NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

1) Fine. You get to deal with the riots when my people figure out they have to pay 9x the taxes to pay for this and/or pay more than the amount of a Family Car to install this.

2) Yeah... that would work... Power Everything in a 2 mile radius of the plant Genius. The guy said you would need states of cells cause that would be how many you would need to power a large sized country

3) You have really pissed off my region. We REQUIRE FOSSIL FUELS in our Motorsports. These are the most important things in our region. Millions of people are employed in the Motorsports industry in Tundra, and a ban on Fossil Fuels would force us to shut down the racing series. Any other fuel is impractical for us to use in a racing application.

Not to mention you have caused several countries in my region, including my own, to riot in protest of thsi proposal. 5 nations have already left the UN because they dont want to pay for this crap. My country is, at this time, voting in a referendum to leave the UN. I have at least 4 more nations following me out, and that number will increase to all 16 of us by the end of the Week.

Thanks alot for ruining a good thing.

As a Delegate, I voted to bring this forward to a vote, but I'm amazed that this thing is winning at the ballot.

I will not impune the obviously good intentions of the author of the proposal who clearly only wishes to do good, but this resolution is really pretty silly.

Firstly, to focus on solar panels makes little or no sense as there are more effecient and robust methods of generating electricity without burning fossil fuels.

Secondly, most economies are simply not geared toward eliminating fossil fuels in a mere ten years. You are asking UN nations to undertake the cost of building and implementing an alternate energy infrastructure while simultaneously swallowing the bill for the industires that will need to switch from fossil fuel to solar panels.

This would, in realistic terms implode any participating economy, the cost would be beyond measure while the task itself would reduce economic output during the transition.

Stretch the terms of this to 50 or 75 years, with gradual implementation and a greater emphasis on developing more practical technologies and I'd vote for this. The notion that <no one> can burn any ofssil fuel in ten years is just silly.

As it stands, I will be voting against it and writing the motion to repeal it if it passes.

These responses did not answer my questions sufficiently. I will address;

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.

Waving hands and saying "individual nations will pay for it" is not an answer. It has been shown that converting to solar power will cost at least half of most nation's GDP (if paid for by the government) or two to six times the GDP per capita (if paid for by the citizens). This is assuming the price of solar panels did not go up and that enough could be built in ten years to adhere to the mandate. So, realistically, how will this be paid for?

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.

Even covering the tops of every house and building will not produce enough power. As stated in a previous post, depending on the size of the country the area covered is the size of whole counties, states or provinces. This would include roof tops, side walks, streets, parks, etc. Efficient buildings like sky scrapers and high rises could not possibly have enough solar panels to come close to powering themselves.

3) Each nation chooses how he wants to change his transportation methods. The Resolution of Hydrogen Powered cars comes to mind.

Hydrogen does not come from a magical hydrogen tree. If the automobile industry converts to hydrogen, we will need incredible power to generate the hydrogen for our automobiles (most likely through the electrolysis of water). Where is that power supposed to come from? More unreliable, expensive, fragile solar panels?

Please answer these questions in full.

- End Statement -

Sorry to double dip, but I just noticed this;

...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...

It is inherent in the proposal that there won't be funds left for much of anything regardless of its merit or value.

I did a little research, and commerically in the US, it costs about 10k to convert the average 4-person home to solar heating alone. This requires (according to the company selling the equipment) 6 8x8 panels and a pile of associated equipment.

That's just for heat. Conservatively, you could probably double that cost to replace all the electricity in a house. Are there even enough refined materials for all these panels and storage cells?

Imagine refitting a factory or a skyscraper that has a tiny ration of its surface are exposed to adequate sunlight - where do we put those panels?

Replace fossil fuel plants with hydrogen cell reactors and maybe you've got a resolution - but I need to repeat exactly how implausible all of this is.

Not to mention you have caused several countries in my region, including my own, to riot in protest of thsi proposal. 5 nations have already left the UN because they dont want to pay for this crap.


Well that's silly! Instead of fighting so that the resolution doesn't pass they're taking the cowardly way out! That is the reason people can't stand the UN, not the resolutions my friends, oh no, it's the cowardly attitude of running away instead of trying to improve things :mad:

Please answer these questions in full.

I shall not. As they are I have already answered them, unless you present them to me in a different manner there's nothing more I'll say.

The Commonwealth of Flanagania appeals to Starcra II to withdraw this proposal before it is too late. You've taken every piece of constructive criticism as a personal attack upon your ideals. It is obvious that the vast majority of members agree with your sentiments, BUT you will not concede one point. If this proposal is passed, or even looks like being passed, whole regions will leave the UN. Flanagania is already preparing to leave, if necessary.

Please!!!! Rewrite it!!!

The Commonwealth of Flanagania appeals to Starcra II to withdraw this proposal before it is too late. You've taken every piece of constructive criticism as a personal attack upon your ideals. It is obvious that the vast majority of members agree with your sentiments, BUT you will not concede one point. If this proposal is passed, or even looks like being passed, whole regions will leave the UN. Flanagania is already preparing to leave, if necessary.

Please!!!! Rewrite it!!!

Firstly, I can't withdraw it, it's at vote.

Secondly, It's not that I feel attacked, I'm just responding in the same tone of voice as the questions asked, or at least as I feel they are. Which is, in fact, why I'm answering your question in a civil tone - it was presented that way (I feel).

If regions/nations leave the UN, they will be at fault *See previous page*.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I'm certainly not planning on leaving the UN, or on making any personal attacks, but with respect I cannot find a place in this thread where you deal with the economic implications of this.

Am I missing something?

I'm certainly not planning on leaving the UN, or on making any personal attacks, but with respect I cannot find a place in this thread where you deal with the economic implications of this.

Am I missing something?

Agreed

I'm certainly not planning on leaving the UN, or on making any personal attacks,

Good Man(On both counts :D )!

but with respect I cannot find a place in this thread where you deal with the economic implications of this.

Am I missing something?

Well, here are some main points -

I have said that it's up to individual nations (Or regions thinking about it if they so wish) to decide how they will bring in funds to match (or almost) their expenses.
Some of the funds (No matter the percentage) towards the environment go to the project the resolution speaks about.
Otherwise, I can't really make more guidelines because every nation's economy is different in size, whether they are an anarchy or a democracy also changes it, the employment level, the size of the private sector, their largest sector etc.
Other than that one must look at the long term benefits which outweigh the short term defecits (for the sake of a rhyme).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

You still haven't answered the question Starcra.

I give up.

Flanagania will assist any nation in drafting a repeal proposal if this ill thought out, draconian, seriously flawed proposal is passed.

This is one of the most patently ridiculous ways to implement an environmental resolution that there is. Aside from the fact that it forces nations to implement only one kind of electrical power, solar panels simply don't have that kind of power. At the end of ten years, the energy we're using will be insufficient at best. On a cloudy day, half the world will go out. And then people die, as all of the tools that we use to save lives and provide heat and warmth fail. Solar panels are one of the most notoriously unstable forms of power in existence. They're not "reliable". They're pieces of crap.

You still haven't answered the question Starcra.

Yes I have. I told you how the economy could try to balance out after this passes. What more can I tell you? I can't force money into your economies you know...

This is pretty weak - think about all the nations whose economy depends on other forms of energy - they'll be completely devastated.

Yes I have. I told you how the economy could try to balance out after this passes. What more can I tell you? I can't force money into your economies you know...

Which is the primary reason that this resolution fails as a logical piece of legislation.

Hi, I'm new to the UN and wanted to weigh in with my thoughts. I want to say first that I am not an enemy of the environment; I think that is obvious when reading about my country.

However, the current resolution seems too extreme. In particular, part 4 worries me:

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

Two basic concerns. 1) There is a huge difference between reducing the burning of fossil fuels and halting it altogether. I think the disruptions that would cause would be catastrophic. Heck, even producing and transporting solar panels requires petroleum products.

2) Solar energy is a useful source of electricity, but it can't supply every single demand point across an entire country's power grid. Other alternative energy options have some environmental blowbacks (even if, on net, they are more positive for the environment than black stuff from the ground). So, who gets to decide what are acceptable alternatives? Is that completely in the hands of national leaders, or is there some provision in this resolutiong that allows the UN to decree what are acceptable alternatives and what are not?

Given the wide variety of climates, geographies, and cultures in the world of NationStates, trying to force any single alternative energy source on the entire world is unrealistic. No matter how you slice it, this draconian proposal will drain resources from research on and promotion of other alternative energy sources which might well be far more cost-effective in given nations.

Ausserland has voted NO.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have said that it's up to individual nations... Some of the funds towards... the environment go to the project the resolution speaks about. Otherwise, I can't really make more guidelines

Thanks for the prompt reply. I’ll assume that we’re basically depending on the member nation to pay for the conversion itself.

I'm going to use RL numbers here to establish a basis for cost, and put this into perspective..edit I'm sticking with solar power as it is the focus of your resolution and the cheapest available on a large scale.

As I mentioned earlier, the retail price of converting a house to solar heat is about 10 000 dollars in the US (4 person, free standing dwelling). Apartment buildings and other communal dwellings would likely cost more as they would need to house their panels remotely. But we will assume that the cost of a 4-person dwelling will do for any six people, regardless of setting (mass production might lower the cost, so well move the numbers in your favor). In just the United States that's about 50 million 'household units' that we need to convert.

At 10 000$ per, that 5 trillion dollars to convert only the residential spaces to only solar heat. You would likely need to double that number to 10 trillion to cover the residential spaces' entire electrical consumption (and again, that number seems to be in your favor).

Traditionally, industrial and commercial spaces require much, much more power per person than residential areas. I read 6 times as much when I was poking around, but we'll assume three to be fair. That's another 30 trillion dollars.

So in ten years, the United States would need to generate an additional 4 trillion dollars per year just to convert existing homes, factories and businesses, and this is an extremely conservative estimate.

It also doesn't include the funds required to increase production of the refined materials, create an alternative energy infrastructure or the dollars needed to implement and govern the process. I'll assume one dollar of production, infrastructure and management for each dollar of completed conversion (this is extremely conservative as well). That's 8 trillion dollars per year for a population of about 300 million in an economically powerful and modern country.

The annual budget of the United States is just under 3 trillion dollars (projected) for 2006. The entire budget for the department of defense is about 500 billion, just so we can compare.

So even if I have more than doubled the costs your proposal would spend every dollar in the entire national budget of the world's largest economy for ten years. By comparison, the 9/11 attacks cost about 450 billion dollars and cause a nasty recession.

No nation on earth could do what you are suggesting, even if they were very prosperous - poorer nations would need to be paid for by the wealthier as well. It would quite literally bankrupt the world.

Freedom from fossil fuels is an imperative – I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. But an imperative of this scope cannot be mandated in a decade.

The resolution is in principle fascist because it basically forces all nations to comply even though it is couched in deceptive liberal supportive lingo. As an environmentally sensitive nation Tokhuah has always passed laws and implemented programs that were in the best interests of Gaia. However, this resolution attempts to enforce such policies in complete desecration of the free will of Nations. As a nation that values personal freedoms and civil rights above all else this resolution violates those values essential to our existence. Regardless of the outcome of this vote the Nation of Tokhuah refuses to comply with this resolution and is prepared to withdrawal membership from the UN if it does pass.

Who is voting yes on this joke???

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



Do you really want an answer to that? You know my mother always told me that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

The Commonwealth of Flanagania appeals to Starcra II to withdraw this proposal before it is too late.

Under current UN rules, once a proposal becomes a resolution not even the UN Secretariat (i.e. game moderators) can withdraw or remove it. It can only be voted up or down.

My government has some reservations about how clauses 3 and 4 interact ... they seem unclear to us. The third clause seems to imply that every nation will have to rely upon solar power, but clause 4 implies that other forms of renewable energy also may be welcomed.

Howie T. Katzman

Do you really want an answer to that? You know my mother always told me that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

People see that the proposal is for the environment, and stop reading and thinking at that point (not that there have not been good pro-environment proposals). Sadly, a lot of people just hit the catchphrase the like the most or the least (the 'no' voters are probably guilty of this to some degree too) and go from there.

If you wrote a proposal called 'Preserve the Fresh Water Loon' and included a global conversion to a Genocidal Theocracy in the fourth paragraph, you would probably win.

In this case, the fact that the proposal destroys national sovereignty and is the economic equivalent of the Black Death is still being ignored.

What people are basically saying is that the proposal itself simply would not work or could not be implemented. Even the most healthy of economies would, if they started to implement the measures necessary would quickly find their economies plunging into recessions not experienced in living memory. The wiser would simply rein in such profligate spending while the foolish would continue to send their nations towards oblivion and a total breakdown in government and law and order.

As such we could safely assume that the UN would cease to function since its contributions would fail.

Note that this is not something that would happen in ten years but would start unfolding from the time that the installation process begins.

Now here is a suggestion. Rather than just agreeing with each other here, who is out there canvassing those foolish (or perhaps calculating) delegates to change their votes to a no? If so could this be co-ordinated to give most effect.

If someone could also draft a standard message then we could also save time and effort in getting this important message across to those blinded by the well-meaning words of the proposal.

I also hope that we can get an alternative resolution in place that can start to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

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

You, sir, are Our new hero.

Very well said.

- Me

People see that the proposal is for the environment, and stop reading and thinking at that point (not that there have not been good pro-environment proposals). Sadly, a lot of people just hit the catchphrase the like the most or the least (the 'no' voters are probably guilty of this to some degree too) and go from there.

If you wrote a proposal called 'Preserve the Fresh Water Loon' and included a global conversion to a Genocidal Theocracy in the fourth paragraph, you would probably win.

In this case, the fact that the proposal destroys national sovereignty and is the economic equivalent of the Black Death is still being ignored.

...although it is perfectly aceptable to lure others into saying it for you!

Actually, Our analysts also believe that many UN members automatically vote "Yes" for everything except a repeal. It is Our observation that cognition cannot be assumed in all humans. Thought may in fact be the exception, rather than the rule.

- Me

Ironic.

Suddenly everyone's a sovereigntist.

Proves my point, I guess.

Firstly, thanks for bringing your argument in a decent fashion.

Now, you must remember that we now need to adapt those numbers to NS where daily issues and UN resolutions has changed the amount we spend on certain items such as the military. Admittedly, some call for increased spending, so taking both into consideration we have different spending methods since our nations did not experience 9/11 (Unless someone made their nation experience something similar) or other natural disasters (Again, unless).

I realise the costs are great but I go back to my argument of 'long term benefits'.

And here I'm going to be a bit selfish but - In RL countries such as my own the price is MUCH cheaper. I'm going to assume this is because we need minimal panels due to our large amount of sun.

The question then comes - "Ah yes, fine and dandy for your nation with the abundance in sun! But what about my poor nation with the majority of days being overcast.".

Answer - Yes, I realise that nations like that will have some problems and they may need to rely on other methods besides Solar Panels.

But thinking about it, and I don't know if it can be interpreted in this way, my resolution says that Solar Panels must be put up in every home etc. but it doesn't say how much, so I'm wondering if my resolution can be interpreted to put minimal costs and install small solar Panels then generating the rest of the energy from alternatives, which is also promoted(On a smaller scale) in the resolution. So long as fossil fuels are eliminated I don't think the Compliance Ministry will find a problem.

Not sure if my last paragraph makes sense or is possible, I'm just trying to find an alternative.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Now here is a suggestion. Rather than just agreeing with each other here, who is out there canvassing those foolish (or perhaps calculating) delegates to change their votes to a no? If so could this be co-ordinated to give most effect.

If someone could also draft a standard message then we could also save time and effort in getting this important message across to those blinded by the well-meaning words of the proposal.

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

I realise the costs are great but I go back to my argument of 'long term benefits'.

Long term benefits? Your nation does not even have the slightest grasp of the energy situation in Powerhungry Chipmunks, how can it perscribe to it what is the most beneficial enterprise, long or short term.

Then multiply that individual situation across 35,000 different UN nations with 35,000 different energy sitautions.

The question then comes - "Ah yes, fine and dandy for your nation with the abundance in sun! But what about my poor nation with the majority of days being overcast.".

Answer - Yes, I realise that nations like that will have some problems and they may need to rely on other methods besides Solar Panels.

But thinking about it, and I don't know if it can be interpreted in this way, my resolution says that Solar Panels must be put up in every home etc. but it doesn't say how much, so I'm wondering if my resolution can be interpreted to put minimal costs and install small solar Panels then generating the rest of the energy from alternatives, which is also promoted(On a smaller scale) in the resolution. So long as fossil fuels are eliminated I don't think the Compliance Ministry will find a problem.

With this information, I question the premise and title of the resolution. For one thing, this proposal when interpretted this way, is less of a promotion of of something, than a condemnation of fossil fuels. That is the only absolute: that fossil fuels must be abandoned (in the farcically unrealistic time of ten years). That is the real focus of the resoltion in my eyes, and the replacement of fossil fuels seems a relatively side-effective endeavor.

Also, since nations are forced to install solar panels, and forced to do it on such and such a scale (in every home), it isn't the "promotion" of solar panels, but the enforcement of them.

So, this resolution would seem to be more accurately phrased as "the elimination of fossil fuels and the enforcement of an alternative". All of which is ignorant of my UN nation's energy situation.

Firstly, thanks for bringing your argument in a decent fashion.
Now, you must remember that we now need to adapt those numbers to NS where daily issues and UN resolutions has changed the amount we spend on certain items such as the military. Admittedly, some call for increased spending, so taking both into consideration we have different spending methods since our nations did not experience 9/11 (Unless someone made their nation experience something similar) or other natural disasters (Again, unless).
I realise the costs are great but I go back to my argument of 'long term benefits'.
Answer - Yes, I realise that nations like that will have some problems and they may need to rely on other methods besides Solar Panels.
But thinking about it, and I don't know if it can be interpreted in this way, my resolution says that Solar Panels must be put up in every home etc. but it doesn't say how much, so I'm wondering if my resolution can be interpreted to put minimal costs and install small solar Panels then generating the rest of the energy from alternatives, which is also promoted(On a smaller scale) in the resolution. So long as fossil fuels are eliminated I don't think the Compliance Ministry will find a problem.


Always happy to be civil.

This is all well and good, but your resolution leaves too much of this up in the air, and the 10-year timeframe is still ludicrous. As for the NS numbers, I don't expect them to translate exactly (they were used by way of example and becuase they were easy to find), but even if we reduce it so that its eating up a third of your total budget, that leaves people starving to death in many, many countries. Most countries have budget deficits and can't simply throw away 33% of their income from where it was to this - basic social services would start to disappear.

Finally, I do have to say that this proposal obliterates any notion of national sovereignty (and Chipmunk may wish to consider that is is not irony bringing out sovereigntists, but rather the cause and effect of the proposal). This would have the UN dictating to a nation that they must entirely reform every sector of their economy and virtually every sector of their society.

Good cause or not, such is not the task of the UN.

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

Starcra II, we want to say that a delegate TG campaign is a very democratic way: to promote an idea, help a proposition to reach quorum (as i suppose you did) or try to help a proposition to pass or fail

(love and esterel voted AGAINST, but we don't intend to be involved in any campaign about this proposition)

With this information, I question the premise and title of the resolution. For one thing, this proposal when interpretted this way, is less of a promotion of of something, than a condemnation of fossil fuels.

Well agreeably, the condemnation of fossil fuels does play a big part in the creation of this resolution. If fossil fuels didn't cause the problems it cause this resolution would be pointless.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

My voting record shows that I have never had a problem with interfering with national sovereignty, and that I have generally been in favor of increased environmental regulations upon UN member nations. Nevertheless, I must vehemently oppose this misguided resolution. Goobergunchia has much of its population living underground and much of Goobergunchia is cloudy much of the time. Although solar generators do exist in the desert north of Cuervo, most of Goobergunchia is unsuitable for solar panels. Therefore, we see no reason why solar panels should be installed in many Goobergunchian residences, especially those underground, despite this mandate in Article 3 of the resolution at vote.

I also feel that ten years is too short a time for the total phase-out of fossil fuels. This resolution provides no benefits or incentives for non-solar panel energy research, so nations such as mine would generally be out of luck. Fortunately, Goobergunchia has widespread wind and hydroelectric power sources, as well as many nuclear plants. However, other nations may not be so fortunate. I foresee that many UN nations, if this resolution passes, will become dependent on non-UN nations for their electricity, making them vulnerable in case of conflict. This is deeply unwise in my opinion.

I have been on a leave of absence from this body for the past few weeks to ensure a successful start in college for one of my grandchildren. I see that the situation has deterioriated in my absence.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Starcra II, we want to say that a delegate TG campaign is a very democratic way: to promote an idea, help a proposition to reach quorum (as i suppose you did) or try to help a proposition to pass or fail

(love and esterel voted AGAINST, but we don't intend to be involved in any campaign about this proposition)

VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. My telegramming asked nations to look at the proposal and if they liked it to approve it. I did not URGE anyone, I just told them, "Hey, look, this proposal exists". The campaign planned above is, and I bet it will include the words "I URGE you to vote against". That is imposing. Whereas I left the approval an option, here it is planned to go full out and make sure delegates vote against.

But I respect you for your decision not to be involved in a campaign.

(Btw, guys you can just call me Starcra or Star, there's no need for the 'II'. I put that in because my nation is a UN puppet).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.
What? That's entirely incorrect, in my opinion.

For one, your proposal required a campaign to come to the floor. If campaigns attempting to change viewpoints are immature then you've just called yourself immature.

Second, the UN is full of apathy. It is postulated by some that most delegates and UN members do not look past the title of resolutions when voting; they do not read the content, look at the forum, etc. To conduct a campaign attempting to rememdy that apathy (even with a personal slant to it) is actually a civic service, rather than a childish measure.

Lastly, it might be childish if a campaign were forcing delegates to vote against. However, it is not. It is simply conveying to them a certain encompassing of the situation they may not have been aware of. It is still the delegates' decision of what to vote. I know from first hand experience that the majority of delegates telegrammed do not change their votes when telegrammed in this way.

Having been watching UN resolution votes a long time and having seen a lot, I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that telegram campaigns are hardly childish. Since telegramming is disseminating information (albeit slanted on one way or another) it would be producing a better democracy, a more just vote (both rather mature conscientious things), rather than being childish.

I find that claim absurd.

Well agreeably, the condemnation of fossil fuels does play a big part in the creation of this resolution. If fossil fuels didn't cause the problems it cause this resolution would be pointless.
Funny you should bring that up, since your resolution is based on the false assumption that fossil fuels create the hole in the ozone. How about we discuss that, too? I'm rather interested in how you defend a scientifically inaccurate text.

Lastly, it might be childish if a campaign were forcing delegates to vote against. However, it is not. It is simply conveying to them a certain encompassing of the situation they may not have been aware of. It is still the delegates' decision of what to vote. I know from first hand experience that the majority of delegates telegrammed do not change their votes when telegrammed in this way.

If that is the case, then that is different. But judging from past experiences, it's not.

Also one must bear in mind, delegates usually vote according to their regions so I think a campaign can hardly change that...

Sorry for the misunderstanding then if what you say is true.

Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, we are witnessing a murder here, and the victim here is Common Sense. Common Sense will tell you that the technology is not currently available to facilitate a total changeover of every energy market to solar power. Common Sense will tell you that this proposal in no way factors in the costs needed to produce the infrastructure required, revitalize domestic industries, or continue research into new areas of alternative fuels. Common Sense will tell you that this proposal is flawed in it's reasoning, flawed in it's rhetoric, and is an outright violation of UN tenets.

If this proposal passes, and is not repealed immediately, you will begin to see a radical shift towards the most disastrous and catastrophic economic recession we have ever seen. It is not unreasonable to expect that, when all is said and done, we will see entire regions collapse into anarchy. It is not unreasonable to expect that the few crippled nations that might exist will have no choice but to engage in open warfare amongst one another as they race to secure what few resources are left. The implications of this proposal are dire and far-reaching to the extreme, and will not only affect the member nations of the UN. Global economies do not stop at a country's border; indeed, UN and non-UN nations alike interact with each other on a daily basis. Products are produced, shipped, bought and sold regardless of whether a nation participates in the UN or not.

What we have seen here is the greatest and most sacred assets of the UN - the Vote, and the Voice - being turned into the most dire weaknesses. What we are seeing is a failure for the UN to function as an ambassadorial body, and instead act as a vehicle for the annihilation of modern civilization as we know it. Be it benign ignorance, callous misinformation, or malicious intent, the nation of Starcra II may well have forged a sword that will destroy our sovereign rights and cause possibly irreversible harm to our economies.

The Federated Territories of Strobania moves that this proposal should be declared illegal, and will refuse to honor it if, God forbid, this self-destructive proposal should pass. Strobania also pledges to support any attempt for repeal.

The irony is great. Many times in these halls have we argued how weapons of mass destruction would end the world as we know it. Now we see that the greatest threat comes not in the form of a toxic agent or mushroom cloud, but in the form of a piece of paper.

Jude held up his hands "I would like to apolgise to Starcra II for my harsh words, I appreciate the good intentions but while I can not support the bill, I should not have insulted another member of the UN. Still the problems with paying for the bill trouble me. I still feel that the nations goverments can find an answer is somewhat unhelpful for as yet, I have been unable to see anything but a disaster."

Funny you should bring that up, since your resolution is based on the false assumption that fossil fuels create the hole in the ozone. How about we discuss that, too? I'm rather interested in how you defend a scientifically inaccurate text.

I already have. And shouldn't again if you aren't going to be bothered to look it up.

But I will anyway, the chemicals released by fossil fuel burning when mixed with chemicals released by waste dumps create the chemicals which form part of the depletion of the ozone. I know I'm not using and chemistry words here but I don't do chemistry so I can't.

Also, fossil fuels do cause the greenhouse gases that melt the ice caps. So either way it's still an issue.

Jude held up his hands "I would like to apolgise to Starcra II for my harsh words, I appreciate the good intentions but while I can not support the bill, I should not have insulted another member of the UN. Still the problems with paying for the bill trouble me. I still feel that the nations goverments can find an answer is somewhat unhelpful for as yet, I have been unable to see anything but a disaster."

Apology Accepted. And apologies if my reply seemed harsh also.

VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. My telegramming asked nations to look at the proposal and if they liked it to approve it. I did not URGE anyone, I just told them, "Hey, look, this proposal exists". The campaign planned above is, and I bet it will include the words "I URGE you to vote against". That is imposing. Whereas I left the approval an option, here it is planned to go full out and make sure delegates vote against.

But I respect you for your decision not to be involved in a campaign.

(Btw, guys you can just call me Starcra or Star, there's no need for the 'II'. I put that in because my nation is a UN puppet).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Starcra, when i refer to a TG campaign, it's obviously a polite, argumented and not pushy telegram!

However, i agree with Powerhungry Chipmunks, i did myself an TG campaign against the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act", with the aim it will not achieve quorum
The campaign was a full failure, i sent 110 TG and get only 2 withdrawals! :D
(i must admit i had chosen bad arguments in the TG)

Maybe it will be more easy to repeal it, soon, because after 10 years it will be too late ;)

Also one must bear in mind, delegates usually vote according to their regions so I think a campaign can hardly change that...
Actually, that isn't true. At least, it's not supported by any evidence. Let's remember that we're only saying that most "do" or "don't" vote a certain way based on our perceptions. Neither of us has made a study of it, and neither of us has any data to support out assertions.

That said, I think I have a more plausible encompassing of the situation. First, we must isolate what makes a region determine how it's delegate votes (which you claim is the case in most regions). I feel that there are some prerequisites. Regional government, is a prerequisite. If there is not a sense that the delegate has some duty to the people under a government system, to represent them, then there is unlikely to be a feeling that he or she must vote according to his regions' majority opinion. Regional government, in my experience, only comes about when there is a mixture of size, and aptitude towards organization. There must be enough nations in a region to make some sort of a governed group, and they must mostly agree that they wish to interact regionally. So, regions must be large enough, and must have some sense of regionally government before the delegate's vote is decided by majority regional opinion.

Second, we must look to see how prevalent these characteristics are. According to my tabulations, the majority (by a very large margin) of regional delegates have only one or two endorsements. And regions of such scale typically have 20 or fewer nations. Of such, I have noticed that most have either not formed a regional governance system, or have a very informal regional governance, in which the delegate's vote is independent from the region. I feel that these "small region" delegates mostly decide their votes on their own, as they do not have to answer to a large number of endorsing UN nations regarding what their endorsements are being used for.

So, according to my very anecdotal, axiomatic analysis, the majority of regions do not have a democratic system for determining the delegate's vote. Rather, the large regions (which carry a large portion of the UN vote) are those most likely to have democratic systems.

There are, of course, anomalies in this encompassment of the situation: Nationstates (a very large the region), for instance, has, under repeated investigations by myself, refused to show a democratic system of voting. The East Pacific, Gatesville, and The Pacific, also (among the largest regions) show only a limited democratic system if one at all (in The East Pacific there is a small council which votes, and Gatesville and The Pacific, either have similar systems or some other form of closed-door voting mechanism). Also, there have been two person regions which have elaborate governmental systems, and rigid rules regarding voting (though I can't recall any specific regions as such at the moment).

So, I disagree with you. But I think that it is unproven until there is an experimental study, or a survey, or some real data.

I already have. And shouldn't again if you aren't going to be bothered to look it up.
No, actually, I know full well your previous attempts to assert a relationship between the two, as I was wholly opposed to you in doing it.

But I will anyway, the chemicals released by fossil fuel burning when mixed with chemicals released by waste dumps create the chemicals which form part of the depletion of the ozone. I know I'm not using and chemistry words here but I don't do chemistry so I can't.
Actually, they don't. You have produced no evidence of this. CFC's are the chemicals which deplete the ozone, not uncombusted hydrocarbons or the products of hydrocarbon combustion. The mechanism by which CFC's deplete the ozone is through a free radical of F or Cl. There is no way waste from fossil fuels (hydrocarbon) combustion can produce a free radical: F, or Cl.

CO2 and H2O are the results of combustion, as well as uncombusted hydrocarbons from imperfect reactions. These do not harm the ozone, they have no relation to one another.


Also, fossil fuels do cause the greenhouse gases that melt the ice caps. So either way it's still an issue.
But this is not what you express in your proposal, which is my point, that your text is not justifying what it's doing well. Regardless of how one feels of what your resolution does, it doesn't do it for correct and accurate reasons.

""""instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature. """"


I can’t believe that after reading the forums people would actually vote yes on this resolution. Almost everyone has given a reason to vote no, and these arguments have not been laid to rest but the "yes" side.

TG everyone who votes yes, tell them:

1. Why you don't like it
2. to look at the forums
3. Please change your vote :D

There is nothing wrong with that!

Most are going, "I like solar too!" and voting yes without even reading it. :headbang:

instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

(( Ironically, this is exactly how politics works.

Unless you mean to tell me there is no such thing as lobbying.

Haw haw. ))

Flanagania will assist any nation in drafting a repeal proposal if this...proposal is passed.

Iyira would be happy to assist as well. The people of Iyira suspect that a resolution that points out the difficulties with the proposal might fare quite well in a vote, especially if the resolution takes a tone that appears supportive of alternative energy development in general. As many UN members seem not to read the forums, this might be one way for opponents of this proposal to have their arguments read by a larger number of UN members.

There are, of course, anomalies in this encompassment of the situation: Nationstates (a very large the region), for instance, has, under repeated investigations by myself, refused to show a democratic system of voting. The East Pacific, Gatesville, and The Pacific, also (among the largest regions) show only a limited democratic system if one at all (in The East Pacific there is a small council which votes, and Gatesville and The Pacific, either have similar systems or some other form of closed-door voting mechanism). Also, there have been two person regions which have elaborate governmental systems, and rigid rules regarding voting (though I can't recall any specific regions as such at the moment).


All feeders have a poll on the off site forum along with Rejected Realms and I think even Lazarus. Gatesville vote against everything. The region I'm in, most of us being long time servers in feeders also vote that way.

The regions with a delegate of 1 or 2 endorsements, well, yeah, you get that one. They just vote how they want :D.

Also other small, player created regions use telegram systems and some use the Regional Message board.

But you're right that many of them don't vote that way. It's only the most influential regions that do (By this I mean the Pacifics and Rejectec Realms).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

But this is not what you express in your proposal, which is my point, that your text is not justifying what it's doing well. Regardless of how one feels of what your resolution does, it doesn't do it for correct and accurate reasons.

I used incorrect grammar there, I admit.

I used incorrect grammar there, I admit.

It wasn't incorrect grammar, it was a glaring error caused by the failure to recognize that burning fossil fuels does not deplete the ozone layer.

In fact, there is no scientific or technical evidence whatsoever to validate any portion of the proposal.

This whole thing smells of bad science, and I'm frankly amazed that people continue to vote for it. Ignorance reigns supreme I suppose.

In adsdition to the excellent arguments against even passin g this proposal in the first place, Infidels and Punks feels that this proposal is "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" all over again, in that it only allows for Solar Panels, not other methods such as the large-scale hydroelectricity used over here in Infidels and Punks. Pleeeease don't flak me for this, I'm just stating my reasons for voting "No".

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

We object vehemently to this statement. Member nations have every right to express their opinions on matters before this body. If they choose to do it in this forum, well and good. If they choose to do it via telegram and coordinate their efforts with others, they have every right to do so. To label such actions as "childish" and "immature" is completely uncalled for. We believe the delegate from Barnabas Butterbur is owed an apology.

By direction of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This whole thing smells of bad science, and I'm frankly amazed that people continue to vote for it. Ignorance reigns supreme I suppose.

I'm sorry, but you can't deny that the use of fossil fuels has two main disadvantages:
1) they run out (considering the technological level of most nations in NS, it should run out quite fast even)
2) It is the main cause for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Two reasons which are good enough to promote any resolution which mandates alternative energy sources.

However, on reflection, and after discussion in my region (the International Democratic Union) I am starting to lean towards voting against. The idea behind this proposal is good, but the blatant error about the Ozone layer combined with suboptimal wording makes me think it would be better to defeat this resolution, so a better, more general and less optimistically planned resolution could be written.

That doesn't mean I'm against the principle of this resolution, or the mandating nature of it, but purely against the way it is currently written. In the IDU we strive to well written, sensible resolutions, and it would go against my region's spirit if I would continue to support this resolution.

:mp5: Despite the industrial cost and upset peoples solar panels should be used and if people don't listen shoot all of them :sniper:

I'm sorry, but you can't deny that the use of fossil fuels has two main disadvantages:
1) they run out (considering the technological level of most nations in NS, it should run out quite fast even)
2) It is the main cause for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

As much as I agree with #1 (and there has been no conclusive evidence yet to prove that #2 is because of fossil fuel consumption or because of the earth's natural warming and cooling cycle), the fact is that neither of these issues are the point, because neither are addressed in the proposal.

This is why I stated there was no scientific backing whatsoever to validate it. In science, if you are not right for the right reasons, you are wrong. There is no "semi-right" or "close enough".

That doesn't mean I'm against the principle of this resolution, or the mandating nature of it, but purely against the way it is currently written. In the IDU we strive to well written, sensible resolutions, and it would go against my region's spirit if I would continue to support this resolution.

I firmly believe everyone here supports the research and development towards alternative fuels, but we also recognize that this proposal is wrong, illegal, and outright dangerous.

Ironic.

Suddenly everyone's a sovereigntist.

Proves my point, I guess.

We had been refraining from making the same observation.

- Me

Starcra II, I believe you took my remark about a telegram campaign a little too personal and therefore felt compelled to respond personally. But you will have to admit that there is a considerable weight of opinion here against the proposal while the only comments supporting it now seem to be exclusively your own.

In view of this vast imbalance, it was my simple conclusion that those who have voted for the resolution have not sufficiently considered the consequences and have voted for the reasons mentioned already on this forum. That is my view.

It is also my view, that no amount of arguing here is going to significantly change the current voting pattern so the natural response is to use a more direct approach to those whose opinions matter.

I'm sorry if you do not like this idea but I'm afraid that I, in turn, do not like a proposal that seeks to impose misery on my nation and its people.

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

It is called "campaigning". Many resolutions (such as the recent Adoption and IVF proposal) use it. It is part of "politics".

- End Statement -

But thinking about it, and I don't know if it can be interpreted in this way, my resolution says that Solar Panels must be put up in every home etc. but it doesn't say how much, so I'm wondering if my resolution can be interpreted to put minimal costs and install small solar Panels then generating the rest of the energy from alternatives, which is also promoted(On a smaller scale) in the resolution. So long as fossil fuels are eliminated I don't think the Compliance Ministry will find a problem.

First off, if the elimination of fossil fuels was the primary purpose of this resolution, then it should have been named "A Resolution for the Elimination of Fossil Fuels", not "The Promotion of Solar Panels". As previously stated, that title is also incorrect as it does not "promote" but rather "requires". Words have specific meanings and care must be taken to use them appropirately. As labeled, this resolution can be incredibly misleading. We will assume this foul error was accidental however.

Addressing the point of the elimination of fossil fuels, the ten year timeframe is impossible to meet for any country. Consider that in a scant ten years this would require every automobile and power plant to be scrapped and replaced. Every gas station would need to be demolished and hydrogen (or whatever) stations put in its place. Generation faciliites for hydrogen (or whatever) would need to be built on a massive scale.

Furthermore, some industries would flat out disappear. Air travel would be a thing of the past. The steel industry would be crippled. Much of the chemical industry would also be crippled. Nations would go hungry as farmers would not have the ability to maintain modern high-yield farms.

So, in addition to the crippling cost of buying and installing solar panels, the industry that pays for these new measures would be ruined.

How does the delegate from Starcra II respond to this?

- End Statement -

Solar Panels are a good idea, but here are a few problems with this resolution:

1) Solar Panels are HORRIBLY inefficiant. The large areas that they would take up just to power small towns, let alone urban metropoli, just isn't practical. Not to mention that because so much space is needed to fuel energy needs via solar panels we are running the risk of causing environmental damage through deforestation and other environmental problems associated with development.

2) Sheer cost of implementation is rediculous. This type of thing is wonderful for rich nations, but for poorer nations with weaker economies this won't work. Solar Panels are expensive and just trying to force small nations to build them would be terribly detrimental to the world economy.

3) Other alternative fuel sources exist. Hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, wind farms, hydro electric power, geothermal power... the list goes on. Most, if not all of these are more efficant and more cost effective than solar power.

Do we need alternate sources of energy? Yes. However, this idea is a little bit too idealistic. Vote no.

(Btw, guys you can just call me Starcra or Star, there's no need for the 'II'. I put that in because my nation is a UN puppet).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Splinter nation? Is this because you do not trust the UN to not run your parent country into the ground? No wonder you are so blaise with your resolutions!

It wasn't incorrect grammar, it was a glaring error caused by the failure to recognize that burning fossil fuels does not deplete the ozone layer.

No, that's not what I meant by incorrect grammar. It's that I put them together and used the words 'which leads to' (Or some equivilant). The 'which leads to' was meant to refer to the burning of fossil fuels but came to seem as if it was reffering to the ozone.

We object vehemently to this statement. Member nations have every right to express their opinions on matters before this body. If they choose to do it in this forum, well and good. If they choose to do it via telegram and coordinate their efforts with others, they have every right to do so. To label such actions as "childish" and "immature" is completely uncalled for. We believe the delegate from Barnabas Butterbur is owed an apology.

Starcra II, I believe you took my remark about a telegram campaign a little too personal and therefore felt compelled to respond personally. But you will have to admit that there is a considerable weight of opinion here against the proposal while the only comments supporting it now seem to be exclusively your own.

In view of this vast imbalance, it was my simple conclusion that those who have voted for the resolution have not sufficiently considered the consequences and have voted for the reasons mentioned already on this forum. That is my view.

It is also my view, that no amount of arguing here is going to significantly change the current voting pattern so the natural response is to use a more direct approach to those whose opinions matter.

I'm sorry if you do not like this idea but I'm afraid that I, in turn, do not like a proposal that seeks to impose misery on my nation and its people.

It is called "campaigning". Many resolutions (such as the recent Adoption and IVF proposal) use it. It is part of "politics".

I have already posted that I had misinterpreted what was said. Please read everything before making such statements. Ausserland, that is for me to decide. Either way I had already apologized anyway, if you bothered to read a few statements that came after it. But if Barnabas didn't read it, sorry for the misunderstanding. I took your claim to mean something else.

How does the delegate from Starcra II respond to this?

Your post is full of statements and assumptions, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. However, air travel will not be a thing of the past and farmers will not need to stop working. In countries were there is a lot of sun, where most farms are situated anyway because the cannot survive in the climate required for Solar Panels not to work, the machinery would still work. Solar powered machinery might help, and a little old fahioned farming might also :P.

3) Other alternative fuel sources exist. Hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, wind farms, hydro electric power, geothermal power... the list goes on. Most, if not all of these are more efficant and more cost effective than solar power.

With all due respect why are people still bringing this up? I have already answered it some half a dozen times. :confused:

Splinter nation? Is this because you do not trust the UN to not run your parent country into the ground? No wonder you are so blaise with your resolutions!

I knew this was going to be taken out of context. The reason this nation is in the UN and not the other is because of the difference in which region they are in. I assure you I'm heavily active with both. So please, which nation I choose to put into the UN is my business and shouldn't affect an votes.

A TG campaign could by systematically run through the "Un delegates" list. It might look something like this;

Delegate nation,

We wish to bring to your attention the UN resolution that is currently at vote, "Promotion of Solar Panels". This resolution includes a few alarming articles that we feel need to be brought to your attention. Firstly, that all UN member will need to convert to solar panels for power production. Secondly, that after a ten year span all fossil fuel use must be eliminated.

Although this nation does support the sentiment that the enviornment must be protected and nations must be weaned off the dependence on fossil fuels, the cost of halting all fossil fuel use and implementing solar power is enough to crush the most economically powerful of countries. This resolution will, at best, be impossible to implement and, at worst, be the cause of a global crisis.

It is for this reason we request that you urge your delegates and region's members to vote against this resolution. For more information and factual analysis, please visit the UN forum thread that discusses the resolution at hand.

Thank you for your time in reading this telegram and looking into the facts behind this resolution.

However, air travel will not be a thing of the past Really? Describe an aircraft powered by solar panels, because the resolution states that:
4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted
What do you propose as a replacement for jet fuel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starcra II
Solar powered machinery might help, and a little old fahioned farming might also :P.



A little old fashioned farming? Wait, you want us to go back to the days of the horse and plow? The environment may have been pristine in that era, but the standard of living for humans during that time period was far below what most current UN members would consider acceptable. Additionally, the population of the world was far lower during the time period in which low-technology agriculture was the norm. The nations represented in the UN have many billions of people to feed, and in many cases do not have a large amount of land suitable for cultivation. Returning farms to the methods of hundreds of years ago could result in widespread famine.

I approved it but would prefer it to be extended to all renewable sources of energy

It is for this reason we request that you urge your delegates and region's members to vote against this resolution. For more information and factual analysis, please visit the UN forum thread that discusses the resolution at hand.


Ah, it seems my original sentiments were correct. You are URGING them rather than alerting them.

What do you propose as a replacement for jet fuel?

Well, Would nuclear fuel work? (I'm seriously asking because I'm not sure).

A little old fashioned farming? Wait, you want us to go back to the days of the horse and plow? The environment may have been pristine in that era, but the standard of living for humans during that time period was far below what most current UN members would consider acceptable. Additionally, the population of the world was far lower during the time period in which low-technology agriculture was the norm. The nations represented in the UN have many billions of people to feed, and in many cases do not have a large amount of land suitable for cultivation. Returning farms to the methods of hundreds of years ago could result in widespread famine.

I said a little old fashioned. I didn't say entirely.

Returning farms to the methods of hundreds of years ago could result in widespread famine.

Not could, would. Farmers did not adopt modern high density farming techniques because it was easier. They did it because you get a higher crop yield per square kilometer and that higher yield was required to be able to feed the Earth's rapidly growing population. This higher yield is possible only though mechanization, modern chemistry and bioengineering. Like solar powered aircraft, solar powered combines are not practical.

The question is one of energy density. Could a 16 wheeler truck be powered by a scooter motor? Of course not. There is simply not enough power to make it work. This is the same with solar power. The power you get for a given weight is very low. Assuming absolutely ideal conditions (daytime, sunny, no weather) a car's worth of solar panels will produce a vehicle with very poor performance and the ability to transport a single person with no cargo. Similarily, solar powered aircraft have been built, but it requires an aircraft the size of a large cargo transport to lift a measily 30 kg. payload. Other then being a scientific curiosity, it simply cannot support any kind of transportation industry.

Without trucks and planes trade will grind to a halt. Prices for commodities will soar to unimaginable levels as the makers of products will simply not be able to get their product to the markets. Industry will collapse. Because of the destroyed transportation infrastructure and the lower yeild of the crops, billions will starve to death. It is not a pretty picture.

- End Statement -

Ah, it seems my original sentiments were correct. You are URGING them rather than alerting them.

I would suggest that any participant in this debate may quite freely urge anyone to do anything they'd like to. Someone who disagrees with you and is presenting such is under no onus to be impartial and is being dishinest in their impartiality if they attempt it.

I would also suggest that the TG that I received as regional delegate for Equilism was obviously a solicitation for my endorsement so that the proposal could reach quorum.

Phrase yourself as neutrally as you like, I don't think that many people would assume the author of the resolution to really be impartial to its passage.

Ah, it seems my original sentiments were correct. You are URGING them rather than alerting them.

Well, Would nuclear fuel work? (I'm seriously asking because I'm not sure).


First point; feel free to campaign on your own. Others should feel free to use their own wording. The more people who look into this issue closely and read the articles the better.

Second point; no it would not. It has been done on a test platform but it was horribly expensive, inefficient and unsafe. Telegram my delegate directly if you would like further information. Additionally, we don't think it would be enviornmentally wise to have thousands of containers of nuclear material flying over the world.

- End Statement -

Well, Would nuclear fuel work? (I'm seriously asking because I'm not sure).

No, they wouldn't work. Nuclear-powered aircraft have been tested in the past and found not to be feasible. (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html)

The entire point of fossil fuels when it relates to the aviation industry is the fact that, pound-for-pound, they have more stored chemical energy than anything else available.

Weight is always a premium aboard any aircraft, which is why nothing will replace jet fuels until extensive research and development produces a better alternative.

We would also note that, while solar-powered aircraft have been built, they were built for research or other esoteric purposes. They were also ungainfully slow, and posessed very limited lift capacity.

While the spirit of the proposal is admirable, the application of it is flawed. It is too narrowly focused on solar panels, instead of the overall goal of eliminating fossil fuel use as an energy source.

Solar panels are not the best to be used in every place, especially places that are often cloudy or experience long periods of darkness in the winter, when fossil fuels are needed most for heating. The arbitrary fossil fuel elimination date is likely far too soon to get most nations off fossil fuel.

Also, solar panel production does produce toxins, I believe, so if every country was to start mass producing them all at once, it would produce a huge buildup of toxic waste.

The cost of producing enough solar panels to go on every building in the world within 10 years would be astronimical, and poorer nations with no knowledge of solar panel production would have a really hard time meeting this goal, even if other nations were to give them money out of the goodness of their hearts.

Furthermore, wouldn't buildings like barns and warehouses have to comply with this resolution? What would they need solar panels for?

Well that's immature. Plain and simple, instead of letting people vote their own way you're going to pressure the towards your own views. If people believe something should go through or not go through why should you, who thinks the other way try to impose your opinion as the right one, it's just childish I'm sorry. You can discuss your opinions but to start a campaign is just immature.

It is called "campaigning". Many resolutions (such as the recent Adoption and IVF proposal) use it. It is part of "politics".

- End Statement -

Furthermore, there is nothing to stop Starcra II and his allies from campaigning in favor of the Resolution.

- Me

Whilst we are in the middle of this fascinating debate on other alternate fuel sources other than solar energy, the principal focus on this resolution, I note that no one seems to have mentioned a candidate that I consider quite obvious: Alcohol fuels.

I direct those who are interested to the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

I would also note that many have campaigned in favour of the 'Hydrogen Economy'. The disadvantages of hydrogen fuels are numerous and I shall list the most significant ones here:

1). Hydrogen is almost impossible to store, due to its density and the difficulties of containing it in viable quantities.

2). Hydrogen production is expensive and often uses more energy than is generated.

3). Hydrogen is not fuel efficient, as it is so difficult to store and process, that the engine size required would be so large as to eliminate any efficiency gains made by its use.

For more in-depth information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

If there is no burning of fossil fuels, then my country will lose its automobile factoring industry. Also, my country is in the Pacific Region. We have a monsoon season where there is no sun. If the country goes to solar power, then there is a quite extensive time period of which my country will have no power unless we are able to use fossil fuels for power. Please, consider this proposal when you vote on this resolution.

1. The technology does not exist to replace fossil fuels in a practical fashion (air freight and agriculture are only 2 examples).

2. The ten-year mandate for this makes the process dangerously expensive (impossibly expensive, really) and will actually impede technological growth.

This is a well-intentioned resolution that simply does not work. Vote 'no' and spread the word.

If there is no burning of fossil fuels, then my country will lose its automobile factoring industry. Also, my country is in the Pacific Region. We have a monsoon season where there is no sun. If the country goes to solar power, then there is a quite extensive time period of which my country will have no power unless we are able to use fossil fuels for power. Please, consider this proposal when you vote on this resolution.

The automobile factoring industry will survive if you use alternate fuels and adapt quickly enough. Cart manufacturing was probably curtailed by the arrival of the combustion engine, but new industries develope and you shouldn't fear too much for your economy, so long as you are prepared.

The monsoon season is a problem, but their are ways around this and you could use alternate power sources than solar (though not fossil fuels), i.e. hydro-electric or nuclear.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The automobile factoring industry will survive if you use alternate fuels and adapt quickly enough. Cart manufacturing was probably curtailed by the arrival of the combustion engine, but new industries develope and you shouldn't fear too much for your economy, so long as you are prepared.

You run into compound problems here
1) It will take more than ten years to phase out fossil-fuel-based vehicles
2) Not only do you have to switch the vehicles over to alternative fuels, but now you have to switch over the processes that manufacture the components for the cars, the factories that assemble the cars, and the powerplants that supply the factories with electricity.
3) Plastics are petrochemical-based. Fossil fuels are burned during their production. And this is just one example. Cars will also have to be built out of new materials to be indirectly compliant with this proposal.

The monsoon season is a problem, but their are ways around this and you could use alternate power sources than solar (though not fossil fuels), i.e. hydro-electric or nuclear.


Unfortunately, there isn't a country left that could afford to implement such systems after having been forced to invest in mandatory solar power systems.

I regret that I haven't the time to read all the posts on this, but I wanted to offer some information that might be useful: solar power is extremely expensive and inefficient.

According to the non-profit National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew4.html), new solar-generated electric power is 4 times more expensive than the prevailing price in their study. In the US, it is practical only in the desert southwest. It requires 17 acres of solar power cells to generate one megawatt of electricity. How many acres would an average country need to replace all their fossil fuels? I can't find a figure for annual energy consumption, but the Department of Energy says the US will need 363,000 NEW megawatts per year within 15 years. That's a lot of acres of solar panels. In fact, that's more than 9,500 square miles of solar panels.

The Worldwatch Institute - an environmental organization - has expressed concern about some groundbreaking research into solar power because the panels can be as high as 200 meters.

I really can't see how this resolution can be remotely practical. We have to vote no - if only because I'm not sure that we'll have space for anything in our beautiful country except solar panels.

I am against this resolution and would be extremely worried about the thought the U.N. puts into resolutions if it was passed. The Dominion of Austelitz is very supportive of renewable energy but we believe that solar power is not the way. Solar power is not only expensive but very inefficient. If the resolution had been for wind or hydro power we may have supported this motion. I cannot comprehend why the U.N. would support this and believe it is a foolhardy plan doomed to fail.

I already have. And shouldn't again if you aren't going to be bothered to look it up.

But I will anyway, the chemicals released by fossil fuel burning when mixed with chemicals released by waste dumps create the chemicals which form part of the depletion of the ozone. I know I'm not using and chemistry words here but I don't do chemistry so I can't.

You admit that you "don't do chemistry" yet you try to push forth beliefs that are based upon chemistry when people that do know chemistry have, at least twice previously, disproven you on the matter (read like....page 1?). This is kind of humorous.......especially since you called some people immature for campaigning against a resolution on the principle that they feel it is based upon poor scientific fact.....

Shall we try thinking this through again?

Also, fossil fuels do cause the greenhouse gases that melt the ice caps. So either way it's still an issue.

Yes, but that still means there is a technical flaw within the resolution, not to mention a practicality and plausability flaw. Heck, the alternative fuels resolution was better designed than that - it acknowledged the possibility the goal was unobtainable and could extend the time limit if needed.

Starcra, you keep talking about the long term, so lets look at the long term:

The resolution passes on Saturday. 3,000 UN member nations leave the UN so they do have to pay for this large scale conversion to inefficient energy. The rest who tried to vote the resolution down stay to draft repeal after repeal.

One Year passes... countries are starting to go into economic decline. Their industries have been forced to build exclusivley solar cells to meet the demand of this new UN resolution.

Two years pass... Countries have spent trillions of dollars so far on meeting the goal, and they are nowhere near complete. Smaller governments run out of money, sending them into anarchy.

Two more years pass... Halfway to the deadline. By this time, 4,000 of the UN members that stayed to fight have decided to leave and save their losses. The citizens of the remaining countries that are not yet bankrupt are starting to run out of money trying to pay for all of these solar cells.

Three more years... The weathiest of nations start to run out of money. Their citizens are taxed out of thier minds. Anarchy insues. Civil War erupts in many UN countries. Cities are destroyed. Rouge Nations see an opening and take over several of the nations.

Go to the deadline... Of the countries foolish enough to stay in the UN and attempt to meet this requirement, you find they are out of money and barely able to survive. They have no need for electricity or fossil fuel because they have no way to pay for industry. Farms are barren. Poverty and famine are rampant. Thousands of people are dead because of civil war, caused by a lack of money, and cities are destroyed. Without the country, you dont have a long term after the deadline. The short term of this resolution has destroyed the long term

Meanwhile, the people who were smart enough to leave are laughing their asses off driving thier gas powered cars. Countries that left before the halfway point of the deadline have began to crawl out of thier debt and are starting to be prosporus again.

If that'a a Utopia, then Me and my people will be more than glad to stay in hell.

This is kind of humorous.......especially since you called some people immature for campaigning against a resolution on the principle that they feel it is based upon poor scientific fact.....

Wait, I apologized for that(twice) and explained I misunderstood.

Meanwhile, the people who were smart enough to leave are laughing their asses off driving thier gas powered cars.

Do you honestly think we will have that luxury for much longer?

Now before I go to sleep (:P) I would like to apologize to all those posting here if my tone seems harsh (and in advance if it should seem hars later on). I'm trying to cope with a lot of things (Not only NS related) and am a bit on the edge.
Secondly, in the event this draft does not pass(or is repealed), a second one is on a Word document and in progress taking into consideration EVERY single thing you have all said, I'm saying this to reassure you I have not been replying and finding alternatives without listening. Some changes include -
- Longer time period
- Different title and reasoning
- Some spelling and grammatical errors omitted :P
- Regards all alternative energy sources
Basically the intentions and basic idea still there, with a change in the process.

Good Night ;)
Starcra

On the question of how much longer we can drive fossil-fuel driven cars, the Rand Corporation recently found that at $70/barrel for oil (only slightly higher than the current price), the United States has the world's largest oil reserve - three times that of Saudi Arabia, and enough to satisfy 25% of the nation's fossil-fuel demand for the next 400 years:

http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/08.31.html

While this price yields gasoline prices higher than Americans like paying, it is not at all outrageous.

i hope this passes because i liek the solar panals!!@!! my country has no money so mebbe the othor countires can give me some panals for power!!!! LOL :) :) ;) i wil get a solor house & robot dog too!!!!

:cool: (kewl shades!)

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.
But what if you cannot afford to install solar panels and you are therefore forced to stop funding other areas ? Have you ever thought of that ? And you continue to ignore the fact that some nations might not be capable of generating a quarter of it's needed energy through solar panels. What happens to them ?

i hope this passes because i liek the solar panals!!@!! my country has no money so mebbe the othor countires can give me some panals for power!!!! LOL :) :) ;) i wil get a solor house & robot dog too!!!!

:cool: (kewl shades!)

Shouldn't you be in class?

- RoSB

Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to write a resolution declaring national sovereignty. I'm not in the UN anymore so I can't write it but maybe someone could write a resolution that protects our independence. If it passed, I'd be back in an instant. Maybe we could derail future maniacal, unthought resolutions.

Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to write a resolution declaring national sovereignty. I'm not in the UN anymore so I can't write it but maybe someone could write a resolution that protects our independence. If it passed, I'd be back in an instant. Maybe we could derail future maniacal, unthought resolutions.

An excellent idea, but...

First Article 11 of the Resolution on Rights and Duties of UN States would have to be repealed:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to write a resolution declaring national sovereignty. I'm not in the UN anymore so I can't write it but maybe someone could write a resolution that protects our independence. If it passed, I'd be back in an instant. Maybe we could derail future maniacal, unthought resolutions.

Additionally, it isn't just the issue of sovereignty that needs to be addressed. A nation's (not state's, but nation's) right to self-determination needs to be addressed. After that a state's need for sovereignty and the appropriate use of power in the UN can be argued.

But We fear it is a hopeless debate and will shortly be going rogue to protect Our people from UN tyranny.

- Me

Yes, I'm tempted to boycott the UN, should this resolution pass and not be repealed. This resolution will completely undermine the military of every nation in the UN. The military cannot use solar power to create rocket and jet thrust. Same case with space craft. Solar panels will not be able to power anything that requires propulsion. The military would have to resort to slow, massive, propellor-powered planes for the airforce. Tanks would have to be upgraded to run on solar power, which would make them much less effective. Emergency generators would need to run solar power. Same with navies. How would submarines run on solar power if they are underwater? This resolution is too broad. If it prohibited new oil or gas power plants, I would vote for it, but this resolution would retire almost the entire military.

Once you're done with your resolution banning airplanes and declaring that holes in the ozone layer are now caused by burning fossil fuels, I'm going to put forward a resolution requiring every building in the world to have an array of abacuses (abaci?) made out of diamonds, in order to reduce the global problem of bad accounting and poor math. We won't restrict research into Computer methods and it's great if you want to use a calculator for your math, but we will require you to install diamond-abaci anyway.

I am sorry, Starcra II, because from the first 10 or so pages (all I could stand to read) you kept very civil and pleasant, and now I have to insult you.

You have no understanding of Science.
You have no understanding of Economics.
Your notions of the relative merits of power-generation reflect an elementary-school comprehension of environmental issues.

For instance, you attacked Nuclear with half-truths, no-truths, and oft-repeated rhetoric without backing, and at the same time declared Wind and Solar "clean", ignoring that both have their negative impacts (including the toxins made necessary in the construction of solar panels). You mentioned the ozone hole as being caused by fossil fuels. You see no reason why it is a problem to force every household to spend many times the GDP of the country on an item that ranges between a moderate help and totally useless, depending on where it is located, within 10 years. You ignore that solar panels can be damaged. You declare Solar panels the most reliable source of energy when in fact, it probably competes with Wind and Hamster-Wheel generation for LEAST reliable. You place a blanket-ban on the burning of fossil fuels without regard to other reasons for fossil fuel burning.

Somebody inevitably pipes up talking about what the cost WOULD be if we ran out of fossil fuel. Several problems with that.

1) We are not limited to a choice between "solar panels on every building within 10 years" or "completely run out of oil". This is an extreme False Dichotomy.

2) Even the most pessimistic scenario possible does not have Earth running out of fossil fuels by 2015.

3) I can demand 1 million dollars from every individual on Earth within 10 years or I'll take 1 billion in 50. Yeah, 1 billion is 1000 times as much as 1 million. But if you can't afford it, then you can't afford it, and it doesn't matter how much an alternative costs. Note that in my example, some few people WILL be able to make the million in 10 years: the extraordinarily rich (who should be able to make clean power however they want) which make up one in a million people on this Earth, and those who make a well-above-average amount of money give up EVERYTHING to live as paupers. In fact, such a lowering of living conditions could cause a health epidemics and increases in crime, but even if it doesn't, what do you have at the end? Solar panels that do not fulfill their needs anyway. And they have to do this again for another 10 years every time a hailstorm hits.

Realistically, we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. I think the world could even completely rid itself of all fossil fuel use FOR ELECTRICITY ONLY within 10 years BUT NOT WITH SOLAR, and not if we are spending all of our money on solar instead of more realistic alternatives.

Go ahead and promote solar for gadgetry and desert regions and other places where it is logical.

Also, BTW, your "notes from a trip to such-and-such institute" are not evidence. Firstly, of course, there's the fact that you could have misheard/misread, misunderstood, or made up that information. Secondly, the information that those institutes put out are not the most rigourous in the first place. Especially with regards to such information as 24 hours of sunlight providing one year of energy. Maybe if you captured ever last photon that touched the Earth (thus destroying all plant life and indeed, all life, by exterminating all natural light).

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that solar was better than any other form of energy. Why didn't you say that absolutely every building had to have a windmill aerial instead? Or a hydroelectric wheel generating power from the water flowing from the gutters during rainfall?

Besides, I don't know why one should insist on such decentralisation of power generation. What if you WERE in a sunny country, with the Sahara at your backyard. Shouldn't you then take a bulk discount and cover the Sahara with solar panels instead of houses in cities, where the skyscraper's shadows cover the solar panels even during the day? But anyway, at least that last part is debatable. There are merits to decentralisation (most of which are not environmental).

I suggest EVERYBODY vote against this. Then Starcra, if he wishes, could post a new resolution, which was less narrowly focussed on one method of non-fossil fuel production chosen at random from a hat, that does not contradict proven fact, that is more flexible in allowing people to use a better alternative (i.e. 8 households pooling for one big solar panel in a sunny area than each putting each in their own homes) and that either has a realistic timeframe for total cessation of fossil fuel use OR limits the cessation to electrical generation only OR AT LEAST allows hospitals to have backup power generators and airplanes to continue to fly and other such important things (maybe hydrogen cells could run cars and nuclear could run ships, but air travel, which is absolutely necessary particularly in colder climates, cannot run on anything other than fossil fuel in the foreseeable future).

Askalaria has been in the UN since mid-2003, but we will quit the instant this legislation is passed, if it does, and not return until I can vote to repeal it.

:mp5: (OoC Kraku is beginning to think that there is a certain W Bush proposing this law)

I know that other nations will stand with us in protesting against this BS resolution. You don't have to resign however. I am going to take a more direct route and do this. If the resolution passes the United States of Kraku will refuse to follow the law. We will not have any solar panels up within 10 years. Whoever submitted this resolution needs to be kicked out of the UN and burned at the stake. Kraku will not resign. If the UN sends forces into our nation to make us comply then we will go to war with the UN forces. We will not honor this. I implore the nations against this thing (which should be all nations) to stand with me in this approach. The UN can't force me to do anything.

I do not belong to a side in this descussion, but I agree. Solar panels, yes, are expensive, and they could possibly burn or some other horror, but they will save thousands, millions, or more dollars for each country, and less for each indeivual person. But I wish to cause no dispute, only to express mine and my counties thoughts. Thank you.

-Quere

Oh and he says that they have another proposal saved on word. Well no matter what you do we will not tolerate it. Another proposal will only infuriate the NSUN communtiy. Besides the new proposal will be just as bad as the first one. How does correcting grammatical errors make a proposal more acceptable? WTF

Firstly, thanks for bringing your argument in a decent fashion.

Now, you must remember that we now need to adapt those numbers to NS where daily issues and UN resolutions has changed the amount we spend on certain items such as the military. Admittedly, some call for increased spending, so taking both into consideration we have different spending methods since our nations did not experience 9/11 (Unless someone made their nation experience something similar) or other natural disasters (Again, unless).

The 9/11 reference was for comparison purposes. In a nation the size of the one being examined an economic hit of 450 billion dollars caused a nasty economic recession. That poster just informed you that in a nation of the same size and economic power your proposal, if implemented, would cost at least TWENTY TIMES MORE than that disaster EVERY YEAR for ten years and you basically hand-waved it away.

I realise the costs are great but I go back to my argument of 'long term benefits'.

There are no long term denefits to annihilating your economy!

And here I'm going to be a bit selfish but - In RL countries such as my own the price is MUCH cheaper. I'm going to assume this is because we need minimal panels due to our large amount of sun.

Kindly back this up by disclosing your RL nation and what you claim the cost of converting a home completely to solar power there is so that it can be fact checked.

The US gets quite a bit of sun and your proposal would destroy that economy.

For all nations who want to leave the UN, it won't make any difference. If this passes, we are looking at what very well could be a catastrophic collapse of the global economy. This measure will impact nations outside the UN as much as those inside it. Like I stated a few pages back, international economies do not cease at a nation's borders just because it is or isn't a member of the UN. A global recession affects all nations globally, and I would be surprised if there weren't at least a few foreign powers preparing to march their armies upon this building right now.

Secondly, in the event this draft does not pass(or is repealed), a second one is on a Word document and in progress taking into consideration EVERY single thing you have all said, I'm saying this to reassure you I have not been replying and finding alternatives without listening. Some changes include -
- Longer time period
- Different title and reasoning
- Some spelling and grammatical errors omitted :P
- Regards all alternative energy sources
Basically the intentions and basic idea still there, with a change in the process.

If you acknowledge that your proposal fails in all these areas, why do you continue to support it? Admit that you got it wrong this time, campaign against your own resolution, then put forward an improved version, drafted here in the forums with input from others at every stage (I have rarely seen a decent proposal created any other way).

You've also omitted 3 major things from this list:
- correct scientific fallacies
- remove requirement for all buildings to have solar panelling
- deal with the absurdity of completely banning burning fossil fuels - you've still failed to come up with a decent answer to these questions:

1. What are planes supposed to run on? Other posters have already shown that nuclear and solar are not viable alternatives.
2. How are we supposed to extract iron without burning coke in a blast furnace?
3. How are we supposed to produce plastics and other petrochemical products?
4. How are scientists supposed to research organic chemistry?

On the question of how much longer we can drive fossil-fuel driven cars, the Rand Corporation recently found that at $70/barrel for oil (only slightly higher than the current price), the United States has the world's largest oil reserve - three times that of Saudi Arabia, and enough to satisfy 25% of the nation's fossil-fuel demand for the next 400 years
That has quite a few disclaimers and not to mention an "I got mine attitude". Remember, stats can be deceiving. For example, 25% of fossile fuel demands for 400 years, or possibly 100% for 100. Does that take into acount other countries? NO. Does that take into account 100 - 400 years of destroying the ozone? NO. Does that take into account the destruction of pristine wilderness to achieve the goal. NO! So in other words... 25% of America can live on fossile fuels for another 400 years (if we don't all die from skin cancer first). Who is the 25%? Dur, the rich. And no mention need be made about other people in countries that also depend on a steady amount of energy from fossile fuels, we got ours... screw them. :eek: (Steriotypical American phrase)

(OoC Kraku is beginning to think that there is a certain W Bush proposing this law) LOL. You think that W Bush, oil lord Cheyne's puppet on strings, would be proposing a law to inhibit the use of petroleum? That's a hoot! :D

Spoon Savers

We should all live more natural lives and stop flying. Walking or taking trains is a much better idea. There should be a quicker time table on the resolution.

Im pretty sure U.N. resolutions only affect nations by category strength and don't go up to "Global economic disaster" strength?

Does that take into account 100 - 400 years of destroying the ozone? NO.

Except of course that it has already been demonstrated that burning fossil fuels
does.
not.
destroy.
ozone.

The push for alternative fuel sources has always been geared towards a gradual shift away from petrochemical dependence for power generation and transportation. We won't be using fossil fuels in the quantities we do now for another 100 years or even 400 years, so the argument is flawed beyond reason and serves to advance nothing. Don't fight bad reasoning with worse reasoning.

[From the HOCEK Conclave of Friendship e-mail system]

TO: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, NSUN Nuncio
CC: HOCEK Conclave of Wisdom, Friendship Liaison

FROM: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, Diplomatic Affairs Office

SUBJECT: Re: Responsible Voting

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

Your Grace,

We put your question forward to the Conclave of Wisdom. Frankly, we were a little surprised at their response. Not only did they not object to your proposed plan of action, but they ruled that given the extreme situation Our government is facing with implementing NSUN Resolution #121, "Adoption and IVF Rights", you've been authorized to declare that the HOCEK will campaign for this Solar panel resolution unless a sufficient number of other NationStates agree to support the repeal of #121.

Have fun,
Your humble servants and colleagues

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

Are you serious? Tell that to the people who live in the extreme northern and souhtern regions (RL Alaska, Norway, Finland, northern Canada, southern Chile and Argentina, etc) and tell them how it is so reliable that during the winter months, when heating is needed most, that virtually NO sunlight is going to provide them with reliable electricity.

Was this proposal given ANY thought beyond the propoganda spread by the enviro-wackos? Anything beyond pious "truisms"? Yes, solar energy may work for some things in the middle lattitudes with their abundance of sunshine, but I fear the northern and southern regions had better get used to freezing should this pass.

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

Now this one is a hoot. Not only wopuld a project of this magnitude be a collosal waste of money, but it would totally drain any environmental funding a country has, along with the education budget, the military budget and any other cash a country may have. The costs for businesses to convert would be astronomical, and many industries would simply cease to exist. And you may well say, "Good, let Big Oil go out of business! Serves them right!". How many people would that put out of work? Thousands? Millions? Tens of Millions? Probably the latter, as it wouldn't be just the oil workers and refinery workers put out on the street. It would be the people driving the delivery trucks to the local gas station. The people working at those gas stations. The people working at the grocery stores and department stores selling to those other folks. The farmers who grow the food for them. The manufacturing companies who build things for them. Global economic dominoes, here.

Great. Lets save the environment by making sure nobody has a job, a home, money, food, clothing, manufactured goods. Lets all just go live in caves with stone knives and bearskins. We'd all fit, I'm sure, once 3/4ths of the population dies off in the ensuing tragedy.

Yup, a well thought out proposal. Lets all vote for it so we can feel good about destroying life as we know it.

[From the HOCEK Conclave of Friendship e-mail system]

TO: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, NSUN Nuncio
CC: HOCEK Conclave of Wisdom, Friendship Liaison

FROM: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, Diplomatic Affairs Office

SUBJECT: Re: Responsible Voting

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

Your Grace,

We put your question forward to the Conclave of Wisdom. Frankly, we were a little surprised at their response. Not only did they not object to your proposed plan of action, but they ruled that given the extreme situation Our government is facing with implementing NSUN Resolution #121, "Adoption and IVF Rights", you've been authorized to declare that the HOCEK will campaign for this Solar panel resolution unless a sufficient number of other NationStates agree to support the repeal of #121.

Have fun,
Your humble servants and colleagues

We cannot speak for the rest of this body, but the Imperium does not look kindly on attempted blackmail. We recommend this ill advised and self destructive threat be rescinded immediately.

For all nations who want to leave the UN, it won't make any difference. If this passes, we are looking at what very well could be a catastrophic collapse of the global economy. This measure will impact nations outside the UN as much as those inside it. Like I stated a few pages back, international economies do not cease at a nation's borders just because it is or isn't a member of the UN. A global recession affects all nations globally, and I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't at least a few foreign powers preparing to march their armies upon this building right now.

It would be beneficial if such a thing happened, at least to stop a global recession from happening and destroying nations everywhere. Though being an Environmentalist Nation has a few upsides, being one means economy isnt very important, which can pretty much destroy other economies, and more to come. "Tree huggers are frowned upon", would be the best way to say it.

[From the HOCEK Conclave of Friendship e-mail system]

TO: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, NSUN Nuncio
CC: HOCEK Conclave of Wisdom, Friendship Liaison

FROM: HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, Diplomatic Affairs Office

SUBJECT: Re: Responsible Voting

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

Your Grace,

We put your question forward to the Conclave of Wisdom. Frankly, we were a little surprised at their response. Not only did they not object to your proposed plan of action, but they ruled that given the extreme situation Our government is facing with implementing NSUN Resolution #121, "Adoption and IVF Rights", you've been authorized to declare that the HOCEK will campaign for this Solar panel resolution unless a sufficient number of other NationStates agree to support the repeal of #121.

Have fun,
Your humble servants and colleagues

As deplorable and self-serving as your action is, Strobania for one would be interested in seeing the merits for a proposed repeal of Resolution #121 - if there was a formal proposal in the first place.

In the meantime, we'll just have to add you as yet another of the 5,141 votes that currently threaten to undermine civilized society as we know it.

Greetings Esteemed Delegate,
I am writing today to respectfully ask that you reconsider your “For” vote on the Resolution currently at vote, “Promotion of Solar Panels”. It is the opinion of Yeldan UN Mission and many other UN regulars, that this resolution, while well intentioned, is based on bad science and should not pass. Also, the economic consequences of this resolution are troubling, to say the least. I would ask you to visit the official discussion thread in the UN forum, where the author is doing an incredibly poor job of defending this resolution.
Finally, I would like to quote Frisbeeteria, NS Moderator, who had this to say about the resolution: “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.” The original post may be found at this url: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9612611&postcount=36

Again, please consider changing your vote to “No” or at least abstain. And if you have time, visit the official discussion thread in the UN forum.

Thank you for your time,
Yeldan UN Mission
While the Duke respects Frisbeeteria's status as both a Moderator and a veteran of the NSUN, he disagrees with that nation's contention that the current proposed resolution would have "economically catastrophic" results. Although there will certainly be short-term hardship, the long-term benefits to be reaped from a transition away from fossil fuels should more than make up for the cost of the transition. The greatest danger may in fact be to the environment itself, as follows: solar panels, in order to produce energy, absorb light energy that would otherwise be transformed largely into heat energy upon striking the ground. The number of solar panels required to completely replace fossil fuels in all member nations is immense, and may have a drastic effect on the climate; a change of only a few degrees in the planet's average temperature can have huge effects.

Because this is merely conjecture, the Duke will not change his vote at this time, remaining in favor of the resolution. If, however, evidence is provided which substantiates this claim that complete solar dependance (land-based) would negatively impact the environment, then the Duke would vote against the resolution.

The Duke thanks the assembly for taking the time to consider his position.

This is preposterous. My country shall leave the UN if this nonsense is allowed to pass.

Dont vote for this! by voting this resoultion, you are shutting out other just as good means of deriving power. solar is ineficient in most areas, but in other areas, wind, bio mass, and other alternative fuels are much more efficent. by voting this, you are throwing away other good options for energy. yes, solar is clean, but it is expensive, and not too evevective everywhere... revise this for something that calls for other forms of energy becides only solar.

Except of course that it has already been demonstrated that burning fossil fuels
does.
not.
destroy.
ozone.
Show me one report that clearly states, without a myriad of disclaimers or biased and incomplete stats, that the emissions from fossile fuels does not destroy the ozone.

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

You fail to see that some nations HAVE DIFFERENT PHILOSIPHIES. In Zatarack, for example, if you don't contribute to the nation, you get no help from the nation. On this resolution, I think that not only does it contain bad science and will have negative impacts on economies, but it takes away the governments sovereignty over its own state.

While the Duke respects Frisbeeteria's status as both a Moderator and a veteran of the NSUN, he disagrees with that nation's contention that the current proposed resolution would have "economically catastrophic" results. Although there will certainly be short-term hardship, the long-term benefits to be reaped from a transition away from fossil fuels should more than make up for the cost of the transition. The greatest danger may in fact be to the environment itself, as follows: solar panels, in order to produce energy, absorb light energy that would otherwise be transformed largely into heat energy upon striking the ground. The number of solar panels required to completely replace fossil fuels in all member nations is immense, and may have a drastic effect on the climate; a change of only a few degrees in the planet's average temperature can have huge effects.

Because this is merely conjecture, the Duke will not change his vote at this time, remaining in favor of the resolution. If, however, evidence is provided which substantiates this claim that complete solar dependance (land-based) would negatively impact the environment, then the Duke would vote against the resolution.

The Duke thanks the assembly for taking the time to consider his position.

If you want to look at the environmental impact, factor in the following:
-Central-station solar requires between five and 17 acres per megawatt. The Tesside project built in the British Isles generated 1.8mW and consumed 23 acres.
-Large-scale heliostats rise to as tall as 200 meters, and pose a risk to birds due to their mirror-like surfaces.
-The production of photovoltaic cells is not environmentally friendly due to the toxic substances used in their construction.

Now, while The Duke points out that there are a few short-term economic setbacks, we feel this is a strong understatement. Factor in the following:
-Steel industries will be nonexistent. Iron excavation and processing consumes fossil fuels, the burning of which are outright banned after the ten year deadline for this proposal.
-Automobile industries will likewise be crippled, as it has been demonstrated that it is impossible to rephase the industry in less than ten years.
-Aviation industries will no longer exist, due to the fact that there is no safe alternative to fossil fuels available that can possibly meet the power and lift demands of modern aircraft.
-Plastic and rubber come from processing petrochemicals. So do adhesives, nylon, insecticides, herbicides, detergents, toothpaste, asphalt and aspirin, to name a few. All of these processes require the burning of fossil fuels.
-A "high-efficiency" (40%) solar panel the size of a computer monitor may cost as much as $45,000.

Now, while The Duke states that the long-term impact can be overcome, we would also point out that the sheer cost of implementing solar power in essentially every building across the globe would many times outstrip the GDP of even the world's most economically powerful nations. Even if it were viable (and in any event would be definitely advantageous) to pursue other means of alternative power, there isn't a single country left that would have the money left for research and development.

And finally, we would also point out that, while the UN is not allowed to directly affect nations outside the UN, this proposal would radically alter the global economic status, bringing about the most catastrophic collapse of world markets in living memory.

I would first like to applaud all of those who are fighting against this proposal. While some may say that economic set-backs and such are only temporary, i say the life of a nation forced to implement this measure will be temporary. the loss of a countries major industries, ones that rely on fossil fuels specifically, over a ten year period will utterly destroy a nations economy. Not only, then, will that nation enter a time of hardship, but any goods that they manufacture and export to other nations will no longer be being made. in other words, UN nations will most likely not be able to trade with other nations, at least not too successfully.

I personally do not feel that any governement that cares for their people at all could vote for this resolution.
By the same token, I dont see how any government concerned only with putting money into the hands of the rich could vote for this either, as it will destroy that capacity.

Show me one report that clearly states, without a myriad of disclaimers or biased and incomplete stats, that the emissions from fossile fuels does not destroy the ozone.

Burning petrochemicals releases two byproducts; carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). There is also the occasional hydrocarbon left over after imperfect reactions.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CCl3F) on the other hand, have been traced to the destruction of the ozone layer. Please note that CFCs are not related to the consumption of fossil fuels, instead used in the making of aerosol sprays, solvents and refridgerants.

If you want an article, the NOAA has a good one here (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/noah/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html) (or, of course, you could have searched Google for "CFCs". It's the first result on the list).

This propsoal should be rewritten, all industries that "non-hippe" countries have will be crippled. My nation is run by the automobile industry. If this resolution goes through my nation will be economically crippled for decades, maybe more, and I speak for many other nations as well. Either rewrite this proposal, or us opposers of this proposal should attempt to veto this ridiculious, poorly-written, frivioulous proposal.

Does Starcra II realize they'll wipe out an entire industry? Do they know the economic repercussions of that?

This is my first visit here as a delegate.

May I point out a few problems with the proposal as written?

One: Solar power is GREAT, but has anyone ever tried using solar panels in Fairbanks, AK, in December? It doesn't work. Go farther north, say to the Arctic coastal villages, and you're looking at 60+ days every winter with no sunlight at all, and very little sunlight for some months on both sides of the long night.

Two: Why not allow individual nations and regions to decide their own energy policies? Economics will, in the end, force even the US to abandon fossile fuels and use more bio fuels, more nuclear power, more hydro power, etc. (incidentally, even the "cleanest" of clean power sources on a national scale, hydro and wind power, have problems -- look at the damage to the Snake River drainage from the Snake and Columbia River dams, and the whiny folks who don't want a wind-farm in their back yard).

Three: When fossile fuel prices rise far enough from market forces, people will adopt whatever fuel is most suited to their region and climate. There is no need for UN action on this matter.

AK

We cannot speak for the rest of this body, but the Imperium does not look kindly on attempted blackmail. We recommend this ill advised and self destructive threat be rescinded immediately.

Desparate times call for desparate measures, my friend. Let this esteemed assembly know that the recent "Adoption and IVF Rights" resolution is just as destructive to Our nation's culture as this resolution threatens to be to your nations' economies. Why should We be the only ones to suffer?

Now that the bitter taste of UN tyranny is known, is it too much to ask for you to join us in eliminating our common enemy--bureaucracy drunk with power?

As I said before, we must repeal this proposal as soon as it comes into act, because not many nations are looking past the title of this proposal. Almost none know of its horribly written facts and proposals. Otherwise, no one would be voting for this statement except "Hippie" nations and people who want to ruin their economy.

Sorry, but I think you should vote AGAINST this particular proposal. I agree with all the environmental risk that solar energy prevents, but consider the following things about this proposal...

(1) Weather can block off the sunlight, causing power outages.
(2) What will happen during situations like #1? The proposal says that we will destroy all fuel energy products!
(3) Equipment can be cheap and unefficient.

...I hope you view this to be true...

Uh. I think I was saying, dont vote for this, vote against it. Don't let it come to pass. etc.

Originally Posted by Plastic Spoon Savers
Show me one report that clearly states, without a myriad of disclaimers or biased and incomplete stats, that the emissions from fossile fuels does not destroy the ozone.
This is impossible. Nobody has commissioned an investigation into the correlation, because anyone with even a rudimentry understanding of the conditions that have caused the thinning of the ozone layer seriously believes that there could be a connection. The ozone problem is caused by CFCs, which are not produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. I believe that there was an excellent analysis of the proccess on the first or second page. Conducting experiments to see if fossil fuels caused global warming would be comparable to conducting experiments to see if tweed jackets caused volcanic activity on the Pacific Rim.

As for everyone else, I must implore you to contact your regional delegates and ask for them to vote against this proposal, especially those of you who are in feeder regions.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to start cornering the market in scrap iron. If this thing goes through, a LOT of U.N. nations are going to be looking for precious refined metal.

How are these recent resolutions even making it into the queue? This is ridiculous! Does anyone out there comprehend the deliberate process of politics or the VERY limited power of an international governing unit that does not include all nations in the world. Every new issue has some great kernel idea enshrouded in so much impossible, destructive, and simple-minded non-thought that it becomes laughable. AND THEN THEY PASS!!!! What is wrong with you people? A UN proposal should thouroughly deal with one small subject that is within the international body's jurisdiction or not ever make it out of the drafting room. I am pretty sure that I started doing this because it was fun, but it turns out that it is petty nonsense.

I propose a mass resigning of nations from the UN if it looksl ike it is gonig to easily but before it actualy passes. I think it would be interesting if even 100 nations resigned at once (or more or less at once)

The ambassador from the Strange Enigmatic Nation of Redrune stands up to address the issue. We the people of Redrune do not support this because it implements too much dependence on a expensive and land consuming energy source. There are cheaper energy sources that can be set up easily such as wind generators and geothermal plants. In our nation of Redrune most of it is located in area that make solar power a physical impossibility. Also to look at this issue from a military point; a single nuke is exploded above a country will knock all the power in our country and there is no way to "harden" solar cells into some that can even resist a very weak EMP that can be caused by something as little a overload of one of our high capacity transformer.

I was ready to vote for this, but then I checked the forum
and people pointed out the flaws in it. Thus science was
remembered from the days of institutionalized schooling.


The understanding of the people of Shingogogol is the following.

CFCs and Freon cause ozone depletion which does NOT cause
global warming, but more radiation to get into the atmosphere
increasing the risk of skin cancer and harm to little critters.
The ozone layer does not prevent heat from getting in, but
radiation.

Global warning is not caused by the extra radiation that
gets in, but by the burning of fossil fuels which makes
the "pollution layer" thicker and less heat able to escape
from the sky to the thing above that called space.

By the way, though CO2 does not play a role in destroying the ozone, it does play a role in the atmosphere under the conditions of a depleted ozone. Mass amounts of this molecule in the atmosphere act as a blanket to entrap the heat of the greater amount of solar energy that is entering the atmosphere though that damaged shield. Arguing that CO2 doesn't have any effect on the ozone is irrelevant. Ozone depletion is not the only ingredient in global warming trends.

Regardless of the "bad science" calls made by earlier representatives, it is worth noting that this one resolution tries to embody what really should be two seperate ones: the weaning off of fossil fuels and the promotion of non-polluting energy sources. Frankly, this resolution is too ambitious.

My advice would be to pull this mosh pit of questionable science and superhuman deadlines off the UN floor and come back with two, individual, better-written bills. One to encourage nations to find alternative sources of energy, and one to cut pollution.

I was ready to vote for this, but then I checked the forum
and people pointed out the flaws in it.


CFCs and Freon cause ozone depletion which does NOT cause
global warming, but more radiation to get into the atmosphere
increasing the risk of skin cancer and harm to little critters.
The ozone layer does not prevent heat from getting in, but
radiation.

Global warning is not caused by the extra radiation that
gets in, but by the burning of fossil fuels which makes
the "pollution layer" thicker and less heat able to escape
from the sky to the thing above that called space.



sorry for stepping on your toes, i started writing before your post came up.

sorry for stepping on your toes, i started writing before your post came up.



No, that is ok.
The more people that point this out the better.
I myself read some posts on the first page and decided
to chime in.

it is worth noting that this one resolution tries to embody what really should be two seperate ones: the weaning off of fossil fuels and the promotion of non-polluting energy sources.


I disagree, promotion of non-polluting energy sources
will in effect help wean us off of fossil fuels.
And, if we get off fossil fuels with nothing to replace them?
Then no energy source at all?

If anything, this proposal should be rewritten as an international endorsement of non-polluting energy sources. The sweeping power of proposals like the one currently in debate is out of line for a UN resolution. No measure that destroys any country's economy without a stabilization plan should ever be considered. And I fully agree with the assessment that weaning off fossil fuels cannot occur, except in the case where it is accompanied by a major build-up of other energy sources.

I disagree, promotion of non-polluting energy sources
will in effect help wean us off of fossil fuels.
And, if we get off fossil fuels with nothing to replace them?
Then no energy source at all?
I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my explanation on the hypothetical bills' emphases. One bill ought to restrict fossil fuels, with restrictions on the fuel consumption per capita or something of the sort, and then encourage the employment of alternative energy sources. The second bill would confront the problems as to ozone depletion, global warming et cetera. The current bill attempts to kill two birds with one stone, an attempt with honest intentions that ultimately will backfire.

If this horrible proposal comes to be, why don't we try to repeal it?
While repealing it, we can set the time that it ends for only 1 day and have everyone say "yes, repeal this proposition". That way, the proposition can be repealed without liberal people and tree-huggers, and people who don't read the terms don't have a chance to reply or respond. That way, we can force this crappy proposition down their unitelliegent throats! Who is with me?!

I am sure that Shingogogol can and will speak for him/her/itself, but if I may attempt to address his concern. If a resolution passes that makes it desirable and profitable for countries to turn to alternative energy sources, that will automatically lead to a drop in fossil fuel usage. Imposing limits on energy consumption always meets massive resistance and in the end hurts the people who can't afford to maintain the enrgy consumption levels that their well-being mandates. While it is certainly desirable to limit energy consumption, artificial limits lead directly to economic impediments.

If this horrible proposal comes to be, why don't we try to repeal it?
While repealing it, we can set the time that it ends for only 1 day and have everyone say "yes, repeal this proposition". That way, the proposition can be repealed without liberal people and tree-huggers, and people who don't read the terms don't have a chance to reply or respond. That way, we can force this crappy proposition down their unitelliegent throats! Who is with me?!
Such underhanded tactics, while they may appeal for the solution of short-term problems, ultimately destroy any semblance of democracy remaining in the UN. If you truly have issues with this resolution, you may want to consider ending your UN membership. And if you think people really are so uninformed, simply explain your reason for repeal in the resolution, and leave it up for a thorough, intelligent discussion rather than guerrila-style proposals.

If this horrible proposal comes to be, why don't we try to repeal it?
While repealing it, we can set the time that it ends for only 1 day and have everyone say "yes, repeal this proposition". That way, the proposition can be repealed without liberal people and tree-huggers, and people who don't read the terms don't have a chance to reply or respond. That way, we can force this crappy proposition down their unitelliegent throats! Who is with me?!


I am a radical lefty. I oppose this resolution because it destroys economies by overstepping realistic goals in favor of an ideal. I would like to see it repealed if it passes, but I am not sure that I am "with" you.

I have seen enough logic and arguments to justify the AGAINST stance. I, too, ask all nations to get into contact with other regions and show the errors of the current resolution. Deny this resolution and revise it. It would be for the best.

If this horrible proposal comes to be, why don't we try to repeal it?
While repealing it, we can set the time that it ends for only 1 day and have everyone say "yes, repeal this proposition". That way, the proposition can be repealed without liberal people and tree-huggers, and people who don't read the terms don't have a chance to reply or respond. That way, we can force this crappy proposition down their unitelliegent throats! Who is with me?!


Hamburgr, you are of my region, now, we don't use guerilla tactics. We use straight forward ideals. Now, I do agree that this proposition sucks, but we must fight this in a way that we can win nation's votes.

Question for all oppossers of this proposition: So if people just read the title of the proposition, how do we get people to realize their mistakes, and vote no on this? Or if people don't really know what this is about, how do we tell them?

Hamburgr, you are of my region, now, we don't use guerilla tactics. We use straight forward ideals. Now, I do agree that this proposition sucks, but we must fight this in a way that we can win nation's votes.

Question for all oppossers of this proposition: So if people just read the title of the proposition, how do we get people to realize their mistakes, and vote no on this? Or if people don't really know what this is about, how do we tell them?


I recommend just asking them to consider the entire proposal and to visit this forum. Both sides are presented. An educated decision is always a righteous one.

Just telling them to read the proposal and check the forums should be enough (tbh, I'd think that reading the forums should be a requirement >_>) for them to see the glaring errors in this proposal.

When people see something titled "Promotion of (insert alternative fuel or ecologically friendly solution here)", they instantly think it's gotta be something good.

Likewise, it will also take people to fully read the text of any proposal to repeal this one, otherwise they're going to read the title only and shoot it down.

I am not certain, but this proposal says that we can only have solar power in 10 years? If it does, would we be allowed to have nations use hydro power and wind power(not completly, but a must have for at least 5% of energy needs) in 5 years? that way it can contradict with this energy proposal. If you think that this is a good idea, tell me. If you think that it is bad, or against any UN rules, also tell me.

All feeders have a poll on the off site forum along with Rejected Realms and I think even Lazarus. [/b]Gatesville vote against everything.[/b]

Well, not "everything"...

*takes pride in the fact that at least 5 or his 'at votes' ended up in For votes from Gatesville* :D

We, the Colony of Williamuslite, loyal vassal state to the mighty and glorious Republic of Williamus, vote "No" on this resolution.

Hail to the Republic of Williamus!!

Hamburgr, you are of my region, now, we don't use guerilla tactics. We use straight forward ideals. Now, I do agree that this proposition sucks, but we must fight this in a way that we can win nation's votes.
The tactics are impossible to implement anyway. The period of time for the vote is constant, and was set by administrators of the site. We cannot 'shorten the time to 1 day' unless we're Max Barry or Salusa Secondus.

Question for all oppossers of this proposition: So if people just read the title of the proposition, how do we get people to realize their mistakes, and vote no on this? Or if people don't really know what this is about, how do we tell them?
How do you get people to re-think this resolution? Repeal it.

A repeal which brings out the flaws of the proposal in a concise, clear, and polite way, will most likely convince enough who voted For to vote For a repeal as well.

Also a good strategy, the repeal could come out in support of solar panels, and suggest that the UN actually promote them, maintaining that the current resolution is unsatisfactory in it.

What do you propose as a replacement for jet fuel?
Well, Would nuclear fuel work? (I'm seriously asking because I'm not sure).


Starcra, we're still waiting for an answer. It was your idea to abolish the aviation industry. You should at least offer a viable replacement. Dirigibles? Zeppelins? Anti-gravity? Remember, it has to be available within 10 years and 7 months.

Also a good strategy, the repeal could come out in support of solar panels, and suggest that the UN actually promote them, maintaining that the current resolution is unsatisfactory in it.

The people of Iyira agree with this strategy. A repeal that concisely explains the negative effects that the current proposal will have on food production and aviation, mentions some of the other problems with the current proposal, and then comes out strongly in favor of both solar panels and alternative energy in general is probably the best option. It's obvious from the vote that most countries in the UN are in favor of alternative energy to some extent, so a repeal that took a positive position on solar panels would be more likely to succeed than one that had a more negative tone.

I am not certain, but this proposal says that we can only have solar power in 10 years? If it does, would we be allowed to have nations use hydro power and wind power(not completly, but a must have for at least 5% of energy needs) in 5 years? that way it can contradict with this energy proposal. If you think that this is a good idea, tell me. If you think that it is bad, or against any UN rules, also tell me.

It's not a matter of whether or not you could produce an alternative in time; this proposal requires that all homes and workplaces have solar panels, regardless of existing infrastructure. You could have the world's most advanced matter-antimatter planckspace reactor, you'd still have to cover your country in solar panels.

Even if you were able to mitigate the costs of rephasing your entire economy, the expense of so many solar panels alone would destroy any economy.

Starcra, we're still waiting for an answer. It was your idea to abolish the aviation industry. You should at least offer a viable replacement. Dirigibles? Zeppelins? Anti-gravity? Remember, it has to be available within 10 years and 7 months.

Even if he did come up with a means to power an aircraft with solar cells, they still couldn't exist without some form of radical redesign that does not involve any components that encounter fossil fuel burning at any stage of production.

Actually, now that I think about it, fossil fuels are used in the production of some materials used in the construction of solar cells, which means not even all types of solar power generators could be used.

Imagine that.

go solar
or else :mp5:
:sniper:

go solar
or else :mp5:
:sniper:

We will take your advice and start by blocking off Earth's sun with our entire fleet. We'll make it a point to time our orbit so that all Earth gets is darkness. We would do it otherwise, but our average power requirements require us to be extremely close to the star in question.

Oh, don't worry. Your collapse to pre-technological times and completely destroyed economy and society are of no concern to us. Feel free to war on us as much as you like. You'll know where we'll be.

Oh, and we really don't like threats. If you hadn't threatened, we wouldn't be doing this.

A new day - New questions :).

(I numbered the paragraphs I quoted - Hope you don't mind)

1 I am sorry, Starcra II, because from the first 10 or so pages (all I could stand to read) you kept very civil and pleasant, and now I have to insult you.

2 Also, BTW, your "notes from a trip to such-and-such institute" are not evidence. Firstly, of course, there's the fact that you could have misheard/misread, misunderstood, or made up that information. Secondly, the information that those institutes put out are not the most rigourous in the first place. Especially with regards to such information as 24 hours of sunlight providing one year of energy. Maybe if you captured ever last photon that touched the Earth (thus destroying all plant life and indeed, all life, by exterminating all natural light).

1) Not offended - You're simply expressing your opinion.

2) I cartainly may have misunderstood - very possible. And the more I hear from all of you(Plural) the more I believe I may have.

Oh and he says that they have another proposal saved on word. Well no matter what you do we will not tolerate it. Another proposal will only infuriate the NSUN communtiy. Besides the new proposal will be just as bad as the first one. How does correcting grammatical errors make a proposal more acceptable? WTF

I meant I have the document save on 'Word', the application! :p It's got more than changing grammatical errors (although there are some I did arrange)

If you acknowledge that your proposal fails in all these areas, why do you continue to support it? Admit that you got it wrong this time, campaign against your own resolution, then put forward an improved version, drafted here in the forums with input from others at every stage (I have rarely seen a decent proposal created any other way).

Because I'm not going to abandon it regardless, I'm not campaigning for it, (Other than slightly on the forums) but I'm not going to campaign against it either.

You've also omitted 3 major things from this list:
- correct scientific fallacies
- remove requirement for all buildings to have solar panelling
- deal with the absurdity of completely banning burning fossil fuels -

The first two have been edited, notice I said that the ones I mentioned were SOME of the alterations. The last one I haven't however the time period has been increased.

you've still failed to come up with a decent answer to these questions:

1. What are planes supposed to run on? Other posters have already shown that nuclear and solar are not viable alternatives.
2. How are we supposed to extract iron without burning coke in a blast furnace?
3. How are we supposed to produce plastics and other petrochemical products?
4. How are scientists supposed to research organic chemistry?

1) I Don't know. I admit it. And the new resolution makes transport an exception.
2) I'm not sure how the process of extracting iron works so I can't answer that.
3) Like number 2.
4) Where exactly would there be a problem with research?


Oh and guys - this resolution won't pass, having been in a feeder for a year I know they have perfectly good practical and commen sense when it comes to the UN, they will unanimously vote against in the off site polls. And with each delegate having approxamitely 300 endorsements, it would be absurd for it to pass. Even if it does, when the repeal points out the problems brought up here, it will be repealed. Then we can put a better one in place. <--I say this because I realise all the flaws it has :D See, I...Can...Read *sings the song*

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Votes For: 5,572

Votes Against: 2,928

It's going to take a fragging Act of God for this to fail at this point. Trust me on it.

My nation will like to voice its opposition to this motion and we will be asking our regional delegate to also vote against.
Prachya hasn't had much success with solar generators but we do have some national collectors. They are problematic to say the least. I can't imagine everyone affixing one of these to their houses or places of business...haha really.
I take particular exception to the 10 year, 7 month deadline to ban fossile fuels...not because my nation cannot, but because we don't see the need to. My nation has started burning coal again in recent years as techniques have been developed to filter the effluent to the point where the coal factories are emmission free. Yes, we burn coal and not once bit of pollutant enters our atmosphere.
Coal is a high-yeild energy source that has little other function on this planet than to be burned. Coal, unlike oil only takes a few hundred years to be produced so exhausting the source would be very temporary.
We ask all members to reconsider supporting this proposal.

Denuzia
Regional Coordinator
Principality of Prachya

Votes For: 5,572

Votes Against: 2,928

It's going to take a fragging Act of God for this to fail at this point. Trust me on it.

There are about 5000 more votes that could go either way. Besides, if it passes just start talks in your region supporting them but don't manufacture them(the solar panels), if it isn't repealed by Christmas (Because of the holiday time I'll have) I'll post a repeal along with a replacement.

Daniels Ire Proposes,

That all UN nations start plans to develop a Matrix like cataclysmic blocking out of the sun. Such action will result in the same conclusion as the current proposel, complete and utter destruction of most UN nations through economic collapse.

Considering that all UN nations that use fossil fuels will likely increase production and use many multiples due to the reduced strain on the world's economy, no gain will benifit from this proposel.

|Daniel

Against

- Considering the inefficiency of solar panels and the fickleness of the sun, it is impossible to procure sufficient materials to construct enough solar panels to supply even 50% of all electricity
- Even if such materials could be procured, the process of procuring and refining, as well as the construction of the solar panels themselves, would prove more damaging to the environment than if each country burns twice as much fossil fuel for the next ten years, considering that it would certainly take ten years to procure materials and construct the panels
- The cost needed to procure materials, should that even be possible, would be astronomical, possibly exceeding the GDP of all nations in Nationstates for the rest of the century
- The massive space required to construct solar panels that can supply any major amount of power (say, 10% for a country with population of above 500 million) would completely destroy the habitats of over 90% of all land animals (hereby defined as an organism classified as a mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian that spends more than 50% of its lifecycle in a land environment) and destroy all major forests, plains, and swamps
- To be able to provide power even on cloudy days massive amounts of capacitors have to be constructed (even if the rest of a nation's power is provided by alternative means)
- The waste that would be created while constructing such panels would be nearly impossible to dispose of. Most of these waste are non bio-degradable, and considering the amount of space needed for solar panels there will be no alternative except disposal in sea or space, the former which will be as efficient at destroying marine organisms as the construction of the panels were at destroying land organisms, the latter which will mitigate any benefits brought on by solar panels as the amount of waste will be sufficient to reduce sunlight by at least 20%, and because astronomical amounts of fossil fuel will be necessary to power the spaceships to do so
- There is currently no alternative to fossil fuels for powering land and air vechicles; experiments with biological and other environmentally-friendly fuel has only limited success with small cars, and no alternative is currently known to power aircrafts. The only aircrafts currently in existance that are powered with solar energy are incapable of carrying passengers, travels at speeds that are significantly slower than current fossil-fuel powered aircraft, and there is no forseeable aeronautical or technological breakthrough that can allow such aircrafts to transport humans. The simple fact is that solar panels cannot provide enough power for the aircraft to lift it except with extremely large wingspans, which if used for passenger aircraft will force all existing airports to be demolished and rebuilt, which results in further environmental damage
- While naval vessels can use nuclear power, only very large vessels can be powered this way; it is unpractical for any vessel shorter than 50m to be powered by nuclear power. The weight of the solar panels means that small vessels will sink when carrying enoguh sufficient panels to power them. Nuclear-powered passenger vessels are nearly impossible to implement, considering that they were dropped because of the potential dangers of nuclear power.

After reading this thread it is obvious that the creator of this proposal knows little of any branches of science and is blind to the fact that large-scale solar/wind/hydroelectric facilities cause more damage to the environment than fossil-fuel facilities (remember, the people who opposes the issue of constructing dams are environmentalists!). Should this proposal be passed this state will resign from the UN and will not consider rejoining until a Repeal has been passed that repeals the use of solar panels as anything other than small-scale personal electrical generators. No scienctific, environmental, technical, or economical thought had been put into this proposal.

The above does not even take into consideration the harm that would be caused by tearing down existing fossil fuel facilities or the harm that would be cause if they were left idle and derelict, nor the harm that would be caused by constructing nuclear power facilities en masse within ten years, which is the only practical solution for non-fossile fuel facilities that do not take up unacceptable amounts of space or cause unacceptable environmental damage. While some countries in the real world (e.g. France) managed to have the majority of their power generation by nuclear, they certainly didn't do it in ten years.

I agree that solar panels are good, but to allow this resolution to pass would be pure idiocy.

Rookierookie has made some very good points, but there is one vital point I believe he missed. (forgive me if was said earlier, but I don't have time to read through this whole thread.)

The resolution states that all nations should be dependant on solar power in 10 years. But you haven't taken into the differing climates of nations. Some countries in the far north may not even see the sun for 6 months of the year! You would be forcing them to investes enormous amounts of money into something that to them would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot!

This one point alone should be enough to encorage everyone to vote AGAINST.

I agree that solar panels are good, but to allow this resolution to pass would be pure idiocy.

Rookierookie has made some very good points, but there is one vital point I believe he missed. (forgive me if was said earlier, but I don't have time to read through this whole thread.)

The resolution states that all nations should be dependant on solar power in 10 years. But you haven't taken into the differing climates of nations. Some countries in the far north may not even see the sun for 6 months of the year! You would be forcing them to investes enormous amounts of money into something that to them would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot!

First paragraph - Which is why the feeders won't let it pass. I wouldn't worry about that.

Second Paragraph - It has been brought up, but no worries ;).

-Starcra

I appreciate that most of these facts have already been mentioned, and I apologise for the recital, but I don't have the time to read all 28 pages of this topic today.

Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons (containing Carbon and Hydrogen). Burning (Combustion) involves the reaction of these with Oxygen as the diatomic gas O2, as it found in the atmosphere at our level, NOT O-Zone, which is O3 and is found at the frontier between our atmosphere offical and outer space's vacuumated void and solar winds.

C + O2 -> CO2, Carbon Dioxide. This forms another layer below the O-Zone layer, which is responsible for the greenhouse effect because it reflects heat. This is what causes "Global Warming" as you know it.

4 H + O2 -> 2 H2O, humble Water. Water has little to no effect with regards to the topic concerned.

Sometimes there are Sulphur or Nitrogenous impurities in the fossil fuels which form Sulphur oxides (mostly SO2) or Nitrogen oxides called NOx gases where x can be from a wide variety of numbers - it depends on the availability of the O2 to the Nitrogen at the time. These, on being dissolved in water vapour in the air due to evaporation or combustion give Sulphuric Acid and Nitrogenous Acids related to the NOx gas in question, causing Acid Rain.

Holes in the O-Zone layer allow Stellar UV radiation to enter the Earth's atmosphere as the free radicals aren't present to absorb the energy due to their unstable structure (bonds are frequently jumping around). This promotes skin cancers due to the exposure but does not lead to icecaps melting any more than anywhere else. There might be an infinitesimal increase due to the widening of the spectrum of the exposure, but it is light and not heat. If it resulted in more IR light entering the atmosphere, that would be another matter (ever wondered why hobs and grills glow red? heat dissipation is in the Infra Red/Red part of the electromagnetic spectrum)

This has be done to death in this topic, I know, but I feel it would only be a permissible resolution if such a fault was corrected in the text. I don't think it's fair that every time another resolution refers to this as standing proof of a false fact that we have to correct them from their position of glory having had it erroneously accepted before.

Moderators, Can you please correct this fact in the text (whilst letting the vote continue if possible) so we don't have to dig out the textbooks to argue the same issue again for future resolutions? Considering it's database based, I wouldn't consider it impossible to tweak a field.

There's a faction who will see "solar panels" and think "yay!" and approve it without reading the text. I'm environmentally concerned - I use public transport instead of driving, make sure I turn the tap off when I'm brushing my teeth and recycle when possible. I agree that the greenhouse effect is a dangerous issue. I would agree with this resolution in general if it weren't for the timescale being absolute and not relative to nation size. This glaring error has to be removed if the declining membership of the UN is to be reversed because nations are getting fed up of other nations not considering the full text's implications and practicalities. It's also for the resolution's sake - I'm sure the authors and those who have worked hard on it would rather the scientifically aware didn't try to repeal it within a week...

Moderators, Can you please correct this fact in the text (whilst letting the vote continue if possible) so we don't have to dig out the textbooks to argue the same issue again for future resolutions? Considering it's database based, I wouldn't consider it impossible to tweak a field.

I doubt they can, regardless of what it is, it's still editing what is being voted on so it wouldn't be fair (Even if in this case it only improves it and members can change their votes.

(And about your edit - No problem, didn't even come in time to read it ;))

I doubt they can, regardless of what it is, it's still editing what is being voted on so it wouldn't be fair (Even if in this case it only improves it and members can change their votes.

(And about the edit - No problem, didn't even come in time to read it ;))

Then could it be removed from the vote and resubmitted with the errors corrected? Would save on having to draft a repeal.

Then could it be removed from the vote and resubmitted with the errors corrected? Would save on having to draft a repeal.

Neither, once it's gone to vote, it stays at vote. Like the real UN, something can't be taken down and edited half way through. The best we can do is trust the feeders :).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Well it's proven by science that solar energy is one of the most, if not the most, clean form of energy, because of no waste, and no by-products.

Unlike fossil fuels, with the CO2 destroying the ozone layer, wich i suggest should be saved and reproduced if ever possible.

Nomade King Tar - ecologically, we will...

There are about 5000 more votes that could go either way. Besides, if it passes just start talks in your region supporting them but don't manufacture them(the solar panels), if it isn't repealed by Christmas (Because of the holiday time I'll have) I'll post a repeal along with a replacement.

This delegage has a question. IF this proposal doesn't pass or IF it gets repealed, are you going to run this draft by the forum before it is proposed?

May your gear ratio be favorable. - End Statement -

Barnabas Butterbur hereby offers his sincerest apologies for transferring his vote to one of support for this resolution. :(

Democracy clearly isn't all it is cracked up to be :rolleyes:

Well it's proven by science that solar energy is one of the most, if not the most, clean form of energy, because of no waste, and no by-products.

Unlike fossil fuels, with the CO2 destroying the ozone layer, wich i suggest should be saved and reproduced if ever possible.

Nomade King Tar - ecologically, we will...
Can YOU make a solar panel without creating any rubbish? The by-products in this case are the solar panels themselves.

Proven by science doesn't mean that it's practical. It's been proven by science that antimatter + matter = huge amounts of energy, and we aren't going to make an antimatter power plant anytime soon. Solar energy is great as a supplement, but a very bad main source of power.

This delegage has a question. IF this proposal doesn't pass or IF it gets repealed, are you going to run this draft by the forum before it is proposed?

If I'm not mistaken, the author ran this version by the forum before it hit quorum...

The problem isn't democracy, its people who won't read 6 paragraphs.

This delegage has a question. IF this proposal doesn't pass or IF it gets repealed, are you going to run this draft by the forum before it is proposed?

I'll consider it. I'm usually not keen on submitting into to a forum before submitting to the UN. But considering the debate this version drew up I think I might to do so. (I have a few months to think about it :P).

Barnabas Butterbur hereby offers his sincerest apologies for transferring his vote to one of support for this resolution.

I was wondering what happened there! At least until I looked at your regions Regional Message Board.

We would respectfully urge you to give serious consideration to placing a draft in the forum for comment. We put drafts of our "Chemical Weapons Ban" proposal here, on our regional forum, and on two organizational forums. We received valuable comments and constructive criticism from all four sources.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Most Serene Republic of Love try always to be Positive and to find the good side of everything

- "promotion of solar panel" don't impose anything before 10 years

- we think the lifespan of the resolution: "promotion of solar panel" is < 1 month, as it's pure utopia and will be easily repealed

=> in 2 month maximum a good proposition about clean/new/renewable sources of energy will be submited and will pass

The people of Bekrija Husein do not see the point in accepting any other energy sources as long as they possess quality long-term exploitable natural fossil fuels sources.

I got a telegram indicating that you were debating the resolution in the forum. Silly me. I actually thought you really were debating the resolution, but I see it's just the same old blah blah arguments and nit picking.

Clearly the resolution is not perfect. It's probably far better than most resolutions that have come before the UN and it's so far ahead of the vast drivel that makes its way to the proposal stage. The Ozone comment is odd but will not have any impact on the resolution one way or the other.

So I suppose someone is going to have to argue for the aye side, and I might as well be me. I shall rise in support of the resolution.

I must admit that in the mythical world called somehow "real" I would not be in support of this resolution. The time frame is too short, but mostly there are these things called lawyers. The United States, for example, could be awash in EV cars if it wasn't for the fact that the best battery for the job NiMH is currently under pattent by the oil company Chevron and the size batteries for the job can only be used by Toyota and only for Hybrid vechicles.

Never the less I know of someone in Califorina who has a rooftop solar panel system (which in turn bumped up the value of his house more than the cost of the system) who uses his free energy to power his Toyota EV vechicle (who didn't crash and smash their test EV cars like GM did, arresting those who tried to buy the vechicle) and promotes solar panels (which unfortunately no one makes in the U.S.) for every housetop. In the "real world" the technology is actually possible today.

But this is Nation States, where my nation's favorite food is our national animal, the forest pelaquin. Suspension of disbelief can and must occur on a daily basis, lawyers can be freely shot or at least sent off to some location where they can do no harm. Things can actually happen, and in this case the resolution is not only possible, but can actually produce some interesting effects, which I think can benefit nations, although I don't think any U.N. resolution can benefit any nation in the long run.

The resolution does not call for sola solar as it also allows for other "environmentally firendly" systems along with solar. It calls for rooftop solar, not solar farms. It promotes an industry (solar power makers) allowing the goverment to set the prices for the technology as well as adopt their own policy for promoting the idea.

Blocking out the sun would really make most of the agriculture industry angry anyway, and would probably give most nations a excuse to finally mine all that uranium under their mountains and launch them all at the obstructing object, with or without the passage of this resolution.

Therefore based on this logic the nation of Tzorsland gives this resolution its "nil oblistat" and reccomends that everyone give it the Aye vote it deserves.

The Free Associators ask if polar nations are supposed to do without electricity for 3 months per year?

The Most Serene Republic of Love try always to be Positive and to find the good side of everything

- "promotion of solar panel" don't impose anything before 10 years

- we think the lifespan of the resolution: "promotion of solar panel" < 1 month, as it's pure utopia and will be easily repealed

=> in 2 month maximum a good proposition about clean/new/renewable sources of energy will be submited and will pass

This is actually a good point - if you're thinking of quitting the U.N. because of this resolution, don't. We need you for the repeal - logical argument against a resolution works better on the table than in the forum.

In the meantime, Pojonia and its Puppet have no economy. We will not be allocating resources to expensive and insufficient solar power in favor of more reliable and just as environmentally safe means simply because we cannot afford to be so extravagant - our people need a truly reliable source of power. The resolution does, after all, say that if we fail to comply within 10 years special extensions will be given as a result of "the amount of wealth of a nation" (Would that be their GDP, Starcra, or just however much cash they have in a pile at the moment?) - and Pojonia has plenty of those.

My advice to you (and alas, I cannot spare time at the moment myself) would be to compile the arguments against in this thread (and there are many), pick which ones seem especially important to you, put them into a telegram, spellcheck the telegram, and begin sending it to everyone who has cast a vote. Keep in mind the smaller U.N. Members have both their vote and the capability to swing their delegates vote. Later on, you can use those arguments in a repeal if things go wrong.

Prime Minister Pojo has a marked fear of Emoticons, as he believes them to be the harbingers of the end of sentient life on this planet. Please stop making them wink at him.

This is actually a good point - if you're thinking of quitting the U.N. because of this resolution, don't. We need you for the repeal - logical argument against a resolution works better on the table than in the forum.

Precisely!

Prime Minister Pojo has a marked fear of Emoticons, as he believes them to be the harbingers of the end of sentient life on this planet. Please stop making them wink at him.

;) Oh, I'm sorry ;)

Cheers ;) (:P)
Starcra

This is a moment when we ponder the positive merits of membership to the United Nations, and share the concerns of sovereignty voiced by those in this forum.

Please note that the intentions and efforts put forth by Starcra II are deeply appreciated and respected by most of those within our country.

The Eco-Republic of Rianisis believes that there is more than one option when it comes to renewable energy production. Along with Solar Power, there is Hydrogen, Waste-to-energy, Wind, and Photosynthetic energy projects are currently underway in our country. Unfortunately, 13% of our energy needs are still met by foreign oil imports, due to the occassional cloudy day. We hope to overcome this shameful statistic within the next 15 years.

However, we cannot, in good faith, allow the international governing body to prohibit our advancement, or any nation's advancement in alternative energy research to a solar exclusivity. We cannot allow a timeline other than our own to be implemented. We cannot allow those nations with heavy cloud cover or intergalactic territorial claims to be penalized with a new dark age. Even for those who have a plentiful supply of coal and oil; they are blessed with a high tolerance for pollution and poor health, and have the right to extract, produce, and sell their fossil fuels. They're digging their own grave, and we encourage them to do so.

Therefore, we must vote NO for the current resolution.

Due to our government's decision, 25,000 members of our military police force has been mobilized in anticipation of the wide-spread violent protests by solar power capitalists, investors, and generally under-informed members of the Green Party.

Flashy info-mercials relying primarily on cool music and awesome grahics will be aired nationally to explain our governments position.

Desparate times call for desparate measures, my friend. Let this esteemed assembly know that the recent "Adoption and IVF Rights" resolution is just as destructive to Our nation's culture as this resolution threatens to be to your nations' economies. Why should We be the only ones to suffer?

Now that the bitter taste of UN tyranny is known, is it too much to ask for you to join us in eliminating our common enemy--bureaucracy drunk with power?

While We fully support any effort to repeal the tyrannical Adoption/IVF Resolution, We are not sure what leverage our esteemed colleague from The Eternal Kawaii thinks he may have in this case. This most unfortunate Resolution is already winning by a landslide and We doubt that you can turn the tide.

If, however, our calculations are wrong, We will fully support your proposed quid pro quo.

- Me

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel think, we and many nations are responsible for the current situation.

Love and esterel regret to have approved this proposition.

We fuly support the TG campaign action AGAINST and we wish good luck to this democratic action.

We think all of us are realizing everything far too late, as the proposition was in queue for almost 2 weeks. We all share the burden of this nonsense.

You do realise that this is never goin to work. If you cover every surface in an average industrialised city with solar pannels you would produce a fraction of the power needs of the city. A far more efficient use of solar power is direct water heating.

OH WOW it’s like the UN pushes things on nations that make no sense at all!

DUH!

This just shows the level of mob mentality there is in the UN, nothing gets considered unless it’s liberal, politically correct, and flashy.

It’s always drafted only by supporters, it’s voted on by stupid delegates and then bigwigs and pin heads say, "Hey solar power, I’ll vote for it" :mad:

This is the same reason why that stupid IVF rights thing passed. How are kids going to get adopted if everyone uses invitro?????? No one listened then, no one will listen now. :headbang:

If Friday comes and this is going to pass the Nation of Terioamo will leave the UN. :cool:

If Friday comes and this is going to pass the Nation of Terioamo will leave the UN. :cool:

As said above that would be a stupid thing to do as you wouldn't be able to fight for a repeal. Oh, and be careful banging your head on walls, it may lead to injuries :)

This proposal is absurd! How can you force nations to spend such huge quantities of money on solar panels.

First of all: There are other methods of creating clean power. Wind, hydro-electric, etc... Also, spending money on becoming more efficient is important as well. Creating electrically efficient appliances, modes of transportation, etc are just as important as new sources of energy.

My nation is doing its best to develop and adopt clean energy solutions, but to be forced to buy solar panels will ruin our economy. There are other things the government needs to spend money on.

Simple law of supply and demand people! As people are forced to buy solar panels, the cost will sky rocket! this will make it more and more difficult to buy them. By the end of the 10 year period, the cost of solar panels will be so high that even rich people will not be able to buy them, let alone the poor, who will remain dependant on "dirty" energy sources.

If you don't want to risk bankrupting nations and keeping the poor enslaved to a dirty system of energy production then vote against this bill!

I got a telegram indicating that you were debating the resolution in the forum. Silly me. I actually thought you really were debating the resolution, but I see it's just the same old blah blah arguments and nit picking.

Okay, I'm going to use the Lilith Guide to Argument Translation (she spells it "arguement," which is odd) for this. Good thing I got her to write it down for me.

Translation of the quoted section: I am new to this forum and decided to ignore all of the topic presented and all of the actual discussion by simply dismissing it instead of reading it. Now, I'm going to flamebait the people who spent hours working on this and managed to convince the person who proposed it of the actual issues involved and then go on to speak in ignorance and in a way that reveals I have not read the actual discussion.

Clearly the resolution is not perfect. It's probably far better than most resolutions that have come before the UN and it's so far ahead of the vast drivel that makes its way to the proposal stage. The Ozone comment is odd but will not have any impact on the resolution one way or the other.

Actually, it has every impact. The Ozone comment is used as evidence, in the resolution, of what it is saying. If the evidence does not support the conclusion, then the conclusion is false. In any case, I find it far from perfect. For one thing, it completely ignores realistic problems with the technology involved, problems that do not go away when you translate to the NS world. Unless, of course, you are using Future Tech, in which case reality is more of a suggestion.

So I suppose someone is going to have to argue for the aye side, and I might as well be me. I shall rise in support of the resolution.

I must admit that in the mythical world called somehow "real" I would not be in support of this resolution. The time frame is too short, but mostly there are these things called lawyers. The United States, for example, could be awash in EV cars if it wasn't for the fact that the best battery for the job NiMH is currently under pattent by the oil company Chevron and the size batteries for the job can only be used by Toyota and only for Hybrid vechicles.

This is where your entire discussion falls apart. For one thing, most of NS is Modern Tech or Post Modern Tech, which means basically Real World Technology or Real World Technology In X Amount Of Years. Most of NS have to be very concerned with the realistic portions of it because they do not play Fantasy Nations or Future Tech, but play at a level where the issues of today are still an issue. If they really wanted to jump into an unrealistic situation, like what you are advocating, they would simply change to one of the unrealistic technology types. Hell, I play as an unrealistic technology type.

Never the less I know of someone in Califorina who has a rooftop solar panel system (which in turn bumped up the value of his house more than the cost of the system) who uses his free energy to power his Toyota EV vechicle (who didn't crash and smash their test EV cars like GM did, arresting those who tried to buy the vechicle) and promotes solar panels (which unfortunately no one makes in the U.S.) for every housetop. In the "real world" the technology is actually possible today.

Go back to the top of this post and read my comments. It is at this point you reveal you chose to dismiss the entirety of what people said rather than bothering to read what they said. No one is arguing that it is not possible in the real world. What they are doing is pointing out the various problems with the technology, as it exists in the real world, that prevents it from being usable everywhere. If you're not going to bother reading the topic, at least have the decency to admit it instead of trying to make it sound like you have.

But this is Nation States, where my nation's favorite food is our national animal, the forest pelaquin. Suspension of disbelief can and must occur on a daily basis, lawyers can be freely shot or at least sent off to some location where they can do no harm. Things can actually happen, and in this case the resolution is not only possible, but can actually produce some interesting effects, which I think can benefit nations, although I don't think any U.N. resolution can benefit any nation in the long run.

Cool. Hold on while I stat up a fleet of 50 million ships and have them bomb your nation from orbit. Remember: Suspension of disbelief.

If you want to say you would not agree to this based on technology level, I have to point out that your advice so far goes against that technology and, thus, is not an acceptable reason. If you are going to play Modern Tech, you have to keep up with what is actually possible using it.

The resolution does not call for sola solar as it also allows for other "environmentally firendly" systems along with solar. It calls for rooftop solar, not solar farms. It promotes an industry (solar power makers) allowing the goverment to set the prices for the technology as well as adopt their own policy for promoting the idea.

And here is another point where you reveal you did not bother to read the fragging topic. So far, we've pretty much proven that solar panels are anything but environmentally friendly. As an industry, it is extremely pollutive, etc. But, you would have known that had you read the topic.

Oh, and this is the point I am supposed the note the irony of you bitching about "the same old blah blah arguments and nit picking" and doing it yourself, with a pointer to the next quote as doing the nit-picking and the rest being blah blah arguments. I swear, I fragging love this guide!

Blocking out the sun would really make most of the agriculture industry angry anyway, and would probably give most nations a excuse to finally mine all that uranium under their mountains and launch them all at the obstructing object, with or without the passage of this resolution.

Okay, now the guide says to use common sense. Which, I am doing.

1. Blocking off the sun wouldn't actually kill agriculture. It would severely hurt it at first, but proper use of hydroponics and sun lamps would repair the damage over time. Considering an old Scientific American article about dinosaurs and Earth's oxygen content, we don't exactly need the plants that would be irrevocably lost. If you wish the article, check December of 2002, 2003, and 2004. It's one of those years.

2. Mining uranium wouldn't produce what you are thinking. Nuclear missiles these days actually use plutonium. What uranium is mostly used for is making the plutonium and for nuclear power plants, with depleted uranium often being used to make bullets. Yes, the typical American soldier is likely to be using bullets containing high levels of depleted uranium. It's not as dangerous as you think.

3. Any nukes launched would mostly not have the power to travel that amount of distance. Most of them would be lucky to escape Earth's orbit. The few that did would take years, decades, or even centuries to eventually reach the position they were aimed at, by which point any fleet in position would have had enough warning to be able to respond by invading Earth andf annihilating the nations stupid enough to fire at them long before the missiles were even a threat. All firing on my fleet with nukes would do is give me an open invitation to exterminate your people, and I'll be far enough away to notice the nukes long before I have to worry about shooting them down.

Therefore based on this logic the nation of Tzorsland gives this resolution its "nil oblistat" and reccomends that everyone give it the Aye vote it deserves.

Try reading the topic before your next post. Then, based on the objections we raise, make a decision. Oh, and don't complain about "the same old blah blah arguments and nit picking" when you are going to do it yourself in the same post. It's annoying and dishonest.

The Free Associators ask if polar nations are supposed to do without electricity for 3 months per year?Funny. We had not realized this, mostly because we hadn't even bothered to look at the resolution till now -- but a respected member state in my region astutely noted that since we reside in the Antarctic, most of us are without the sun for six months out of the year, deeming this resolution yet another sorry example of the UN's ignorance and complete lack of regard for cultural differences. We thank Free Associators, The City by the Live Sea, VL and others for pointing this out during our negligence.

We care not for the damage this legislation will likely inflict on our economy, because frankly, our economy is powerful enough to withstand the detrimental impacts of a single UN vote -- but, because we are Antarctic peoples who do not know the sun for six months out of the year, we will have no choice but to defy the mandate of junking fossil fuels in favor of solar energy after 10 years and seven months. And please no one bore me with the usual response that "every nation must comply ... this is not the real UN ... UN gnomes etc ... if you don't like the what the UN does to your country please leave, blah-diddy, blah-diddy, blah," for RP is a universe totally alien to the Compliance Ministry Gnomes so far as we are concerned. If need be, we will go C. Montgomery Burns on our region's asses and deploy massive sunblockers to force defiance of this resolution (and help remedy the understandable widespread insomnia of our region) during the six months that the sun is out.

And here we have discovered another provision of this bill which we will have no choice but to disobey:

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all it's members will - ...

2) Will [sic] set aside an amount of government funds going to the environment into the project of manufacturing and distributing Solar Panels.At present, our nation doesn't commit any government spending to the environment (nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=omigodtheykilledkenny), and since this resolution only requires that government support for manufacturing and distributing solar panels come from existing environmental funds, the UN can count on no support from our government in imposing solar technologies on our people.

Opponents of this bill may count on my unwavering support for any attempt at telegramming delegates for the purposes of defeating this ill-conceived legislation, or repeal. If you require my services, please telegram me. Thank you.

Ah, so I see: You issue a mandate that all UN nations must follow whether they like it or not, yet you employ a UN puppet so that your own nation may not feel the sting of UN dictates? At best I would call this irony, and at worst, hypocrisy.

I have already answered this (previously prophesized) query. Please READ answers before resubmitting questions. Apart from which my UN nation has been in the UN long before I decided to write this proposal. So, please, don't jump to ridiculous conclusions.

Now this has made me angry. Say what you want on off site forums in regards to my resolution, but do not say I am campaigning against this resolution. While I do not campaign for it, I do not campaign against it. I am simply stating that I will not mind whether it passes or fails because I will take appropriate action when it does. But don't spread false lies that I am campaining against it.

This is in reference to Ecopoetry and his post in the North Pacific.

Sincerely :mad:
Starcra

On behalf of the Cloud-Water Community, I register my opposition to this resolution and note with a heavy heart that we once again witness poor legislation serving to belittle the environmentally sound.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I think this is a great resolution. Fossil fuels are destroying the Earth. Solar panels rule. I'm with Starcra 100% on this resolution.

FAO: All nations against this proposal

This thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9644035) is already placing a hypothetical repeal on the table. If you stand against this resolution, use your energies on helping the repeal - it seems with the present margin of 6,071 for, 3,182 against (nigh on a 2:1 ratio), it may be better if you concede this round but prepare for a knockout in the next.

I think this is a great resolution. Fossil fuels are destroying the Earth. Solar panels rule. I'm with Starcra 100% on this resolution.
Wow! First post by WZ Forums. This is indeed an historic occasion. What took you so long?

Now this has made me angry. Say what you want on off site forums in regards to my resolution, but do not say I am campaigning against this resolution. While I do not campaign for it, I do not campaign against it. I am simply stating that I will not mind whether it passes or fails because I will take appropriate action when it does. But don't spread false lies that I am campaining against it.

This is in reference to Ecopoetry and his post in the North Pacific.

Sincerely :mad:
Starcra
OOC: Sincere apologies - poor phrasing on my part. I've corrected my original post there.

I think this is a great resolution. Fossil fuels are destroying the Earth. Solar panels rule. I'm with Starcra 100% on this resolution.
On the other hand, I understand now why you approve every proposal that hits the floor.

I am in support of solar power, but this resolution, as mentioned through out this thread, has many false statements and unreasonable demands. A complete phasing out of fossil fuels in 10 years would cost a country like the US over 10 trillion dollars. Also, the relatively small solar power industry could not meet this demand even over 10 years.

I would be in support of a more modest and reasonable resolution, say, 35% in the next 10 years, and increased spending on solar research.

If a movement for repeal of this resolution starts up, the Union of Tinis would like to assist in the campaign and if possible, the phrasing of the repeal text. We would appreciate it if nation's going about such a task inform us as to the time and place when the time comes.

OOC: Sincere apologies - poor phrasing on my part. I've corrected my original post there.

Thank you, Should you wish I will also delete my post since it has served it's purpose.

And a note, if a repeal should come up I will not campaign against or for it as said previously(as I am not campaigning against or for this resolution) but I will help it to be drafted :).

Translation of the quoted section: I am new to this forum and decided to ignore all of the topic presented and all of the actual discussion by simply dismissing it instead of reading it. Now, I'm going to flamebait the people who spent hours working on this and managed to convince the person who proposed it of the actual issues involved and then go on to speak in ignorance and in a way that reveals I have not read the actual discussion.

You probably need to upgrade the latest version of your translator ... it appears to be faulty. I am not new to the forum, although I have not been active here in a while ... things in general never change. I did not read the whole 29 pages of this debate, I only looked back at the last 5 pages and found nothing of interest to this topic other than gripes from nations on the poles and a few falsehoods like the insistance that the resolution required solar only, which it did not.

That's about all I'm going to say on the subject, because anything else is literally a waste of my time.

You probably need to upgrade the latest version of your translator ... it appears to be faulty. I am not new to the forum, although I have not been active here in a while ... things in general never change. I did not read the whole 29 pages of this debate, I only looked back at the last 5 pages and found nothing of interest to this topic other than gripes from nations on the poles and a few falsehoods like the insistance that the resolution required solar only, which it did not.

Congrats. You just proved what I said, and that you are new to this forum. Or, at least, newer than I am. I at least went back and looked at previous topics. You need to read the first 5-10 pages, not the last, if you wish to read the actual discussion. You popped in when it was pretty much over and only read the ending, by which point most of the points had already been made.

That's about all I'm going to say on the subject, because anything else is literally a waste of my time.

Translation: I don't wish to continue because I don't want to face the possibility I might be wrong, and thus I'm simply going to flamebait the people on the thread one last time as I flee while attempting to preserve the appearance of dignity.

The translator is working just fine.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9644719) a proposed repeal to let Starcra get the improved version of "Promotion of Solar Panels" on the table ASAP. Suggestions welcome and sought after.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9644719) a proposed repeal to let Starcra get the improved version of "Promotion of Solar Panels" on the table ASAP. Suggestions welcome and sought after.

Indeed, please go over there if you have any queries. (It should be noted that the new version will not be named 'Promotion of Solar Panels')

I have decided to go one step beyond, I read the first 15 pages. There was, unfortunately, nothing to see there except some unsupported claims that solar panel manufacture itself was highly poluting. Perhaps the real data and debate lies somewhere pages 15 and 24? Somehow I doubt it.

You can spend 5 minutes with google and get better answers.

SOLAR POWER FAQ’s (with answers) (http://www.solardepot.com/r_faq.htm)

Grid-tied PV systems are typically $7-9 per watt - installed. An average residential system big enough to take care of a family of 3,or 4 in a 2500 sq.ft. house would be about a 4 Kilowatt system. So that would be about $32,000 installed.

Sol-Gen power systems take approximately 100 sq ft of surface area (collector area) per 1 kilowatt of generating capacity. Therefore the average 4-kilowatt system we were talking about would require about 400 sq ft of area of good southern exposure.

Sure beats the wasted posts on Captain Planet jokes doesn't it?

Considering I've been here during those pages? No.

Well, in that case, I bow my head and admit my defeat. My particular knowledge in this area was disproven by the source you posted.

Wow. That website bring out so much of the things I said here.

Solar is actually far more economical over the long term than buying your power from the utility.

Where has this website been in the past 2/3 days :p

At least it kind of backs my proposal when it comes to residential electricity :).

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Ps. Get no frights, I'm going to continue working on the new version :p

Although it may be viable, it is from a firm and might be slightly tweaked in that respect. Also, this will be based on climatical statistics from the nations involved. I agree it's good, but for the region concerned.

I have decided to go one step beyond, I read the first 15 pages. There was, unfortunately, nothing to see there except some unsupported claims that solar panel manufacture itself was highly poluting. Perhaps the real data and debate lies somewhere pages 15 and 24? Somehow I doubt it.

You can spend 5 minutes with google and get better answers.

SOLAR POWER FAQ’s (with answers) (http://www.solardepot.com/r_faq.htm)


So, by these numbers here are some practical figures.

Housing: For every million citizens, the cost to convert to solar will be seven billion dollars and require 9.2 square kilometers of panels (more if you are not a sunny country).

Transport: A 50 horsepower vehicle (very weak by today's standards for trucks or automobiles, but about the smallest for any practical automobile application) would cost $261,000 and require 342 square meters of solar cells. This is assuming no inefficiency in the electric motors or storage (a big assumption).

We can assume the cars will be *charged* by solar power and actually drive around with batteries. Still, that means (assuming one car per household) an additional 65 billion dollars per million citizens and an additional 86 square kilometers of cells per million citizens.

Surely this can be alleviated somewhat by public transportation and mass transit, but even at a tenth of the cost it is a large number.

Industry: No data at this time.

Not including industry, government use or the cost to completely change infrastructures, or the fact that trucks and aircraft will be a thing of the past or the enviornmental damage caused by thousands of square kilometers being covered by panels and it comes out to $1800 per person (man, woman and child) per year for ten years.

This uses utopian math and also assumes the initial numbers are correct.

Although it may be viable, it is from a firm and might be slightly tweaked in that respect. Also, this will be based on climatical statistics from the nations involved. I agree it's good, but for the region concerned.

Please note from the cited page, price is "After the state rebates and tax credits are applied". This is not free money from the sky.

Please compare to your nation's GDP and GDP per capita. This is actually not feasable at all.

- End Statement -

Intresting set of data...and very useful. By those numbers, a government would have to place heavy taxes on their people, go into deficits...not to mention, the companies that are required to switch over, such as the automobile industry, they would have to convert all factories for solar powered vehicle production, prices of automobiles would undeniably rise so that these companies could pay for the switch over. How would a government pay for the switch over? Would it be through taxes? Can you gaurntee that a nation could actually manage to pay for this program? And we must remember, nations that are farther from the equator are going to take more money to convert, because they will need more solar panels to generate the same amount of energy. so is switching totally to one form of energy feasible? True, it may have positive economic effects in the long run, but those effects will not take place if a countries economy collapses while they try to implement this program.

Intresting set of data...and very useful. By those numbers, a government would have to place heavy taxes on their people, go into deficits...not to mention, the companies that are required to switch over, such as the automobile industry, they would have to convert all factories for solar powered vehicle production, prices of automobiles would undeniably rise so that these companies could pay for the switch over. How would a government pay for the switch over? Would it be through taxes? Can you gaurntee that a nation could actually manage to pay for this program? And we must remember, nations that are farther from the equator are going to take more money to convert, because they will need more solar panels to generate the same amount of energy. so is switching totally to one form of energy feasible? True, it may have positive economic effects in the long run, but those effects will not take place if a countries economy collapses while they try to implement this program.

Completely seconded. Too much idealism will kill you.

The nation of cornbread fanatics has voted no for this

Why?

There are some good things about solar power like improving the environment and stopping global warming but there are more bad things about it

Actually making solar panels is a costly expense and depending on the location of the nation,its not as a reliable power source in regions where it is cloudy. And there will be high conquences for the ecomeny because every bussiness has to switch to solar power and not nuclear power(thats the source of power in my nation)and the nations economy might collapse which is extremely horrible

We might vote yes if you just encourage usage of it and just make the nations use about 38 percent of solar power and encourage people to conserve power

I'm still not entirely sure how you intend to turn iron ore into steel without the use of coke, which is of course a fossil fuel. And this is merely one example. Unless you want metals to be replaced entirely with those that appear in their pure state, for example gold, fossil fuels will be necessary. Your suggestion would make our civilisation collapse, fossil fuels are a pillar of all humanities developments thusfar. Remove them and we're back to square one, binding rocks to sticks to make crude axes. Of course the non UN states may be somewhat amused by this, right before their tanks and aircraft invade.

I say to not vote for this resolution because solar cells are vulnerable to EMPs. For instance a small high capicity transformer overloading can cause a strong enough EMP to wipe out a large field of solar panels. Also any nuclear or EMP weapon strikes done against a country will surely destroy a countries power supply.

Sorry, but im the Oppressed Peoples of Satan...gotta vote against anything good lol

Who is paying for each building to be covered in solar panels?

This would be fine for promoting solar panel use. But the 10 year requirement is absurd. If this passes every nation will be bankrupt immediately.

Starcra, we're still waiting for an answer. It was your idea to abolish the aviation industry. You should at least offer a viable replacement. Dirigibles? Zeppelins? Anti-gravity? Remember, it has to be available within 10 years and 7 months.

In keeping with the upcoming global energy regime, The HOCEK Conclave of Friendship, Emerging Technologies Office proudly announces its entry into the global aviation industry with Our new line of nuclear powered lighter-than-air craft. The HOCEK Conclave of Peace will be funding research for military applications of this technology, declaring that Our nation's Lead Zeppelins will be the terror of the skies!

This is an extremely bad idea!
If this resolution is passed, entire industries will be put out of business!
Also, millions of people will lose their jobs! The unemployment rate will skyrocket!!
And what about the nations that do not receive much sunlight, or what about during storms, or during the night? Huh?
I agree that fossil fuels need to be cut down on, but this is not the way to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang:

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.

I just thought of something.

1) The language of this part leaves a lot of room for inerpretation. It says there must be solar panels on all buildings, basically, but it doesn't say how much solar panels or how much of the total energy they must contribute, just that they must contribute. This means that a nation wanting to get around this reqirement would just have to take tiny solar cells, like the ones in calculators, put one on each building and hook it to the rest fo the power and voila, your nation is in compliance with this part.

2) This part says an amount of funds. This could be as little as 1 (insert currency).

3) Same solution as one.

This still leaves the problem of ending fossil fuel use within 10 years, but if this proposal can't be repealed by then, the UN has larger issues.

The Palentine wishes to register its opposal to this legislation. We firmly concur with our estemed regional Delegate on this issue. The Palentine does not rely on fossil feuls as a sole means of power. Most if not all of our electricity comes from Nuclear power plants. Its cheap, and unlike the Sun reliable all year around. We use fossil feuls for transportation, and as another estemed member has stated for making coke for steel. Some of you must have never grown up around steel mills. I guess that you believe steel comes already made in ore form and all you have to do is melt, and form it. Also like my estemed regional delegate Ohmigodtheykilledkenny, we the Palentine, does not spend any government funds on the enviroment either, so we have no money for solar panels. And no I didn't wade though 31 pages of posting before posting this. If my concerns are already answered fine, if not fine! If this piece of legislation offered more incentives and did not make the solar panels mandentory then the Palentine might have supported it. For all you budding enviromental propsal writers out there, offer more pro business and private industry incentives, (and not try to kill industry) and you might find more nations willing to support you.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

I just thought of something.

1) The language of this part leaves a lot of room for inerpretation. It says there must be solar panels on all buildings, basically, but it doesn't say how much solar panels or how much of the total energy they must contribute, just that they must contribute. This means that a nation wanting to get around this reqirement would just have to take tiny solar cells, like the ones in calculators, put one on each building and hook it to the rest fo the power and voila, your nation is in compliance with this part.

2) This part says an amount of funds. This could be as little as 1 (insert currency).

3) Same solution as one.

This still leaves the problem of ending fossil fuel use within 10 years, but if this proposal can't be repealed by then, the UN has larger issues.

My good sir you are almost as sneaky and underhanded as I. :p :D By the authority of Emperor Captian Spaulding I, I hereby present you with this medal, The Order of the Sphinxian Treecat, the highest award my government can award a non-Palentinian. Also I give you this Gift certificate, good for a Primani Brothers Sammich, cheese fries and a cold Arn to worsh it all down.<Cheers and Applause!> :D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Axis Nova cheerfully looks forward to all UN nations becoming completely unable to use any petroleum derived product in 10 NS years.

In 15 NS years, you may expect our armies of conquest at your doors. Lacking such essential technological neccesities such as plastic and lubricants for machinery and thus having your technology reverted to a pre-industrial state, we predict you will be easy to pick off one by one.

You may, however, take consolation in the fact that your nations will indeed have extremely clean air.

Cheers.

This is confusing.

Even with all the negative comments about this proposal, and the myriad nations pointing out the fallacies of it, and the reasons why it is destructive and should be voted down.....

The voting is STILL currently nearly 2-1 in favour! Are these countries that blind and ignorant? Do they even read past the title? Is all they see is "solar power" and think, oooh....good.....solar power!

Phaw!

This is confusing.

Even with all the negative comments about this proposal, and the myriad nations pointing out the fallacies of it, and the reasons why it is destructive and should be voted down.....

The voting is STILL currently nearly 2-1 in favour! Are these countries that blind and ignorant? Do they even read past the title? Is all they see is "solar power" and think, oooh....good.....solar power!

Phaw!

Pretty much.

Any proposal can pass if it's a feel-good bleeding heart proposal with an unsuspected rider.

My good sir you are almost as sneaky and underhanded as I. :p :D By the athority of Emperor Captian Spaulding I, I hereby present you with this medal, The Order of the Sphinxian Treecat, the highest award my government can award a non-Palentinian. Also I give you this Gift certificate, good for a Primani Brothers Sammich, cheese fries and a cold Arn to worsh it all down.<Cheers and Applause!> :D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Why thank you, I graciously accept and look forward to enjoying that...um...food? I will also take into consideration your recomendations for environmental proposals when I write my own, after this one fails or is repealed. In my proposal, which is still in my head at this point, will also focus on making progress phasing out fossil fuels as an energy source, rather than setting a cuttoff date of any kind.

Axis Nova cheerfully looks forward to all UN nations becoming completely unable to use any petroleum derived product in 10 NS years.

In 15 NS years, you may expect our armies of conquest at your doors. Lacking such essential technological neccesities such as plastic and lubricants for machinery and thus having your technology reverted to a pre-industrial state, we predict you will be easy to pick off one by one.

You may, however, take consolation in the fact that your nations will indeed have extremely clean air.

Cheers.
Just one moment Dear Gent! My nation will definately be out of the UN If this can't be repealed, in 10 years time, so please stay out of the Palentine, Good Sir. We believe in keeping our weapons clean and the powder dry.

Why thank you, I graciously accept and look forward to enjoying that...um...food? I will also take into consideration your recomendations for environmental proposals when I write my own, after this one fails or is repealed. In my proposal, which is still in my head at this point, will also focus on making progress phasing out fossil fuels as an energy source, rather than setting a cuttoff date of any kind.

In non-Pittsburghese, its a Primani Brothers(a superb restaraunt) sandwich(an example:a grilled piece of meat, eggs, cheese,tomato, fries, and cole slaw between 2 thick slices of fresh Eyetalian bread), cheese fries, and a cold Iron City Beer to drink. Also I am glad to that you will at least consider my humble recomendations regarding incentives and business. I fear too many of those that propose these enviromental mesures are closet Luddites, and have no concept of the real impact on society. You need some fossil fuels to make steel and other metals, plastics, and lubercations for machinery.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Palentine

P.S. Let me know about your propsal, and I'll try to give you some feedback.

Many reasons have already been listed in this debate against the resolution at hand, so I will not repeat them. I would just like to say that I am surprised at how willingly the members of this body will vote for a resolution that is not only inaccurate but is also short-sighted and overly constrained. While the nation of Andreas Potens spends a great deal in maintaining our environment, we must wholeheartedly reject this resolution. We would also hope that in the future other nations would scrutinize resolutions more carefully.

Thank you,

Chico Dashing
Ambassador to the U.N.
Andrea Potens

I would just like to say that I am surprised at how willingly the members of this body will vote for a resolution that is not only inaccurate but is also short-sighted and overly constrained.
While I have supported this proposal, and do not believe in the innacuracy or short sightedness, I do agree that this forum clearly illustrates the problems we face as a society today with ill-educated vote casting affecting all different arenas of our culture and social structure. Obviously, there is a definite need for improval.
Spoon Savers

Axis Nova cheerfully looks forward to all UN nations becoming completely unable to use any petroleum derived product in 10 NS years.

In 15 NS years, you may expect our armies of conquest at your doors. Lacking such essential technological neccesities such as plastic and lubricants for machinery and thus having your technology reverted to a pre-industrial state, we predict you will be easy to pick off one by one.

You may, however, take consolation in the fact that your nations will indeed have extremely clean air.

Cheers.Heh. Sounds about right.

Wheeeeeee!

While it is obvious that I and the respectable representative from Plastic Spoon Savers disagree on the issue at hand, Andreas Potens cordial thanks them for their kind words.

Chico Dashing
Ambassador to the U.N.
Andreas Potens

Just one moment Dear Gent! My nation will definately be out of the UN If this can't be repealed, in 10 years time, so please stay out of the Palentine, Good Sir. We believe in keeping our weapons clean and the powder dry.

No real problem. A nation with a functional military can just be bypassed-- there will be so many other nations more easily conquered that invading one with a functional military will be a waste of time and resources. :)

This is confusing.

Even with all the negative comments about this proposal, and the myriad nations pointing out the fallacies of it, and the reasons why it is destructive and should be voted down.....

The voting is STILL currently nearly 2-1 in favour! Are these countries that blind and ignorant? Do they even read past the title? Is all they see is "solar power" and think, oooh....good.....solar power!

Phaw!

Votes case: 10000
Thread views: 5300

And that's before we consider the number of people that regularly visit the thread. Heck, this is my second post since it went to vote, something like my 8th post on the entire thread, and probably my 30th time viewing the thread.

I can not adequately surmise the inadequacies of this resolution; it will destroy any industrialised society which abides by it. As an environmentalist I am sympathetic, but as a head of state who must feed his populace, who must provide jobs for at least some of my people, who must help his nation compete against others I oppose this resolution absolutely.

Don’t vote on the principle of environmentalism; vote on the resolution, think how it would affect both the real life, and nation states society you live in. This is not an intelligent way to deal with the twin problems of dwindling fossil fuels, and environmental disaster, and if this resolution is passed I will withdraw from the UN, not from hubris, but to save my society from collapse.

By the way, if, as seems to be the case, this resolution is passed, I'd be happy to club together with anyone lobbying to overturn it! I want to be in th UN, but not if my people can't run their own country! PM me, as posts will be lost in the fog...

By the way, if, as seems to be the case, this resolution is passed, I'd be happy to club together with anyone lobbying to overturn it! I want to be in th UN, but not if my people can't run their own country! PM me, as posts will be lost in the fog...

But how can you pull it off... if your nation has no radios?


:D

wtf?!?!

Then what have I been talking into all those microphones for?

By Jovius, I've been had!

wtf?!?!

Then what have I been talking into all those microphones for?

By Jovius, I've been had!

After the resolution is signed, that is. :p

After all, ten years after it is, your nation will have no fossil fuels, thus be unable to make new radios... and after that it's only a matter of time before they all break down.

The voting is STILL currently nearly 2-1 in favour! Are these countries that blind and ignorant? ... ? Is all they see is "solar power" and think, oooh....good.....solar power!

Yup.

Sad, isn't it?

Axis Nova, we wish a military alliance with you. We will provide the distraction for your attack by moving our fleet into a position that prevents sunlight from reaching Earth. While the Earth UN nations are distracted with trying to dislodge us from our position before their pitiful power supplies are drained, you will likely be free to invade as you please. Once they realize what is going on, you will see a division in their ranks, with some members trying to prevent you from invading them while others try to get us to move before they collapse into anarchy. With the division, the distraction, and their rapidly-draining power supplies, victory will be short and sweet.

All we wish is fertile land to inhabit and support a growing population on. Preferably, enough to support about a billion people or so.

After the resolution is signed, that is. :p

After all, ten years after it is, your nation will have no fossil fuels, thus be unable to make new radios... and after that it's only a matter of time before they all break down.


That's my point ;) As soon as they ask us to sign the thing we're out!

Axis Nova, we wish a military alliance with you. We will provide the distraction for your attack by moving our fleet into a position that prevents sunlight from reaching Earth. While the Earth UN nations are distracted with trying to dislodge us from our position before their pitiful power supplies are drained, you will likely be free to invade as you please. Once they realize what is going on, you will see a division in their ranks, with some members trying to prevent you from invading them while others try to get us to move before they collapse into anarchy. With the division, the distraction, and their rapidly-draining power supplies, victory will be short and sweet.

All we wish is fertile land to inhabit and support a growing population on. Preferably, enough to support about a billion people or so.

*wonders if by that point, people will actually need electricity.....

*wonders if by that point, people will actually need electricity.....

^Notes the signature at the bottom and how much like a factbook in construction it reads when clicked on.^

OOC:
If the UN, is like this one, and the world was so easily to comply with these measures, we'ed all be burning in H***. If this thing coimes to pass, and no one places a repeal on it withing 5 days, I'm quitting the UN. Still 2 to 1......

Axis Nova cheerfully looks forward to all UN nations becoming completely unable to use any petroleum derived product in 10 NS years.

In 15 NS years, you may expect our armies of conquest at your doors. Lacking such essential technological neccesities such as plastic and lubricants for machinery and thus having your technology reverted to a pre-industrial state, we predict you will be easy to pick off one by one.

You may, however, take consolation in the fact that your nations will indeed have extremely clean air.

Cheers.

And no one will be able to start using nuclear fusion because of this.

Oh, and has the UN defined fossil fuels in this case?

^Notes the signature at the bottom and how much like a factbook in construction it reads when clicked on.^

Like your daughter, you scare me.

And no one will be able to start using nuclear fusion because of this.

Oh, and has the UN defined fossil fuels in this case?

Simple: fuels that once were fossils. That is the farthest you can go for pushing the boundaries (and I think that'll give you coal to play with, but oil and gas are out).

Besides the simple fact that I oppose UN tampering with national sovereignty, I have another concern about this proposal, and one which environmentalists should consider.

Solar power, as I've said before, is a great power source under ideal conditions. But -- and this is a BIG but -- for solar power to be efficient, there is the need for storage batteries. And producing storage batteries on the scale required by this proposal would mean an increase in world-wide mining activity unprecedented in history. Lead, zinc, cadmium, and even sulphur dioxide pollution would increase terribly (unless someone has figured out how to produce storage batteries from tofu).

It won't work, Utopians, and it's a miserably poorly thought-out proposal.

Sorry,

AK_ID, Delegate, The Wild West

IC: The Republic of Natinar respects the willingness of nations to bond together in a general attempt to rid the world of dirty factories and the like that create a harmful environment for the present and future. The Republic of Natinar also formally recognizes threats posed by global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer.

However, this resolution is not only unrealistic, it is ridiculously biased. The search for alternate energy sources has only begun -- who is to say that we will not harness a more effective method within ten years? Solar panels are not the most effective and not the cheapest way to go about ridding our word of fossil fuel factories and refineries. Rather, the change should take place naturally as demand for oil and petrol drops (or is restricted by sovereign governments to preserve the necessary creation of plastics and other essentials in life) and the demand for cleaner, more efficient sources creeps in. Already these processes have either begun or have been completed in many nations worldwide.

The Republic of Natinar votes nay, for we feel the potential loss in jobs is too great to support such a measure. We will also refuse to follow its rules and regulations, because sovereignty is of utmost sanctity to the Natinari.

OOC:

What the hell? Do you seriously expect that in the real world, anyone with a sane mind would vote in favor of this? Not only is it so ridiculously unrealistic, it's just impractical. Solar panels..the wave of the future? I think not. Maybe for personal home usage during the day, and if you get the really fancy kinds that store energy for over eight hours, at night too. Average people, however, will have to rely on (in the future) companies as they still do today. We will still need a centralized power production and distribution system, and I hate to think that will all be solar panel-oriented.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why jobs would be lost and economies would plummet. People that sell and/or produce/procure oil will obviously be hurt, and so will people that buy it and refine it. The change should be natural and slow, for quick changes from one spectrum to another always lead to demise and hardship. I could go on and on, but I think you see my point.

I seriously doubt the intelligence of anyone that voted for this ridiculous resolution.

Dear citizens of Terioamo and New Mexico


Recent events in the United Nations, has put us at a crossroads as a nation and as a delegate. When we became delegate, we accepted with humility, the honor that the New Mexican people had confirmed upon us, we accepted this with a determination to promote the welfare of this nation and the prosperity and peace of New Mexico.


The “Promotion of Solar Panels” resolution, as well meaning as it is, is based on false information, contains illogical proposals and is possibly the most destructive resolution economically in the history of the UN. We have done all we can to prevent this from being approved, but we have failed.

Our people desire a world where all nations and people are able to govern themselves as they see fit.
This resolution is an example of the mob mentality and false philosophy that has taken over the UN. People in this world have taken up this false philosophy that contends to offer liberty, safety, and wisdom driven policy to mankind. But instead they are greeted with tyranny, poverty, and mockery of their national beliefs and values. That false philosophy is Ethnocentrism.

Our allies are the billions that aspire and hope for self-determination.

For these reasons, I, Tenan Tenalb, the leader of Terioamo hereby resign as a member of the United Nations and Delegate of New Mexico. We ask and advise that other members of the region depart as well.

Thank you,
And Long Live the Republic!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9648131#post9648131

The UN will continue to lose member nations and regions so long as the UN continues to attempt to dictate policy to individual nations and regions. Worldwide usurpation of national sovereignty is NOT the way to build a strong UN, whether in real life, or here in NS.

AK_ID

So far the voting for this issue is favouring supporting it. I WANT TO URGE ALL MEMBERS TO REJECT THIS RESOLUTION.

My concern is that there are cheaper, more efficient and entirely better clean energy sources than solar fuel. Fuel Cell technology exceeds the promises of solar power and is far more economic.

This resolution is an infringement on national sovereignty and will force member nations into uneconomical adoption of unnecesary technology!!!!

Please think carefuly before voting in favour!