NationStates Jolt Archive

Well friends, it seems the Promotion of Solar Panels resolution will pass, unfortunately. Fortunately, it looks as though it will be repealed just as quickly. Also fortunately, although only about 1 in 100 comments in the forum supported the resolution, nearly all sympathized with the overall goal of eventually eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source.

So lets strike while the iron is hot and together come up with a resolution that we can all be happy with that improves the environment and phases out fossil fuel energy, while not tanking all UN nations' economies or focusing to narrowly on one method of phasing out fossil fuel energy.

I present an outline for a sound proposal, let’s take this and decide what does work and what doesn't and what should be added or reworded. I have numbered each point for easier reference. Revisions are in bold.

NOTING: that using fossil fuels as an energy source cannot continue indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance of clean, renewable energy sources.

NOTING: that the current level of energy generation may itself be unsustainable in the long term and that programs that promote conservation and increased energy efficiency, as well as reassessing what are energy needs and what are unnecessary luxuries, will be key parts.

NOTING: that environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels is not localized to the country burning them but rather of global concern.

REALIZING: that the drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels is a monumental task requiring the help, cooperation, and commitment of all UN nations.

DEFINITIONS

Fossil fuels: A hydrocarbon deposit, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel.

Clean, renewable energy sources: energy derived from sources that do not completely use up natural resources or do significant harm the environment in the long-term

The UN hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Terms of the resolution

Section A: Each nation must honestly calculate the average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their "ceiling consumption rate". They are required to reduce consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that after one year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate, after two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate, and so on.

Section B: Each nation must increase funding for research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs by a minimum of 1% per year, until Section A has been satisfied.

Section C: Nations may use energy sources that are ultimately not sustainable, such as nuclear fission, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.

Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help the nation comply with the requirements.

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before the minimum requirement, they shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid they are receiving.

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need. Legitimate significant needs are extensive damage to infrastructure or economy because of:
Natural disasters
War
Severe economic depression
If significant need is established, an appropriate time extension relative to need will be granted.

Section B: If a nation refuses to comply with the resolution, the UN grants the right to UN member nations it impose trade sanctions on the offending nation, except for sanctions previously banned by the UN, until the nation comes into compliance.

Feel free to make critiques, suggestions, comments and the like. Remember that this is just a draft proposal; I have not submitted it and will not until it is a sound, workable document.

I think some mention about solar facilities damaging the environment is in order, since these are the things that attracted those headcrabs to vote for the present resolution in the first place.

Argument:

APPRECIATING the spirit of the aforementioned resolution in the protection of the environment

But NOTING that in its original form the resolution is impossible to carry out due to economical constraints, limited natural resources, lack of land space, etc.

NOTING that the original resolution was based on flawed science, stating fossil fuels as contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer, which is false, and thus laying doubt on the scientific basis on the resolution

NOTING that construction of a solar facility that can provide sufficient power to a human settlement of any size will inevitably be MORE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT than a fossil fuel plant of equivalent capability

NOTING that the original resolution calls for complete abandonment of fossil fuels which is not possible with current technology

The UN therefore enacts the following:

1. All UN nations will phase out using fossil fuels as an energy source and phase in the use of clean, renewable energy sources, recommended (perhaps mandatory?) by the United Nations as a reduction of the percentage of total power consumption of each nation that fossil fuels generate by 1% a year
2. Nations may use energy sources, such as nuclear fission, that are ultimately not sustainable, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only, noting that the dangers posed by nuclear power can be negated by proper maintenance and waste disposal procedures (with the possibility of adding a clause for the UN to monitor such stations to ensure proper procedures)
3. That all future fossil fuel plants and vechicles must meet a UN standard on fuel efficiency (This is to be decided by those among us who know how efficient they should be)
4. The United Nations will offer aid (unspecified amount) to member nations in achieving the aforementioned goals
5. Member nations who fully comply with this resolution (including the reduction in fossil fuel percentage, plant efficiency, etc.) at 11:59 pm, Demember 31st of any year, will receive an additional 10% aid, in addition to the base assistance
6. Member nations that, for geographical reasons, are unable to comply with the resolutions, may be exempted from this bill OR do not need to fully comply with it

I understand your sentiment about not repeating the mistakes of the current resolution, but I feel that it is innappropriate and unnecesary to refur to resolutions that are no longer in effect (assuming this one is repealed). I also don't think the replacement resolution needs to promote or condemn any form of energy production in specific, but let naions decide on there own what to use, based on the proposal's definition of "clean, renewable" sources.

5. I like the idea of an incentive to reach a deadline, but I don't know where the aid would come from, as far as I know the UN doesn't have money to give out. But if a funding source could be established, this would be a great addition to the resolution. This deadline should also not be arbitrary, but based on something like the amount of oil a country uses.

6. I would like an optionallity clause in all UN resolutions, but, as I have been informed befor, they are illegal according to the proposal rules.

Um...a draft for the replacement is already in progress.

The present resolution is bad enough, kindly do not make it worse.

Um...a draft for the replacement is already in progress.

Great, where is the thread?

[QUOTE=Ateelatay]Well friends, it seems the Promotion of Solar Panels resolution will pass, unfortunately. Fortunately, it looks as though it will be repealed just as quickly. Also fortunately, although only about 1 in 100 comments in the forum supported the resolution, nearly all sympathized with the overall goal of eventually eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source.

So lets strike while the iron is hot and together come up with a resolution that we can all be happy with that improves the environment and phases out fossil fuel energy, while not tanking all UN nations' economies or focusing to narrowly on one method of phasing out fossil fuel energy.

I present an outline for a sound proposal, let’s take this and decide what does work and what doesn't and what should be added or reworded. I have numbered each point for easier reference.

1. NOTING: that using fossil fuels as an energy source cannot continue indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

2. NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires phasing out the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance of clean, renewable energy sources.

3. NOTING: that the overall goal of phasing out using fossil fuels as an energy source is more important than setting a specific timeframe.

4. NOTING: that the current level of energy generation may itself be unsustainable in the long term and that programs that promote conservation and increased energy efficiency, as well as reassessing what are energy needs and what are unnecessary luxuries, will be key parts.

4. NOTING: that since environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels is not localized to the country burning them but rather of global concern.

5. REALIZING: that the phasing out of fossil fuels is a monumental task requiring the help, cooperation, and commitment of all UN nations.

We would like to express our support for this resolution, as the nation of the Republic of Compadria, having backed initially the resolution it is designed to replace after repeal. We share the belief that as a matter of global concern this is best adressed through the U.N. and that a more realistic, broader based time scale is required to achieve these goals.

Some definitions are required here. The terms:
long-term energy sustainability
fossil fuel
clean, renewable energy sources
significant progress (see 8.)
all need to be defined.

If I may, I would like to submit the following:

Long-term energy sustainability

The process by which we, the nations of the U.N. develop an energy strategy that follows the following provisions:

a). It use energy sources that are not unduly polluting of the environment, through obtaining the source, through production of the source, usage of the source, disposal of the source or by-products from any of these three categories.

b). The energy sources are not based on materials of limited availability of usage and are furthermore renewable.

c). There is a unified strategy for sustainable energy sources along these lines implemented by the U.N.

6. The UN hereby enacts the following:

7. All UN nations will phase out using fossil fuels as an energy source and phase in the use of clean, renewable energy sources.
(this part needs work, the intent is not to cease fossil fuel energy use all at once, nor phase in clean renewables all at once, just that they should be moving toward ending fossil fuel energy production and using clean renewables. This also has the negative effect of encroaching on national sovereignty. The globalness of the issue could supersede this or it could be worded as a "strongly urges" though it should not be an empty statement with no real effect.)

8. Nations do not need to set a date for total phase out of fossil fuel energy or phase in of clean renewable energy, as long as significant progress is being made toward both these goals.

9. Nations may use energy sources, such as nuclear fission, that are ultimately not sustainable, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.
(the intent of this is to allow nations to use sources such as fission to help carry the load until clean renewable technology improves enough)

At this point it should be discussed how nations will be able to phase out fossil fuel energy and phase in renewables.

I would recommend investigation of natural fuels such as ethanol, (see the:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel). I would also warn against use of hydrogen fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy) and commend the Nuclear Fusion project as a clean energy source for the future.

The mechanism could be a stick (disincentive), like "1% of all tax collected in each nation must go toward research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs." this has the obvious problem of encroaching on nations' sovereignty, though the globalness of this issue may outweigh this factor.
The mechanism could be a carrot (incentive). This would be harder, since the UN is not allowed to collect taxes itself, but it would have the benefit of encroaching less on national sovereignty, but if anyone can think of a good incentive, let's hear it.

I would recommend a 'carbon tax' on all fossil fuel transactions and trade agreements, possibly of between 0.5% and 2%. This would discourage use of fossil fuels as an energy source and target their trade and distribution.
Another issue is what to do about nations that refuse to comply. This could also be a stick, like trade sanctions, or a carrot that would make complying a beneficial choice.

Thus in total, we commend this proposal and offer our full support should it come to vote.

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

Long live clean-energy Compadria!

Great, where is the thread?

I was waiting for the repeal to go for vote before I started a thread (It is stated in the repeal that I will post a replacement if you would like to see it)

If I may, I would like to submit the following:

Long-term energy sustainability

The process by which we, the nations of the U.N. develop an energy strategy that follows the following provisions:

a). It use energy sources that are not unduly polluting of the environment, through obtaining the source, through production of the source, usage of the source, disposal of the source or by-products from any of these three categories.

b). The energy sources are not based on materials of limited availability of usage and are furthermore renewable.

c). There is a unified strategy for sustainable energy sources along these lines implemented by the U.N.

I have changed the definition to reflect yours.

I would recommend investigation of natural fuels such as ethanol, (see the:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel). I would also warn against use of hydrogen fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy) and commend the Nuclear Fusion project as a clean energy source for the future.

Promoting or making statements against any specifiic form of alternative energy is problematic in that it will shift the debate away from the overall goal of the resolution, to debating the merits of specific alternative energy systems. For instance, if ethanol is promoted, right away non-corn producing nations will complain and people will come in with various arguments about how it takes more energy to get the ethanol than it puts out and so on.


I would recommend a 'carbon tax' on all fossil fuel transactions and trade agreements, possibly of between 0.5% and 2%. This would discourage use of fossil fuels as an energy source and target their trade and distribution.

A good idea, but, as far as I know, the UN cannot tax nations itself and requiring nations to impose the tax themselves will be seen as overreaching by many nations, but I may use it anyway.

Thus in total, we commend this proposal and offer our full support should it come to vote.

Thanks, I look forward to more of your comments.

Starcra II: I think we have a good thing started here. You may certainly comment on this proposal and, if you like, you can post your proposal here and we can try and merge the documents. Otherwise we can keep our proposals seperate and we can foster some healthy competion for the best replacement.

As a pro businness, and low government spending conservative, I would like to see an incentive for businesses that start to comply with the resolutions, like allowing a tax break. I know the UN cannot technically impose or repeal a tax, however nations can. Some nations on the left end of the political scale, and some dictatorships seem to believe in squeezing the bejabbers out of business. I would add a provision to encourage individual governments to offer tax breaks to businesses that comply.If these businesses received a tax break they could invest money and research into new sources of energy. Most businesses see the benifit to having renewable, and cheaper sources of energy. Also insted of just having government fund the reasearch, have a provision encouraging private enterprise to enter into the reasearch. This program will be beaucoup expensive, and can use all the assistance it can get.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

Starcra II: I think we have a good thing started here. You may certainly comment on this proposal and, if you like, you can post your proposal here and we can try and merge the documents. Otherwise we can keep our proposals seperate and we can foster some healthy competion for the best replacement.

I have no problem with merging or competing, since I kinda started all this, I'll let you decide which one you prefer and I'll include mine in a post/another thread when the time comes. Edit : Incidentally, Are we allowed to submit 2 proposals of the same nature at the same time - because if we are, it gives delegates more space to decide which is more preferable to them, and at the same time we may be able to cover different areas that the other hasn't. What do you think?

Will you be submitting the new proposal? (It doesn't make any difference to me, I just want to know how active I should be when the time comes for this to be proposed)

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I have no problem with merging or competing, since I kinda started all this, I'll let you decide which one you prefer and I'll include mine in a post/another thread when the time comes. Edit : Incidentally, Are we allowed to submit 2 proposals of the same nature at the same time - because if we are, it gives delegates more space to decide which is more preferable to them, and at the same time we may be able to cover different areas that the other hasn't. What do you think?

Will you be submitting the new proposal? (It doesn't make any difference to me, I just want to know how active I should be when the time comes for this to be proposed)

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I'm sure a compromise is possible on this matter. I'm open to offering mediation if necessary.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

This is much better. It certainly appears that a workable proposal will be in the mix sooner rather than later.

The original proposal has already had an effect on Flanagania's economy. We have been forced to increase taxes slightly. We had planned to resign if it went through, but we are postponing any decision now that it seems that this new, better proposal will have a life.

Keith Maniac
Grand Master of Flanagania

The stick/disincentive that you suggest - 1% of tax collected - isn't really a disincentive to burning fossil fuels, because that 1% will be collected regardless of the level of fossil fuel use.

The true stick/carrot for fossil fuel use has already been devised, and is emissions trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading) . This was documented in the RL Kyoto protocol and is currently used or being implemented by many administrations throughout the world.

Nations are given credits for the level of fossil fuels they may burn. Those nations which use less than their allocated credits may sell the remainder to those who wish to use more than their allowance. Over years the total/global allowance should be reduced (perhaps by 1% or 2% per year on the previous year's total). In this way, those nations which reduce their fossil fuel use by more than 1% or 2% per year are saving money (they'll be able to sell their extra credits), while those reducing at less than the implemented rate will be spending money to buy the credits. As the total decreases, the credits will be more and more expensive, therefore 'forcing' more nations onto alternative fuels.

Emissions trading provide both a disincentive to excessive/increased/sustained fossil fuel use, as well as an incentive to decreased use. It also provides economic incentives to those who implement carbon sinks, which would usually be plantations or forests designed to absorb carbon dioxide (ie cancel out many effects of fossil fuel combustion).

In short, it is an exceptionally fair and efficient means to reduce fossil fuel use. It requires only well thought-out guidelines, ie the 1-2 percent was not well thought-out and needs to be considered thoroughly, and will require some enforcement. While enforcement is not ideal, it will be necessary for any such fossil fuel -reduction programme, and as such should not be a deterrent from this suggestion.

edit: visit climate corporation (http://www.climatecorp.com/) for a RL emissions credit broker. More information on emissions trading and how it *can* work.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply scrap the resolution, rather than re-write it?

Why add insult to injury?

AK

I'm sure a compromise is possible on this matter. I'm open to offering mediation if necessary.

No problem with me - I'll wait to hear from Ateelatay.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply scrap the resolution, rather than re-write it?

Why add insult to injury?

AK

Because something most of us have agreed on is that the idea behind it was good, just the way it was presented was a bit icky.

Because something most of us have agreed on is that the idea behind it was good, just the way it was presented was a bit icky.Sauvignon Blanc would like to take this opportunity to present to Starcra II a clear sample of it's inability to absord comments from other nations.

We would ask Starcra II why they feel that 'most of us' have agreed that the idea behind the original proposal was good. We would further ask on what basis did Starcra II come to this conclusion. All evidence reviewed by our delegate indicates that the vast majority believe that the idea itself was poor and inadequately considered. Not only was the idea based on flawed science, but the potential cost of implementing the idea was prohibitive in the most extreme sense. This is a fact that Starcra II is yet to acknowledge.

We would suggest that the majority of delegates believe that the intention was good, and that Starcra was indeed acting with good intentions. However this is a poor consolation for those of us dealing with the consequences of an absurd resolution.

Good intentions often lead to Hades.

I admire Starcra's good intentions, but I still wonder which petroleum-based drug the author of this resolution was influenced by while writing it.

This issue has very nearly caused a UN implosion, and needs to be shipped mid-Atlantic and sunk. Please note my repeal thread. Vote, and vote often.

AK_ID

The stick/disincentive that you suggest - 1% of tax collected - isn't really a disincentive to burning fossil fuels, because that 1% will be collected regardless of the level of fossil fuel use.

Nations are given credits for the level of fossil fuels they may burn. Those nations which use less than their allocated credits may sell the remainder to those who wish to use more than their allowance. Over years the total/global allowance should be reduced (perhaps by 1% or 2% per year on the previous year's total). In this way, those nations which reduce their fossil fuel use by more than 1% or 2% per year are saving money (they'll be able to sell their extra credits), while those reducing at less than the implemented rate will be spending money to buy the credits. As the total decreases, the credits will be more and more expensive, therefore 'forcing' more nations onto alternative fuels.

Emissions trading provide both a disincentive to excessive/increased/sustained fossil fuel use, as well as an incentive to decreased use. It also provides economic incentives to those who implement carbon sinks, which would usually be plantations or forests designed to absorb carbon dioxide (ie cancel out many effects of fossil fuel combustion).

In short, it is an exceptionally fair and efficient means to reduce fossil fuel use. It requires only well thought-out guidelines, ie the 1-2 percent was not well thought-out and needs to be considered thoroughly, and will require some enforcement. While enforcement is not ideal, it will be necessary for any such fossil fuel -reduction programme, and as such should not be a deterrent from this suggestion.

I like the idea of tying emmisions or fossil fuel use to the incentive/disincentive. However the carbon credit trading thing seems as though it could get quite complicated and require lots of monitoring and enforcement, but if this is not true, could you present language that could be used in the proposal in this way?

I have no problem with merging or competing, since I kinda started all this, I'll let you decide which one you prefer and I'll include mine in a post/another thread when the time comes. Edit : Incidentally, Are we allowed to submit 2 proposals of the same nature at the same time - because if we are, it gives delegates more space to decide which is more preferable to them, and at the same time we may be able to cover different areas that the other hasn't.

Maybe you should post your new proposal here or give us the gist of it. If it is similar enough to mine, let's merge it and co-author it, if it is a good proposal but comes at it from another angle, let's keep them seperate and allow the favorite to win.

Compandria: if we decide to merge the proposals, your mediation would be most appreciated.

Thanks you all, keep those comments commin'

I like the idea of tying emmisions or fossil fuel use to the incentive/disincentive. However the carbon credit trading thing seems as though it could get quite complicated and require lots of monitoring and enforcement, but if this is not true, could you present language that could be used in the proposal in this way?All that needs to be said is that:

a) emission levels shall be hereforewith capped at present day rates for the ensuing five year period. Each nationstate will be given an emission quota based on current emission levels.

b) from five years after ratification of this resolution, and onwards, yearly global emissions must be reduced by 1.5% per annum on the previous year's emission. Each nationstate's quota will be reduced by same.

c) nationstates may trade their unused credit for emission in a fair and open marketplace, ie nations may not trade under economic, military or political duress. Nationstates may not be forced to trade emission credits.

d) nationstates may acquire additional emission credits from those nationstates wishing to trade existing credits, or through the implementation of carbon-reduction systems {1}. Such carbon-reduction systems must have measurable benefits, and nationstates undertaking carbon-reduction systems will gain emission credit equivalent to 80% of demonstrated carbon-reduction.

{1} - defining carbon-reduction systems as any system or process which reduces the level of CO, CO2 etc in the atmosphere, specifically any system which reduces the ill-effects of fossil fuel combustion, with negligible environmental side-effects.

---

That's all that should be needed. The level of pollution will fall by 1.5% per annum, on the last year's level. Those who don't want to or cannot drop their pollution levels must either purchase credits from those with excess credits, or implement carbon-reduction systems.

Carbon-reduction systems would generally be planting a forest or other flora, however if some system is devised which will extract the ill-effects of fossil fuel burning from the atmosphere that would also be satisfactory. However the benefit of carbon-reduction will only be rewarded with an 80% credit on emissions, which further promotes the reduction of CO2 etc. For example, a nation planting enough trees to counteract 100Mt of CO2 will be given credits to allow production of 80Mt of CO2.

The monitoring and enforcement of this system would be exactly the same as the monitoring of any emissions-reduction programme, and as such is a separate issue for consideration.

Nice. Let's complicate the issue to confuse the voters.

AK_ID

The fact that this resolution successfully passed with a comfortable majority, burst out of the gates with an 80% approval rate, and many changed their vote to nay later on because they started to rethink their position plus the number of people on the official topic who said that they supported the intent, but couldn't support it due to impracticality, I would say the VAST majority of the UN would be in favor of a replacement that is much more practical than the original resolution. While I note the opinions of many representatives that they won't be supporting a replacement, I ask them to not tell people whether or not to work on a replacement. This is the perogative of the interested parties. Your opinions are known, so unless you have actual comments about wording or anything, we ask that you cease this heckling.

An excellent idea, Forgottenlands. I shall ponder this further. One problem I have with this, though, is that, as the years go on, the 1.5% reduction from last lear will mean less and less and will never lead to the comlete stoppage o fossil fuel based energy.

Perhaps the percentage reduced from last year should increase each year, so a nation could start out with a 1% reduction the first year, and have a 2% reduction of last year's emmisions the 2nd year, and so on.

And I wouldn't worry about confusing the voters, they'll see the "good for environment" part and vote for it no matter what. Worthwhile proposals require a bit of thinking, otherwise they end up either just making statements or go to extremes.

Nice. Let's complicate the issue to confuse the voters.

AK_IDWhile I appreciate that the voters will be confused, I feel that 'dumbing down' for the sake of the UN is defeatist.

An excellent idea, Forgottenlands. I shall ponder this further. One problem I have with this, though, is that, as the years go on, the 1.5% reduction from last lear will mean less and less and will never lead to the comlete stoppage o fossil fuel based energy.That was deliberate. The alternative would be to have 1.5% reduction each year on a linear basis, and therefore lasting 66.6 years, or a 2% reduction therefore lasting 50 years.

However using the 1.5% diminishing method allows for a 'tapering off' effect. The last bastions of fossil fuel use, for example in aircraft, will probably be extremely difficult to phase out. But if we were using just 10% of the fossil fuels that we presently use, there wouldn't really be a 'problem', so long as that use was decreasing rather than growing.

This is Sauvignon Blanc's view, of course. We don't subscribe to the view that fossil fuel use must be 'eradicated', merely drasticly cut back emitting decreasing pollution levels.

Honestly, I think that we need to do a sideways x^3 curve. We need to increase the drop in the early years, but let the drop taper off in later years once we're at like 5-10% of our current usage (and basically, using it only for things that couldn't be phased out whatsoever). However, we'll see.

Any exponential curve would do just that. The diminishing method that was proposed was an 'off-the-top-of-my-head' suggestion.

It is important that it's a diminishing curve. But for the sake of simplicity alone I suggested the 1.5% decrease. That way a nation can simply look at last year's emissions, deduct 1.5% and have this year's emissions. Using an exponential curve would require calculation for each year, independent of last years claim.

But if you want to suggest a simple exponent, feel free. A 'sideways x^3' seems a bit extravagent - you should probably use a square root rather than a cube root, because we don't want a dramatically sharp reduction at first lest we suffer extreme economic consequences.

I'd even suggest, perhaps, a 3% reduction for the first 10 years, followed by a 2% reduction for the following 10 years, and a final phase of 1.5% reduction for the remainder of the life of fossil fuels. Much simpler than a formula for the average. There's no need to use anything more complex than this.

There needs to be a clarification as to whether this resolution proposes the complete cessation of fossil fuel use, or whether it merely proposes dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use.

The Commonwealth of Sauvignon Blanc strongly advocates the latter. As at present, many industries have no possible (let alone viable) alternative to fossil fuels. We would suggest that a reduction to 15% or 20% of current levels with a timeframe in vicinity of 50 years would be most suitable.

It is counterintuitive to resolve to cease use of fossil fuels until there is a substitute. To do so would be relying on 'discovering' new alternatives. We should simply resolve to remove fossil fuels where possible.

the reason I used the cubic is then you have a mild decrease, followed by a major, followed by a minor. The reason for this is you first convert your industry over so it can produce enviro friendly items (which in itself doesn't have much in terms of actual decreases), then you convert most of what you can, and then it levels off as you run out of possible things to convert.

Honestly, 1.5% won't be fast enough TBH, that's why we need the double curve. In 35 years, you're only at 58% of your emissions this year.

3% - 34$
5% - 16%
7% - 8%

But can we exactly drop by 7% all of a sudden? I doubt it. My RL home nation is complaining about its 8% reduction under Kyoto by, what 2012(?). So...yeah.

I think the goal should be total fossil fuel based energy elimination. The problem still remains that fossil fuels are finite resources. Also, though cutting emmissions is good, it still leaves the problem of finite resources because reducing emmisisons may just mean making them cleaner, not burning less.

I think starting at a 1% reduction in fossil fuel energy consumption and increasing that redcuction rate by 1% each year is not unfair to nations. This would mean that fossil fuels as energy sources would be phased out over about 100 years. If countries can't find an alternative for things like jet fuel in 100 years, well that's too bad, basic necessities would definitely be met by this time.

so in 20 years, we'll be at about 10% of current use, 2.8% in 25 years, .055% in 30 years, and obscenely small in 35 years.

Maybe you should post your new proposal here or give us the gist of it. If it is similar enough to mine, let's merge it and co-author it, if it is a good proposal but comes at it from another angle, let's keep them seperate and allow the favorite to win.

I have posted the resolution as a seperate topic. I'm thinking that the way things are, are good so perhaps we could continue competing as we are, it seems to be profiting both resolutions :D .

Hope that's ok ;)
Starcra

--The crowd gasps, Starcra had not ended with 'Cheers' but with 'Hope that's ok'. Was this the sign of the apocalypse?

so in 20 years, we'll be at about 10% of current use, 2.8% in 25 years, .055% in 30 years, and obscenely small in 35 years.

I think this might be a bit too drastic for most peoples' tastes.

Also, I would like to have the resolution actively promoting clean, renewable alternatives along with reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

It makes more sense to first repeal the current resolution, and then start over. Much simpler. Ficticious Proportions has written a very reasonable (and gracious) repeal that needs only 45 more supporters to pass.

AK_ID

We are starting over. That the entire concept of a replacement resolution.

It makes more sense to first repeal the current resolution, and then start over. Much simpler. Ficticious Proportions has written a very reasonable (and gracious) repeal that needs only 45 more supporters to pass.

AK_ID

I haven't submitted anything yet, but by the time the Solar Panel resolution is repealed, we will have ironed out a sound proposal to replace the flawed resolution. There is still much to work out, so efficient opperation mandates taking action before it is necessary.

I think this might be a bit too drastic for most peoples' tastes.

Also, I would like to have the resolution actively promoting clean, renewable alternatives along with reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Ok, give me set points that we're using as objectives. I want to know percentage of current usage that's bounded, and what year it is and I'll put a graph to it.

I'm still quite adament that decreases ought to be percentile based rather than formulaic.

If you want:

first ten years: 1.5% pa
following twenty years: 4% pa
thereafter: 1.5% pa

Again, just possible percentages. But to have a formula - to have a yearly output be determined by a complex function of the year number seems unneccessarily complicated. I don't like the thought of having to pull out a calculator to work out the years' output;

'this year is 2021, and we started the program in 2013, so it's the ninth year. Or is it eighth? Anyway, then we have to solve x=0.6*y^3 - 2xy^2 + 90y + 20 for x = 8. Or 9, I'm not sure. Who remembers how to solve differential equations? Let's just get the national statisticians to write down each year as a percentage of the first year's emissions, because that'll be much easier.'

See what I mean? If it can be agreed upon what the decreasing pattern should look like, there's no need to integrate that back into an algebraic expression simply to be concise. It's akin to encoding the proposal with a cypher and expecting UN members to decypher the text in order to read - an unneccessary waste of time.

Not to mention, if you were given just five 'points' that the 'curve' must go through, you'd need to determine a fifth degree polynomial. Eight 'points' and an eight degree polynomial. Any more than that is extremely excessive! There's a lot to be said for a disjointed linear function, ie:

y(x) = { y(x-1)*(100%-1.5%), for x < 11
{ y(x-1)*(100%-4%), for 10 < x < 31
{ y(x-1)*(100%-1.5%), for 30 < x

Not only is it easier to read, simpler to work out, and more relevant, but it will also provide more reasonable yearly figures. For starters, each year's figure will be a rational number - you can't even guarantee that when you're using cubics.

Having seen the proliferation of formuli and statistics and talks of curves and exponential reductions, perhaps it's time for a change of thinking as to the best way to measure advancement towards completing the goals of this resolution.

Perhaps instead of trying to come up with a formula for reducing emissions, we should instead look at measuring progress through the local environmental readings and statistics of each nation, pertaining to the effects of fossil fuel use. Thus, if we were measuring CO2 emissions from cars, then we could look at bulk traffic on the roads, then the quantities of pollutants emitted per annum by cars and of course, the carbon dioxide levels. Thus, we could individualise each nations priorities and targets. It would be rather bureaucratic, but so long as we set ourselves a general target for cutting emissions, rather than micro-managing the exact progress, we could make it a lot more flexible and sucessful.

Also, we could offer subsidies to fossil fuel dependant or smaller nations, that might have difficulty in switching over to renewable energy. Perhaps if we used the formula of:
Y=x+2z
Where Y is the subsidy amount, x the amount spent on energy and environment each year by the nation in question and z the revenue from the energy sources that will be downgraded (i.e. coal mining, natural gas exploration, etc).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I agree about not using complicated equations used to determine how much a nation has to reduce comsumption. I also think the rate of consumption is just as, if not more important than emmision levels.

So how about this:

Nations must honestly calculate their fossil fuels consumed annually for producing energy. This number shall be their ceiling rate of consumption. They shall then have a 5 year grace period to get ready for reducing consumption below that level. After the grace period, they must cut consumption by 1% each year, for five years. After that they must cut consumption by 5% each year, for the next five years, 10% a year for the five after that, until consumption is completely cut off.

If there is an equation that can do this and still be simple enough for the average UNian to understand, please tell me. I think the overall approach of reducing consumption slowly at first and more drastically over time and having fossil fuel based energy halted completely in about 50 to 60 years, should be reasonable.

This still leaves the question of nations that cannot or will not comply. For the ones that cannot, aid would be a good option, but where could that aid come from is a big question. The UN cannot impose taxes and receives no funding that I am aware of and relying on stronger countries to help out of the goodness of their heart is reaching.

For nations that refuse to comply, trade sanctions might be a good way to prod them.

And still there is the issue of promoting clean renewable energy sources at the same time as reducing consumption.

You just wrote the formula as it will be used. We don't need to compress it into a polynomial.

I feel that the cut of 10% per year is too drastic, and I'd prefer to see it at 5% per year. 10% per year is not much different than the original proposal of a 10 year phase-out of fossil fuels, remember.

I'd also like to see the lower rate of 5% a year only implemented for 15 or 20 years, and then revert back to a lower 1% or 2% once the total level of use (or emissions) is below, perhaps, 10% of the 'ceiling'.

Firstly this will be a reassurance that those industries which rely completely on fossil fuels will be able to survive even if no alternative is found out. Secondly, in 30 or 40 years if there are alternatives to such industries' needs then a further proposal may be issued. I believe it to be naive to issue a proposal banning something that is presently 'needed' in order to make our world operational.

Maybe this could be taken from a different angle. Like defining the term "significant phase-out progress" as reducing consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of current consumption.

And at the same time defining "significant phase-in progress" as increasing research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and efficiency and conservation at a minimum of 1% of current capacity, per year, until the first goal is met.

There could also be an incentive for countries that meet the reduction goal before the minimum required time, which would work out to 40 years. This would also satisfy your concern about not totally phasing out fossil fuel.

How about some incentives for business and industry. If it wasn't for the taxes and profits they generate, your various governments would have no money to function. Formulas are all well and good, but how about something here that makes me believe that this isn't just another attempt to regulate industry until it cannot operate. So far I see no reason why my country would wish to cooperate. We favor cutting back fossil fuels, but the major industry of my country requires steel. The government agrees with Sauvignon Blanc. Lets wait until there is an alternative to fossil feuls before altogether eliminating them.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

How about some incentives for business and industry. We favor cutting back fossil fuels, but the major industry of my country requires steel. The government agrees with Sauvignon Blanc. Lets wait until there is an alternative to fossil feuls before altogether eliminating them.


OK, what kind of incentives could the UN give business and industry?

And in my last post I talked about getting consumption down below 10% of current levels. This would still be enough to have a healthy steel industry, I would imagine. And why couldn't other fuels be used for steel production? Please note that the proposal is worded to only affect fossil fuel used for producing energy.

My concern is with the cutting back of fossil fuels, coal production would be cut back as well. In RL coal is still mined because of its use in powering electric plants. The other uses such as the making of Coke, is not as profitable, and my fear is it would be so here(in NS)as well. With a smaller demand for coal, less mining occurs, and the price goes up which in turn, makes steel prices go up. Also in the manufacturing of Coke, the gas produced is probally not very good for the enviroment and atmosphere(it certainly is unpleasent to smell when you drive or walk past a Coke Plant) and I'm sure regulations on that willbe forthcoming if not now then later. I still feel you should encourage nations who take part in this resolution to consider giving tax breaks for businesses that comply. Also I would like to see such language as encouraging the private sector of the various nations to get involved in the research. I know this is probally impractical(and most likly illegal by game standards and rules), and would probally kill the resolution if added(I'm begining to figure out my fellow UN members well).

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
THe Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

Is the manufacturing of Coke a byproduct of coal mining, or is mining for coal to produce Coke a seperate endevour? Also, as demand for coal falls, so too should the price, which might make mining for Coke production a more profitable venture.

As to your second point, if I worded it as "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES: governments to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help the nation comply with the requirements" I don't see how that would be illegal.

-or-

"STRONGLY ENCOURAGES: nations to give tax breaks to private and nonprofit companies and private individuals that comply with the resolution requirements" I don't think this would be illegal either, but maybe someone with better knowledge of UN rules than I could give some insight to this.

Coke production is a seperate process. Coke is produced by the destructive distillation of coal in a Coke oven. Basically coal is burned in a oxygen free environment until all the volitile components evaporate, leaving coke(EPA, and ISS.org). Not all coal is suitable and some must be blended(Iss.org). The reason the price of coal worries me even if demand goes down, you still have many regulations to mining, and the types of mining used. That is really what keeps the price up. I just fear with reduced demand for coal fired power plants, the coal companies wouls raise their prices to compensate. However since this regulation would only effect UN members, perhaps there won't be much impact. Both types cause a strain on the Enviroment(both strip/mountaintop removal and standard tunnel mining). That's just my concern about coal. Its better to clarify during drafting than afterwards.

On the other point either wording is acceptable to me. Probally the first wording would be best as it is vague enough to get a pass. That wording can allow a multitude of meanings.

You've done a thorough job, and even humored an evil conservative's rantings and questions. You've answered my concerns. Good job.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador

You've done a thorough job, and even humored an evil conservative's rantings and questions. You've answered my concerns. Good job.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador

Well, this godless liberal thanks you for your comments. I think I shall add the first wording of the incentive to the proposal.

To all other UN nations: there is still much that needs to be worked out, many terms to define still and such. Many nations seem to complain about proposals only after they are submitted, this is the time for having concerns addressed while the proposal can still be changed. Please comment. Don't worry about if it is something I would want to here or not, I can handle and welcome criticism as long as it is constructive.

OK I've made lots of changes based on your comments, so, to make it clear where the resolution stands right now, here it is again

NOTING: that using fossil fuel as an energy source cannot continue indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance on clean, renewable energy sources.

NOTING: that the current level of energy generation may itself be unsustainable in the long term and that programs that promote conservation and increased energy efficiency, as well as reassessing what are energy needs and what are unnecessary luxuries, will be key parts.

NOTING: that environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels is not localized to the country burning them but rather of global concern.

REALIZING: that the drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels is a monumental task requiring the help, cooperation, and commitment of all UN nations.

DEFINITIONS

Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel.

Clean, renewable energy sources: energy derived from sources that do not completely use up natural resources or do significant harm the environment in the long-term.

The UN hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Terms of the resolution

Section A: Each nation must calculate the average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their "ceiling consumption rate." Each nation is required to reduce consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that, after one year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate; after two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate; and so on.

Section B: Each nation must increase funding for research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs by a minimum of 1% per year, until Section A has been satisfied.

Section C: Nations may use energy sources that are ultimately not sustainable, such as nuclear fission, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.

Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help it comply with the requirements set out in Sections A through C.

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before the minimum required term of 45 years, implied in Section A, shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid they are receiving, until said 45 year term.

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need. Legitimate significant needs are extensive damage to infrastructure or economy because of:
Natural disasters
War
Severe economic depression
If significant need is established, an appropriate time extension relative to need will be granted.

Section B: If a nation refuses to comply with the resolution, the UN grants the right to UN member nations to impose trade sanctions on the offending nation, except for sanctions previously banned by the UN, until the nation comes into compliance.

So far so good. Right now I don't have much of a problem with it.
Excelsior
Sen Horatio Sulla

OOC: time for a little fine-tuning:

NOTING: that using fossil fuels as an energy source cannot continue
indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

Proposed change:

Please change "an energy source" to "energy sources" to rectify the
singular/plural mismatch.

----------------------------------------------

NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires drastic reduction
of the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance
of clean, renewable energy sources.

Proposed change:

Please change "reliance of clean" to "reliance on clean."


----------------------------------------------

Section A: Each nation must honestly calculate the average amount of
fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their
"ceiling consumption rate". They are required to reduce consumption
by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at
or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that after one
year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate, after
two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate, and so on.


Proposed changes:

1) Strike "honestly." It cannot be enforced.

2) Place the quote after "rate" AFTER the period, as is
gramatically correct.

3) Change "They are" to "Said nation is" to maintain consistency.

4) Place a comma after "means that" to ensure proper punctuation.

5) change the commas after "consumption rate" to semicolons, again
to ensure proper punctuation.

--------------------------------------------

Section B: If a nation refuses to comply with the resolution, the UN
grants the right to UN member nations it impose trade sanctions on the
offending nation, except for sanctions previously banned by the UN,
until the nations comes into compliance.

Proposed change:

Please change "it impose" to "to impose."

--------------------------------------------

Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give
incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help the nation
comply with the requirements.




Proposed changes:

1) Change "the requirements" to "requirements set forth in sections
A through C."

2) Strike "the nation" before "comply." It goes without saying.

--------------------------------------------

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before
the minimum requirement, they shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid
they are receiving.



Proposed changes:

1) change "minimum requirement" to "term of 45 years implied in
section A" to make it more specific.

2) strike ", they" as it is redundant.

---------------------------------------------

Dastardly Stench']OOC: time for a little fine-tuning:

NOTING: that using fossil fuels as an energy source cannot continue
indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

Proposed change:

Please change "an energy source" to "energy sources" to rectify the
singular/plural mismatch.

Actually there's no mismatch there, they're referring to all fossil fuels as a group so there is no need to change anything.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OK, I've corrected the mistakes, thanks!

as a firm believer in the bettering of humanity as a race, centrist britain would prefer to see more emphasis on research into future sources of clean energy. this research we feel, would also work better if conducted internationally and not by the private sector; governments should set aside an adequate percentage of their GDP to give to this international research group in order to sustain the best chance of finding a new alternative, and quickly.

OK, I did include a 1% increase per year in funding of R&D and implementation of clean renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs. But if you think that's not enough, what would you propose?

You would also like to see more collaboration between nations, what kind of language would you like to see there? In my last proposal attempt, I tried having a Council to End Fossil Fuel Use, but people didn't like that because they don't like committies and mine could have been a prohibitted one, since it was the main part of the proposal. So how would you like the international community to collaborate more?

Doesn't the fact that populations in NS commonly grow at a much faster rate than in the real world make setting "consumption ceilings" based on previous fuel usage a bit problematical?

Do we, speaking cynically, also need to add a clause limiting the importation of electricity that was produced by burning fossil fuels from any nearby nations who aren't in the UN & thus aren't covered by these restrictions?

Doesn't the fact that populations in NS commonly grow at a much faster rate than in the real world make setting "consumption ceilings" based on previous fuel usage a bit problematical?

Doesn't this same fact mean that trying to supply any kind of power to nations "problematical?" There are many inconsistencies between NS nations and real life ones. How about the fact that everyday, many nations cease to exist and basically their populations die instantaneously? Should there not be a resolution setting aside billions of acres to bury the billions that die each day for no other reason than that their leader frogot to check on them? Obviously not. The point is that it is problematic to make resolutions based on NS mechanics that are so far from RL mechanics.

Do we, speaking cynically, also need to add a clause limiting the importation of electricity that was produced by burning fossil fuels from any nearby nations who aren't in the UN & thus aren't covered by these restrictions?

I think energy importation would be negligable and limiting trade between UN nations and non Un nations is bordering on illegality, since UN resolutions are only supposed to cover UN nations.

I think energy importation would be negligable
Energy importation and exportation is probably more common than you think. The power grids of Yelda and Yeldan UN Mission are completely integrated.

and limiting trade between UN nations and non Un nations is bordering on illegality, since UN resolutions are only supposed to cover UN nations.
Actually, there is precedent for doing that.
5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

Actually there's no mismatch there, they're referring to all fossil fuels as a group so there is no need to change anything.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

From a purely gramatical standpoint, it is a singular/plural mismatch. If "they"
are referring to "fuels" as a single entity, then "they" (whoever "they" may be)
are using poor grammar.

OK, I've corrected the mistakes, thanks!

I'm sorry. It appears as though I missed one.



At the end of the document:



until the nations comes into compliance.



should be changed to "until the nation comes into compliance."



Again, I apologise for the oversight.

Dastardly Stench']From a purely gramatical standpoint, it is a singular/plural mismatch. If "they"
are referring to "fuels" as a single entity, then "they" (whoever "they" may be)
are using poor grammar.
Fossil fuels is being used in this context to refer to multiple fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) at one time thereby treating them as one object, therefore there is no plural/singular mismatch.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

DEFINITIONS

Fossil fuels: A hydrocarbon deposit, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel.

Clean, renewable energy sources: energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or do significant harm the environment in the long-term.

I have some questions about the above wording. Wouldn't hydrocarbon deposits include dead corn and dead soybeans? And wouldn't "energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources" pretty much limit us to pre-Stone Age life? Nuclear energy utilizes natural resources. Hydro power uses natural resources (and even damages the environment -- witness the decline in Pacific Northwest salmon populations as a result of dams built on the Columbia/Snake river drainages).

Quite frankly, there IS NO energy source available to mankind that doesn't cause some sort of deleterious effect to the environment.

AK_ID

Energy importation and exportation is probably more common than you think. The power grids of Yelda and Yeldan UN Mission are completely integrated.

You cited language in a biological weapns ban. Energy is different from bioweapons in that it is not as easily transported as them. You cannot simply load up energy on a truck and drive it across national lines, there needs to be a lot of infrustructure set up like high tension power lines. The problem with this is that the electricity is diminished more, the further it has to travel, not too practical for larger nations with large populations in the interior. Also, this is more problematic if the would-be energy importer is not bordered by a non UN nation with significant fossil fuel power produciton. Relying on other nations for power, especially ones not bound by the rules of the UN, sets up a security risk in that the UN nation is now at the mercy of the neighboring government.

By AK_ID: I have some questions about the above wording. Wouldn't hydrocarbon deposits include dead corn and dead soybeans? And wouldn't "energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources" pretty much limit us to pre-Stone Age life? Nuclear energy utilizes natural resources. Hydro power uses natural resources

As per the first definition, no, even concentrations of dead corn or soybeans would not qualify as fossil fuels, since they would have to be form previous geological eras.

I think you must have been looking at the resolution posting on the forst page, the updated version, on the page before this one, more clearly defines clean, renewable energy. But I shall go back and change the original to avoid confusion.

You cited language in a biological weapns ban. Energy is different from bioweapons in that it is not as easily transported as them. You cannot simply load up energy on a truck and <snip>
And if you had been paying attention, you would know that I posted it in reference to your statement about resolutions not being able to affect non-UN nations:
and limiting trade between UN nations and non Un nations is bordering on illegality, since UN resolutions are only supposed to cover UN nations.
Actually, there is precedent for doing that.
5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.
I never said that Biological weapons had anything at all to do with energy. I was trying to point out that resolutions CAN affect non-UN nations.

And remember the California rolling blackouts in RL. Importing elecrticity over great distances is inefficient. And on another subject. I am not trusting enough of my fellow UN members, let alone non-members to allow them to have any control over my nation's power grid, or rely on them for energy. Just another way to keep your weapons clean, and your powder dry.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

And remember the California rolling blackouts in RL. Importing elecrticity over great distances is inefficient. And on another subject. I am not trusting enough of my fellow UN members, let alone non-members to allow them to have any control over my nation's power grid, or rely on them for energy. Just another way to keep your weapons clean, and your powder dry.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Keep in mind that Yeldan UN Mission is basically a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Yelda. It was carved out of Yeldan territory when Yelda exited the UN. All of the infrastructure is as it was before that.

Keep in mind that Yeldan UN Mission is basically a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Yelda. It was carved out of Yeldan territory when Yelda exited the UN. All of the infrastructure is as it was before that.
Sorry, I was thinking more of nations other than yourselves. :(
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

And if you had been paying attention, you would know that I posted it in reference to your statement about resolutions not being able to affect non-UN nations:

I never said that Biological weapons had anything at all to do with energy. I was trying to point out that resolutions CAN affect non-UN nations.

And if you would have been paying attention, you would have realized that I was saying that it didn't matter that you were talking about precidence for regulating trade between UN and non UN nations, in the vast majority of UN nations, importing any significant portion of oil derived power would be unfeasible. This is not a loophole that needs to be closed, especially when the resolution requires UN nations to increase funding for clean, renwable energy projects.

I don't care if the resolution COULD affect trade between UN and non UN nations, it doesn't need to and is treading on dangerous ground, not to mention making it less desireable for those nations who are already weary opf the UN going too far. I realize that the resolution as it stands raises soveriegnty issues, but I am willing to defend those points as being issues that only the international body of the UN can properly deal with and as being for the collective good. I do not feel like adding to those issues just for closing a small loophole that I doubt many would use.

And if you would have been paying attention, you would have realized that I was saying that it didn't matter that you were talking about precidence for regulating trade between UN and non UN nations, in the vast majority of UN nations, importing any significant portion of oil derived power would be unfeasible. This is not a loophole that needs to be closed, especially when the resolution requires UN nations to increase funding for clean, renwable energy projects.

I don't care if the resolution COULD affect trade between UN and non UN nations, it doesn't need to and is treading on dangerous ground, not to mention making it less desireable for those nations who are already weary opf the UN going too far. I realize that the resolution as it stands raises soveriegnty issues, but I am willing to defend those points as being issues that only the international body of the UN can properly deal with and as being for the collective good. I do not feel like adding to those issues just for closing a small loophole that I doubt many would use.

And if you had been paying attention you would have realised that I wasn't saying that you SHOULD regulate trade between UN and non-UN states, just that you COULD. I'm not planning to support either of these replacements. Don't piss me off and cause me to actively oppose this one.

Fine, I COULD, but I WON'T, because I find it unnecessary. For what reason do you plan to not support this resolution?

Fine, I COULD, but I WON'T, because I find it unnecessary. For what reason do you plan to not support this resolution?
1): Because I remain unconvinced of the ability of the UN to make intelligent decisions concerning our energy policy.
2): I don't like making what was intended as a helpful post, only to be met with insolence.

By Yelda UN Mission: Don't piss me off and cause me to actively oppose this one.

And I don't like being threatened.

I don't feel that I instigated the insolence, but in the interest of cooperation, I apologize for the tone of my remarks and will try to keep things civil from now on.

Fossil fuels is being used in this context to refer to multiple fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) at one time thereby treating them as one object, therefore there is no plural/singular mismatch.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Regardless of grouping, "fuels" is plural, and that's all there is to it.
The semantics do not override the syntax.

Dastardly Stench']Regardless of grouping, "fuels" is plural, and that's all there is to it.
The semantics do not override the syntax.
You're quite correct that fuels is typically plural, however as in this situtation all fossil fuels are being discussed as a group it counts as a single object. :headbang:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have changed it to say fossil fuels as energy sources, so now we can discuss more important issues.

Are there any more concerns about my proposal, or should I consider it finalized?

Flanagania approves.
Now let's get moving on this. Too much time has been wasted.

Very well, i plan on submitting this on Friday of this week, so that I might have some time to campaign for it. I ask all of you who have supported me in my effort to urge your delegate and allied delegates to endorse this, when the time comes to do so.

Thank you all again for your immense help, this proposal would never have gotten off the ground without you.
Peace!
Ateelatay

So, once again, the proposal version I will be submitting:

NOTING: that using fossil fuel as an energy source cannot continue indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance on clean, renewable energy sources.

NOTING: that the current level of energy generation may itself be unsustainable in the long term and that programs that promote conservation and increased energy efficiency, as well as reassessing what are energy needs and what are unnecessary luxuries, will be key parts.

NOTING: that environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels is not localized to the country burning them but rather of global concern.

REALIZING: that the drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels is a monumental task requiring the help, cooperation, and commitment of all UN nations.

DEFINITIONS

Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel.

Clean, renewable energy sources: energy derived from sources that do not completely use up natural resources or do significant harm the environment in the long-term.

The UN hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Terms of the resolution

Section A: Each nation must calculate the average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their "ceiling consumption rate." Each nation is required to reduce consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that, after one year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate; after two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate; and so on.

Section B: Each nation must increase funding for research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs by a minimum of 1% per year, until Section A has been satisfied.

Section C: Nations may use energy sources that are ultimately not sustainable, such as nuclear fission, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.

Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help it comply with the requirements set out in Sections A through C.

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before the minimum required term of 45 years, implied in Section A, shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid they are receiving, until said 45 year term.

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need. Legitimate significant needs are extensive damage to infrastructure or economy because of:
Natural disasters
War
Severe economic depression
If significant need is established, an appropriate time extension relative to need will be granted.

Section B: If a nation refuses to comply with the resolution, the UN grants the right to UN member nations to impose trade sanctions on the offending nation, except for sanctions previously banned by the UN, until the nation comes into compliance.

In light of the suitably timetabled, phased introduction of renewable energy sources over a 45 year period, the consideration given to research (that nations are within their rights to improve upon above the resolution), the generous incentive of a 5% bursary for the most active about their environmental concerns and the consideration for worst case scenarios, The Theoretical Dominion of Ficticious Proportions will SUPPORT this resolution.

Can I suggest, however, that perhaps nuclear fission (not fusion) power be included along with fossil fuels in being reduced to 10% of the ceiling consumption rate - not as a condemnation of it, but so that the 90% of the world's energy supplies come from completely renewable sources, and that nations be encouraged to adopt nuclear fission power instead of fossil fuel based power supplies for the remaining 10%, which would elimate CO2 emissions from power plants (of UN members, at least) nigh on completely if followed unilaterally.

Perhaps "Nuclear Meltdown" should be added to the list of reasons for Special Cases as well, but excluding those due to unsafe design, gross negligence and ill-management.

Our support is not conditional to these points being added by any means, but we feel they would make a worthy addition nonetheless, whilst respecting that the author's word is final.

Firstly, thank you for your vote of confidence!

Can I suggest, however, that perhaps nuclear fission (not fusion) power be included along with fossil fuels in being reduced to 10% of the ceiling consumption rate - not as a condemnation of it, but so that the 90% of the world's energy supplies come from completely renewable sources, and that nations be encouraged to adopt nuclear fission power instead of fossil fuel based power supplies for the remaining 10%

I can understand your want to reduce fission as well as fossil fuels and the resolution implies that any use of fission must be viewed as temporary, however, I think that the explicit reduction of fission powe use should be dealt with in a seperate proposal.

People will also complain about not being able to run certain things that would be impractical to use fission for, like air planes and other vehicles that use a lot of power but have limited space or would be too dangerous to have fission power onboard.

Perhaps "Nuclear Meltdown" should be added to the list of reasons for Special Cases as well, but excluding those due to unsafe design, gross negligence and ill-management.

I would guess that modern nuclear power plants would only meltdown because of the couses you listed.

Thank you for your comments though, I will keep these concerns in mind when it comes time to defend my proposal, if it comes to that.

:upyours: F*** you solar panels!!!!! our power my country however i want!!!! you cant tell me what to run my country on!!!!! i dont care about nature!!!!! who is with me to declare war on the **** head who suggested this?

:upyours: F*** you solar panels!!!!! our power my country however i want!!!! you cant tell me what to run my country on!!!!! i dont care about nature!!!!! who is with me to declare war on the **** head who suggested this?

OK, I'll pretend for a moment that you posted for some other reason than to flame. Kindly read my proposal before commenting on it. There is no mention of solar panels whatsoever in it. You are obviously reacting, rather childishly, to the title of the resolution, which refurs to a previously passed and now repealed resolution.

That's really nice that you don't care about nature, maybe if you ignore it long enough it will go away :D .

You can declare war on me all you want, hell, get all your reactionary, bored, block-headed buddies together and declare war on me. Too bad declaring war on me doesn't mean you could actually go to war with me, it would have been quite a sight to see all your big, macho, polluting machines of war crashing through the pristene wilderness of my country to uphold the basic tennant of any free society: the freedom to run your big, gass-guzzling vehicles on whatever you damn well please, even if it means destroying the environments of your country and others around the world.

So I guess, after pondering over your comment, I will not submit my proposal because someone who knows how to use the nasty smileys and use lots of punctuation doesn't want me to :rolleyes:

Oh, and P.S. F*** you solar panels!!!!! My country's name is Ateelatay, not solar panels, get it straight.

Hang on; what about past tech countries? Like Cobdenia.

We're still using coal and steam!

Hang on; what about past tech countries? Like Cobdenia.
We're still using coal and steam!

Aside form the probable fact that most nations are not past tech countries, it shouldn't be nearly as hard for you to comply, not being as dependent on fossil fuel yet (I would assume that past tech would include heavier use of draft animals and pack animals).

I can understand your want to reduce fission as well as fossil fuels and the resolution implies that any use of fission must be viewed as temporary, however, I think that the explicit reduction of fission powe use should be dealt with in a seperate proposal.

I wasn't trying to reduce fission for the sake of reducing fission - it was to attempt to ensure that 90% of the energy was renewable.

People will also complain about not being able to run certain things that would be impractical to use fission for, like air planes and other vehicles that use a lot of power but have limited space or would be too dangerous to have fission power onboard.

Valid point. I was posting in a hurry and forgot about combustion engines - I was purely thinking about power plants because of my previous lines of thought about nuclear plants. (I'm not going to defend nuclear submarines either. :) )

Hang on; what about past tech countries? Like Cobdenia.

We're still using coal and steam!

I can sympathesise with your point somewhat. Perhaps we should have a thread defining eras as a fixed range of years - then we could set years in resolutions for these conditions to be met. That way, nations in the past have time to catch up without denting their choice of era to RP in, and nations in the future will have to have concessions in order for them to meet the criteria...

...it'd be an added complication for RPing, but it'd certainly be one I'd be prepared to work with.