPECTED UN DELEGATES
FROM: CHAIRWOMAN DEBRA MACKENSAY, FOREIGN MINISTER, CEO OF BIOGEN INDUSTRIES

What the honored delegate who authored this high-minded resolution clearly fails to appreciate is that the UN is a system of ambassadorial machinations, not a governing body. Under the UN Charter, the sovereignity of all nations must be preserved and upheld against any cost. You simply do not have the authority to tell a government that they "have to" begin solar panel construction. You do not have the authority to dictate how a government will apportion its budget. And you certainly do not have the authority to enact legislation that would disrupt the lives of a nation's private citizens. Furthermore, the member corporations of the Federation of Joint Conglomerates are engaged in business affairs in which the use of solar power would be simply inadequate. I am certain that this is the case with a vast majority of corporations throughout the world as well. The fact of the matter is that solar power technology is not developed to the point that it will meet global business needs... And I may add on a personal note, that the UN's villification of international business is a serious detriment to the global economy. Your adorable little "environment" is all very lovely, I am sure, but no government, no planet can function without a thriving, pro-business atmosphere.

Thank you, and God bless the almighty dollar.

But, wait, what happens if you live in a region where you don't get sunlight? Nothing, because you won't have power. This proposal should have made the time to change for 50 yrs. not 10, it takes too long to change an economy and way of life. ALSO, MAJOR FACTOR!!! The world has enough oil to last us for 100yrs, at the current rate of use, we have enough coal to last for close to 500yrs(still lots unfound), AND the Ozone hole thingie isn't caused by global warming, it is caused vy Earth's rotation, which has been gradually slowing, due to the sun's magnetic pull on the earth, so the pollution isn't doing a single thing to the ozone hole. Vote agaainst this ridicioulous resolution, it doesn't make sense, and has false facts.

But, wait, what happens if you live in a region where you don't get sunlight? Nothing, because you won't have power. This proposal should have made the time to change for 50 yrs. not 10, it takes too long to change an economy and way of life. ALSO, MAJOR FACTOR!!! The world has enough oil to last us for 100yrs, at the current rate of use, we have enough coal to last for close to 500yrs(still lots unfound), AND the Ozone hole thingie isn't caused by global warming, it is caused vy Earth's rotation, which has been gradually slowing, due to the sun's magnetic pull on the earth, so the pollution isn't doing a single thing to the ozone hole. Vote agaainst this ridicioulous resolution, it doesn't make sense, and has false facts.

Don't fight false assertions with more false assertions. I'm against the passage of this resolution, but the Earth's rotation has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer.

Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Bow Ridge:

This document does not consider the substantial costs to implement solar panels that would provide the entire world with power nor the infrastructure. Also the technology is not there. We believe that with a structured plan of gradual implementation we could achieve some of what is being proposed, but, even if cost was not an issue nor land to place the panels we could not support this. It does not take into consideration that polar nations only recieve sunlight for half the year and unfortunatly due to a lack of technology we cannot store this energyto be used during non-production periods. In addition, this resolution does not take into account that no effective, alternative form of transportation has been created to replace the combustion engine, which requires fossil fuels.

For these reasons the Kingdom of Bow Ridge cannot support this resolution.

Sorry, but we must vote against this proposal. The economics of it do not bother me, because the economy can always adapt. However the science is abysmal.

The ozone layer merely blocks UV radiation. UV radiation is not 'heat', and will not affect the ice caps at all.

Fossil fuels do not affect the ozone layer.

If this were corrected then you would have our consideration. At the moment you have our sympathy.

Seeing this vote gives me grave concerns for the future of the world. Given computers and the ability to spread nonsense, uneducated power-mongers can confirm each other's false ideas and cause chaos on a massive scale. We will not stay in a UN which endorses this kind nonsense.

Flanagania agrees.


REWRITE IT!!!!!!!!!!

Although the people of Iyira are firmly committed to preserving the environment, we are puzzled at the narrowness of this resolution. We would gladly support a resolution promoting alternative energy sources in general and would even be open to the 10-year fossil fuel ban. However, as solar panels are only efficient in certain climates, the people of Iyira does not understand why this should be the one type of alternative energy source that countries are required to invest their resources in.

We understand that once the 10-year ban is in effect we will be free to supplement solar power with other alternative sources of energy, but feel that the mandatory use of solar panels will force many nations to invest their entire alternative energy budgets into a power source which is not suited to their climates or geography. Although the people of Iyira are fortunate enough to live in an Equatorial region where the production of solar power is somewhat easier, they have a longstanding commitment to wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and particularly nuclear power. We fear that the solar panel proposal may be such a large item in many nations' energy budgets that it will interfere with research and development of technology in these other areas of alternative energy. For countries where solar power is not a feasible option, this overreliance on solar technology may make it extremely difficult for them to produce enough power for their people by the 10-year deadline.

Wouldn't it be wiser to mandate that all countries devote a certain percentage of their GDP to developing and installing alternative energy technology, or that they rely on alternative energy sources for a certain percentage of their power needs? The latter idea might make the 10-year deadline less harsh, especially if it started at a low percentage in year one and gradually increased it as the deadline drew closer. In any case, the people of Iyira will happily vote in favor of an alternatively drafted resolution on this subject, but cannot support the current formulation.

Sorry, but we must vote against this proposal. The economics of it do not bother me, because the economy can always adapt. However the science is abysmal.

The ozone layer merely blocks UV radiation. UV radiation is not 'heat', and will not affect the ice caps at all.

Fossil fuels do not affect the ozone layer.

If this were corrected then you would have our consideration. At the moment you have our sympathy.

Seeing this vote gives me grave concerns for the future of the world. Given computers and the ability to spread nonsense, uneducated power-mongers can confirm each other's false ideas and cause chaos on a massive scale. We will not stay in a UN which endorses this kind nonsense.This is why we left the UN. The delegates from different regions are ignoramuses who care more for their agendas than the science pertaining to what they're voting over. My regional delegate, Strobania, voted the right way.

URGENT MEMO
TO: RESPECTED UN DELEGATES
FROM: CHAIRWOMAN DEBRA MACKENSAY, FOREIGN RELATIONS MINISTER, CEO OF BIOGEN INDUSTRIES

The Federation of Joint Conglomerates is growing continually alarmed by the overwhelming show of support for this calamitous, asinine resolution. A desire to tend to the environment is one thing, but this proposal (a) completley violates every nation's sovereignity and right to govern their own people, (b) effectivley cripples all international business as solar power technology does not begin to approach being capable of meeting business needs, and (c) sets a precedent of imposition in all future UN activity.

Delegates, please, we beseech you. Use your reason, your basic common sense! This resolution is comparable to the United Nations mustering an army, invading independant territory and forcing it to comply with it's code of law. Again, I am sure many of you consider the environment to be a valid concern, but please, do not sacrifice our freedoms for it.

Thank you, and God bless the almighty dollar.

Widespread solar power is simply an idiotic idea. It's unrealiable and will take a lot of land. It would be far better if nations pushed for fusion power which unlike fission power, does not emit any nuclear waste.

This is a bad, bad resolution.

Assuming you're paying about $40 a week in gas for your car (low figure, but bear with me), that's something like $2080 a year. To recoup expenses for the solar panels would take 22 years. Per household. It'll be a disaster if my country has to subsidize building the panels. I've got 2.7 billion people in my country. Assuming 3 people per building (businesses count too), and $45,000 to panel up a building, that's $40.5 TRILLION my country has to fund.

Not to mention that we won't be able to DRIVE anymore. Even if we get hydrogen powered cars in 10 years, everybody has to buy a new car. Assuming a car for every 3 people and that the auto industry won't (ahem) gouge prices to take advantage of us (we'll assume, say, $15,000 average for a new car), that's a $13.5 TRILLION handout to the auto industry. For my country alone.

If all 31,224 UN member nations with, say, an average 500 million population comply with this resolution, it's a $312 Quintillion (ie $312,240,000,000,000,000) handout to big business.

In summary, hell no.

Good Morning everyone ^_^. A new day, new concerns!

1) How will countries pay for it? As previously mentioned, to equip your or my country would cost at least half the GDP (if paid for by the government) or twice the GDP per capita (if the people pay). This is very conservative and only takes household energy use into account.

2) How will this be implemented? Whole states of solar cells would need to be built *in ten years*. There is currently no way solar cell production can be ramped up that fast.

3) How will the issue of transportation be addressed? The transportation infrastructure can not exist as a solar powered one, and ten years is not nearly enough time to change.

1) Question already answered. It's up to individual nations to decide what methods they will use to pay APART from some of it's funds which are going towards the environment.

2) Instead of states try buildings. And also, the plot of land which was oncea Power Station for fossil fuel burning is now redundant and can be used as a Power Station for Solar energy.

3) Each nation chooses how he wants to change his transportation methods. The Resolution of Hydrogen Powered cars comes to mind.

forcing solar panels on all houses will reduce availability of low cost housing, it might unveil unforseen problems - and in the extreme, what if a comet hits us in 15 years time? What are we to do for power then?

Wouldn't we have the same problem if we were still using fossil fuels??

After all, diplomacy is the purpose of the United Nations.

Second actually, and should there be a third I'm not ignoring what everyone is saying and I am taking notes for next year :).

Just to let the fools who proposed this resolution know, my country is resigning effective immediately.

The fools say 'Ok'.

Excellent argument by itself. And one should note (If I may make an RL reference) that it's not too far away.
Yes , but oil resources won't be depleted in 10 years time (=>30-40 years). So much for your argument.

Votes For: 3,639

Votes Against: 1,862

Yes , but oil resources won't be depleted in 10 years time (=>30-40 years). So much for your argument.

Are you proposing we wait until the year 2040 when the do deplete and then take action? I guess it's the old 'Don't do today what you could do tomorrow' argument.

The government of Metanobera is admittedly far too lazy to read through all responses in this thread.

Our concern, and reason for voting *against* this resolution, is that said resolution appears only to deal with energy in homes/workplaces. The resolution calls for the halt of fossil fuel burning after 10 years of solar panel installation and promotion.

What about vehicular energy? How are we to power our automobiles if solar panels are being solely promoted for structure (houses, offices etc) use?

What about vehicular energy? How are we to power our automobiles if solar panels are being solely promoted for structure (houses, offices etc) use?

This question was answered on the same page a few posts above :headbang:

Anyway, A previous resolution encouraged hydrogen powered vehicles. You could use that or you could use any other method you wish. No compulsory methods. (You could also use Solar Powered cars but unless you have a battery you may have a problem at night)

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Are you proposing we wait until the year 2040 when the do deplete and then take action? I guess it's the old 'Don't do today what you could do tomorrow' argument.
No , but we believe we could use fossile fuel resources 30 years more , instead of acting foolishly and crippling our industries and societies. In the meantime , all nations could start introducing alternative energy technology .

... but feel that the mandatory use of solar panels will force many nations to invest their entire alternative energy budgets into a power source which is not suited to their climates or geography . Although the people of Iyira are fortunate enough to live in an Equatorial region where the production of solar power is somewhat easier, they have a longstanding commitment to wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and particularly nuclear power. We fear that the solar panel proposal may be such a large item in many nations' energy budgets that it will interfere with research and development of technology in these other areas of alternative energy. For countries where solar power is not a feasible option, this overreliance on solar technology may make it extremely difficult for them to produce enough power for their people by the 10-year deadline.

No , but we believe we could use fossile fuel resources 30 years more , instead of acting foolishly and crippling our industries and societies.

Ah I see, and meanwhile the environment and our health (Due to air pollution) can just be ignored? We will just use up the resources without leaving some in the ground or as a reserve in the event we may need it in the future? Instead of acting now we act later and 'cripple' our economy then?

I disagree with it.

Caddistan, with its copius sunlight, welcomes this proposal and votes for. :cool:

Jude had enough self control to avoid assualting Caddistan's delegate but his bodyguard had to be restrained. Jude glared instead "I am soooooo glad for you, that you are able to have sunlight, possibly enough that this proposal won't bankrupt you. I am so glad that you then felt like elimnating many nations happiness by voting to bankrupt them. Cuation is an island and suffers from a lot of rain."

1) Question already answered. It's up to individual nations to decide what methods they will use to pay APART from some of it's funds which are going towards the environment.

Jude turned away from one delegate to the man he was already blaming for what was to come. "Since you feel my goverment can decide how to pay then I am sure that your goverment will agree to this. Your nation will pay for every solar panel made, bought, installed or not for the next thousand years instead of my goverment. You will pay compensation and wages, pensions and benifits for those made unemployed by your resolution until they die. Then your nation pays for the funeral. Your nations will also pay for anything that comes up like riots or training becuase of your resolution. If you do not pay within 24 hours of demand, we will charge intrest. How is that for you?"

Jude looked at the scoreboard as he waited, recalling the problems at home as people paniced on the news from the UN, the plans his goverment where making to try and limit the damage if the resolution went through. No doubt Jared would gather support for his cuase by blaming Jude so Jude would have to mobilize his army and police to deal with the problems. All on Starcra II's money.

Turning to the other members of the UN Jude said his part "I will support any repeals for this should the worst happen and if things get really bad within the ten years or the repeals do not work by the time set by the resolution, I will be forced to declare war on the nation of Starcra II on principale and a chance of saving Cuation's economy! I have my goverment and people's support for such a move should my hand be forced."

Oh no, I only tax the poor and those without jobs that much. And what does this have to do with what I said?

Here is the problem with what you said:

You dominate a people by taking their monies and using it to increase your government(s). You do probably give back stuff to your peoples--of course they have to stand in long lines.

I'll grant you that everyone receives a national healthcare benefit--after waiting months to get an appointment with some doctor that they don't know and is not being paid what he/she/it deserves.

But then you decide that you know what is best for other nations--where the peoples enjoy freedoms to choose how to live their lives, what they choose to buy and how much they are willing to make (as in income) by how hard they choose to work--and impose a derective that us other nations that want to be part of the UN in order to help peoples all over the world improve their lives that demands us to no longer use fossil fuels :gundge:

That's why 50% + tax rate nations should not be allowed to decide the fate of the world

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Jude turned away from one delegate to the man he was already blaming for what was to come. "Since you feel my goverment can decide how to pay then I am sure that your goverment will agree to this. Your nation will pay for every solar panel made, bought, installed or not for the next thousand years instead of my goverment. You will pay compensation and wages, pensions and benifits for those made unemployed by your resolution until they die. Then your nation pays for the funeral. Your nations will also pay for anything that comes up like riots or training becuase of your resolution. If you do not pay within 24 hours of demand, we will charge intrest. How is that for you?"

Sure, if you're willing to pay for our expenses :). Think before you speak.

Sure, if you're willing to pay for our expenses :). Think before you speak.

The idea is you pay our expenses(ie everything that this resolution will hit me with. Costs, upheaveal, unemployment, riots and so on that costs money to deal with) so Cuation doesn't go bankrupt. Yes I am thinking and this is pretty much the only way to do what your resolution asks without bankrupting my nation.

Of course if you are unwilling, I understand.

Ah I see, and meanwhile the environment and our health (Due to air pollution) can just be ignored? We will just use up the resources without leaving some in the ground or as a reserve in the event we may need it in the future? Instead of acting now we act later and 'cripple' our economy then?
Ignoring is compulsory in Starcra II ?

No , but we believe we could use fossile fuel resources 30 years more , instead of acting foolishly and crippling our industries and societies. In the meantime , all nations could start introducing alternative energy technology .
Read it .

... but feel that the mandatory use of solar panels will force many nations to invest their entire alternative energy budgets into a power source which is not suited to their climates or geography . Although the people of Iyira are fortunate enough to live in an Equatorial region where the production of solar power is somewhat easier, they have a longstanding commitment to wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and particularly nuclear power. We fear that the solar panel proposal may be such a large item in many nations' energy budgets that it will interfere with research and development of technology in these other areas of alternative energy. For countries where solar power is not a feasible option, this overreliance on solar technology may make it extremely difficult for them to produce enough power for their people by the 10-year deadline.

We expect a good answer to the problems highlighted by lyira.

Ignoring is compulsory in Starcra II ?

What the hell does that mean?

We expect a good answer to the problems highlighted by lyira.

Very well. No, there is no need to stop other alternative energy research. I don't see where this is said in the reolution. I believe funds for the environment and funds for Science are different catergories so I don't know what you're trying to say really.

Very well. No, there is no need to stop other alternative energy research. I don't see where this is said in the reolution. I believe funds for the environment and funds for Science are different catergories so I don't know what you're trying to say really.

Bankrupting your nation instituting the solar panel program mandated by this proposal would constitute a need to stop other research on alternative energy sources or pretty much anything else.

And are we to ignore members who can only survive off of fossil fuels these days? Fossil fuels are not only used by choice, but also by necessity. There are nations out there that simply do not have the money at the moment to fund such a project and currently have to live off of fossil fuels to create energy. I stand by the belief that eliminating fossil fuels would do much more harm than good.

You also made a statement about ignoring health and the environment. FYI. There exists technology and techniques to help cut down on it. Being that fossil fuels are the most widely used fuels, would we be here still today if that did not exist? Think about it for a moment.