NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand there is already a thread for this but I ask the mods not to merge them as now so that we can get different views. (Most of you are aware of the debate so you probably know what I'm refering to.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, here it is. New, improved and ready. And with a new name too! Let's get the ball rolling shall we?

Proposal Name – Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources.
Effects – Environment, All Businesses
Status – Version 3.

NOTING Resolution #122 and it’s repeal and defining this proposal as it’s replacement.

OBSERVING that the burning of Fossil Fuels is damaging the environment.

MAKING NOTE that -

1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

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

3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, amongst other effects, melts the polar ice caps.

DEFINES alternative energy sources to include solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear, in addition to any future sources of electrical energy that produce minimal pollution that might be developed in the future.

MAKES NOTE that depending on the climate and environmental situation of the nation, different methods will be more efficient and preferable.

REMINDING all nations that nuclear power requires trained workers along with proper equipment and infrastructure to operate safely.

On the passing of this resolution the UN and all it’s members will –

1) Begin projects to promote Alternative energy sources in homes and in workplaces.

2) Will set aside an amount of government funds for the manufacturing, distributing and/or building, of the required items to implement the nation's prefered forms of alternative energy sources.

3) Over the period of thirty five years after this proposal passes, nations shall stop all burning of fossil fuels and generate energy from alternative energy sources.

4) EXEMPTING Article 3 for the burning of fossil fuels for purposes of transportation or mass manufacturing at the discretion of the host nation.

5) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project. Funding for other nations' developement of alternative energy sources will not be mandatory but an option to those who wish to do so.

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

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation, the longer time limit being given to those nations with the worst off economies. In the event of a natural disaster in one or more nations, an extension shall also be given.

MAKING note that each nation has the right to decide the price of the new energy sources within their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

FINALLY NOTING that the transition to alternative energy sources, whether it being restricted to one source or many, will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.


It's quite late so I may have left out something. I'll deal with all queries in the morning and all edits shall take place in this post.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I wish to despell the myth that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. It is much worse than fossil fuels. I realize it is a reccommedation, but I will never vote for a reccomendation like that.

Secondly, 35 years is not enough. I'd say 100 years maybe.

And i'd discouraged anything that could be interpreted as providing electricity for nations that don't have it. There are higher priorities on what to provide them.

This is just a suggestion, but have you considered only making solar panels mandatory for residential structures (houses, apartment complexes, etc.). I realise this wouldn't have the effect of eliminating fossil fuels that you're striving for, but it would have a huge impact. You could give an exemption to heavy industry and transportation (especially aviation) while still encouraging research into alternative energy sources to power those sectors. Let's face it, running a house on solar power is possible, running a steel mill or an airliner on solar is not. At least not with MT(RL) technology.

I wish to despell the myth that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. It is much worse than fossil fuels. I realize it is a reccommedation, but I will never vote for a reccomendation like that.

If you maintain the nuclear reactors properly, build them properly, and dispose of the waste correctly, the only pollution should be the waste materials of mechanical lubrication, worn out parts, and the occasional worn-out reactor. All of this can be disposed of safely.

Pretty much, paying attention and remembering nuclear reactors tend to melt down if you act like an idiot should prevent them from being a problem and limit their pollution to minor amounts.

Secondly, 35 years is not enough. I'd say 100 years maybe.

I would say 50 is better. 35 years is enough time to successfully convert a system, but 50 allows leeway for natural disasters. 100 years is only if you have an inefficient government.

And i'd discouraged anything that could be interpreted as providing electricity for nations that don't have it. There are higher priorities on what to provide them.

Most of those higher priorities require electricity in some form. If you give electricity to them, you can begin them on a path of advancement that eventually removes the need for you to help them.

The Principality of Babitdom strongly urges all U.N nations to withold any support for starcra II and any proposal he may make.

His poorly thought out Resolution #122 has already caused untold problems for many member nations and now he stands before you asking for advise on repealing said resolution.

We respectively suggest Starcra II abandons any plans he has for the rewriting/repeal of his resolution and instead offer his support to those U.N. members already working on the repeal.

Apart from stylistic and grammar issues throughout the text, my main problem is the clauses on fossil fuels (3 and 5). They don't fit together well and could be seen as quite unclear. How about deleting them both, and saying this:

From 50 years after the passage of this resolution, the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of generating electricity shall be prohibited.

Of course, this still leaves no leeway for emergencies and situations where there is no choice, which would need fixing before I could offer support.

Another problem is your listing of alternative energy sources. What if new energy sources are invented/discovered - we wouldn't be able to use them because your resolution doesn't list them.

I noticed at the end of your proposal, you make statements about fossil fuels, and I think these would be better if they were put before the operative clauses. That way you state your anti-fossil fuel arguement before you propose the changes you make. That way, nations will be more likely to want to ratify these changes in the UN.

In the catastrophic aftermath of the the ill-thought-out solar proposal, I wouldn't support the solar author if he/she/it proposed to buy me dinner.

I just received the following message: Laws have been enacted to bring the Empire of AK_ID into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Promotion of Solar Panels".

I consider the above message to be a UN declaration of war upon all free nations of the planet, and I will respond accordingly.

-- A Pissed-Off AK_ID

The solution to bad legislature is not to pile more legislature on top of it.
The solution to a poorly written resolution is not another poorly written resolution.
The solution to an ineffecient beaucracy is not to pile on more beaucracy.

Starcra is, put crudely, a poor author for these bills. The answer is to repeal, and rewrite, by a different author.

Additionally, I have qualms with the following portions of this replacement proposal:

DEFINES alternate energy sources to be Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal and wave and Nuclear generate energy.
Simply too restricting.MAKES NOTE that depending on the climate and geographical position of the nation, different methods will be more profitableHow, exactly? I have a sneaking suspicion that this will turn out to be another financial sinkhole for the UN. Will set aside an amount of government funds into the manufacturing, distributing and/or building, depending on the form of alternative energy the nation wishes to introduce, of the required objects. "Hmm. Defense budget: $200 million, police budget: $100 million, administrative salaries: $10 million, alternative energy source budget: $1.43."Over the period of thirty five years after this proposal passes the nations shall stop all burning of fossil fuels and generate energy from any number of alternative energy sources they may have introduced. So the impending disaster is delayed a few years. Thirty-five years is not enough time to change and stabilize the countless sectors that rely heavily on the consumption of fossil fuel.The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project. This will not force any nations to provide aid but does not restrict any willing nations to help any nations with a poorer economy.National leaders are stingy enough with their own budgets; if voluntary donations were the only source of funding to the UN, you can bet that that ridiculous resolution would have stayed in Starcra, where it belongs.That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own."Whew. Good thing there aren't any nations that don't belong to the UN who would literally be burning up our hard work."

Acceptable, but I do wish that somebody other than Starcra write up the repeal.

This new resolution is a lot better, but there are still problems. I think we should give Starcra the chance to correct his own mistake, but if he should slip up, that's it for him. In this current draft's state, there are loopholes that all of us could walk through together, then there are impossibly restrictive sections. It seems as though this draft is a collection of all of the posts of people complaining about #122; a rewrite by someone different would be good.

I wish to despell the myth that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. It is much worse than fossil fuels. I realize it is a reccommedation, but I will never vote for a reccomendation like that.

Secondly, 35 years is not enough. I'd say 100 years maybe.

And i'd discouraged anything that could be interpreted as providing electricity for nations that don't have it. There are higher priorities on what to provide them.

I disagree about nuclear energy. There are some pluses and minuses to it. It is being phased out in RL Germany, but I'm not sure with what. In any event, our disagreement about what is a "green" energy source and what is not, probably highlights the danger of actually "DEFINING" a list of energy sources. A better approach might be to say,

"AWARE that there are a number of renewable engery sources which might include [insert a long list]"

All you are doing then is saying, "Hey, we have options ... and we know this." :)

I agree about the 35-year time table. While there were provisions in the Kyoto and following accords in RL that *might* have included time tables, for the purpose of NationStates, I like to avoid time tables.

You get screwed either way. You don't have a time table, fundamentalists complain that you aren't really doing anything. You include a time table, fundamentalists complain that you are talking away their "sovereignty". That is the problem, there always will be fundamentalists that just won't consider any sort of compromise. So ultimately you have to sometimes decide which of the two fundamentalists annoys you the most and stick it to them. ;)

I also agree with Commustan's third recommendation too.

Good Morning everybody :)

I wish to despell the myth that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. It is much worse than fossil fuels. I realize it is a reccommedation, but I will never vote for a reccomendation like that.

I believe there is a little note that starts "MAKES NOTE also...". Apart from which I said it was an ALTERNATIVE energy source, not environmentally friendly.

This is just a suggestion, but have you considered only making solar panels mandatory for residential structures (houses, apartment complexes, etc.). I realise this wouldn't have the effect of eliminating fossil fuels that you're striving for, but it would have a huge impact. You could give an exemption to heavy industry and transportation (especially aviation) while still encouraging research into alternative energy sources to power those sectors. Let's face it, running a house on solar power is possible, running a steel mill or an airliner on solar is not. At least not with MT(RL) technology.

But this version doesn't focus on Solar Panels only, it's got all alternative energy sources promoted. Also, this version does allow fossil fuel burning for transport and manufacturing.

I would say 50 is better. 35 years is enough time to successfully convert a system, but 50 allows leeway for natural disasters. 100 years is only if you have an inefficient government.

A 100 is a definite no for me. I based my 35 years on the amount of RL oil we have projected. I'm not sure what NS's reserves are. But what about the provision for those with a lower amount of wealth, how about I include that a time extension may also be given to those nations that have suffered Natural Disasters.

The Principality of Babitdom strongly urges all U.N nations to withold any support for starcra II and any proposal he may make.

His poorly thought out Resolution #122 has already caused untold problems for many member nations and now he stands before you asking for advise on repealing said resolution.

We respectively suggest Starcra II abandons any plans he has for the rewriting/repeal of his resolution and instead offer his support to those U.N. members already working on the repeal.

This area is for the arrangement of the replacement above. I posted it here before proposing it so people can help me arrange it to suit the majority of the UN. In case you haven't noticed I am supporting the repeal, and I'm supporting both the other replacement as well as building this one up. I'm TRYING to arrange matters in a helpful way without blaming anyone, so if you don't mind, unless you have something constructive to add to the proposal, don't play the smear game and let more respectful UN members help me write up a decent proposal.

Apart from stylistic and grammar issues throughout the text

I told you, it was late, I was a bit tired :p


From 50 years after the passage of this resolution, the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of generating electricity shall be prohibited.

Of course, this still leaves no leeway for emergencies and situations where there is no choice, which would need fixing before I could offer support.

There was something similar to this in the previous one, it's better to make note that transport and manufacturing are exempt.


Another problem is your listing of alternative energy sources. What if new energy sources are invented/discovered - we wouldn't be able to use them because your resolution doesn't list them.

Noted.

I noticed at the end of your proposal, you make statements about fossil fuels, and I think these would be better if they were put before the operative clauses. That way you state your anti-fossil fuel arguement before you propose the changes you make. That way, nations will be more likely to want to ratify these changes in the UN.

Gotcha!

The solution to bad legislature is not to pile more legislature on top of it.
The solution to a poorly written resolution is not another poorly written resolution.
The solution to an ineffecient beaucracy is not to pile on more beaucracy.

Well, if you helped with the improvement instead of critisizing it without reading it (Probably) maybe you wouldn't see it so bad.

Acceptable, but I do wish that somebody other than Starcra write up the repeal.

I'm not writing up a repeal :confused:

I think we should give Starcra the chance to correct his own mistake, but if he should slip up, that's it for him. In this current draft's state, there are loopholes that all of us could walk through together, then there are impossibly restrictive sections.

How can I arrange my own mistakes without people helping me to point them out!!??

A 100 is a definite no for me. I based my 35 years on the amount of RL oil we have projected. I'm not sure what NS's reserves are.

Infinite. Part of the problem of NS is a lack of supply deficiencies.

How can I arrange my own mistakes without people helping me to point them out!!??

This is a very good point, and one I believe everyone should try to keep in mind as they reply.

Infinite. Part of the problem of NS is a lack of supply deficiencies.



This is a very good point, and one I believe everyone should try to keep in mind as they reply.

Thank you.

But for your first point, I think we need to create some form of provision that there is, otherwise a lot of resolution passed would be pointless (Any thing related to the protection of species for example).

Proposal Name – Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources.
Effects – Environment, All Businesses
Status – Version 3.

REFERING to Resolution #122 and it’s repeal and defines this proposal as it’s replacement.

1) Refering->Noting
2) defines -> defining
3) Really think this entire line should go (your call)

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

1) Being a fact -> Observing
2) in order to make electricite <- delete
3) fast ->quickly/swiftly
4) Recommended replacement line:
->OBSERVING that the burning of Fossil Fuels is damaging to the environment
I would not attach a speed to it, because then you get into scientific arguments.

DEFINES alternate energy sources to be Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal and wave and Nuclear generate energy.

Query, different between tidal and wave is?
1) generate -> methods to generate

MAKES NOTE that depending on the climate and geographical position of the nation, different methods will be more profitable

1) Profitable -> efficient/practical/preferable
2) Recommend: geographical position -> environmental situation

MAKES NOTE also that while nuclear is recommended as an alternative, the author wishes to advise that any nations wishing to implement this method invest into training any workers to avoid any disasters.

1) that any -> all
2) training any -> training
3) avoid any -> avoid/prevent
4) Recommended rewrite:
REMINDING all nations that nuclear power requires trained workers along with proper equipment and infrastructure to operate safely

On the passing of this resolution the UN and all it’s members will –

1) all it's -> all of its (no apostrophe)

1) Begin projects to promote Alternative energy sources in homes and in places of work located in the tertiary sector.

1) places of work -> workplaces
2) located in the tertiary sector <- delete (while it may be less practical for other industries, promoting it means that those that can convert will...depending on how you promote it)

2) Will set aside an amount of government funds into the manufacturing, distributing and/or building, depending on the form of alternative energy the nation wishes to introduce, of the required objects.

1) funds into the -> funds for the
2) depending on the form....to introduce <- delete
3) of the required objects -> of the required items to implement the nation's prefered forms of alternative energy sources.

3) Over the period of thirty five years after this proposal passes the nations shall stop all burning of fossil fuels and generate energy from any number of alternative energy sources they may have introduced.

1) passes the -> passes,
2) from any numer of -> from
3) them may have introduced <- delete

4) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project. This will not force any nations to provide aid but does not restrict any willing nations to help any nations with a poorer economy.

1) Recommendation: This will not force...poorer economy -> Funding for other nations' developement of alternative energy sources will not be required/mandatory.

5) Bearing Section 3 in mind, fossil fuel burning may still occur, should the nation wish, for and means of transport and mass manufacturing.

1) Swap 4 and 5
2) Recommended re-write:
EXEMPTING Article/Section 3 for the burning of fossil fuels for purposes of transportation or mass manufacturing at the discretion of the host nation.

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

1) may -> will

1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

2) A time extension shall be given, the amount will be decided individually for each nation, the longer time limit being given to those nations with the worst off economies.

1) the longer time limit...-> the length of the extension to be based upon the status of the nation's economy

MAKING note that -

1) Each nation has the right to decide the price of the new energy sources within their nation. As well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

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

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

Don't do sob story 3.

4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which ,apart from other effects, melts the polar ice caps.

1) apart from -> amongst

5) It is also believe by some that the chemical released when burning fossil fuels together with the gases released by waste in waste dumps contribute to the depletion of the ozone.

DON'T. I'm serious when I say this, DON'T. I am not supporting a scientifically questionable resolution ever again. 122 taught me that lesson. Please, you have enough arguments, you don't need to put in questionable data.

FINALLY NOTING that the transition to alternative energy sources, whether it being restricted to one source or many, will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.

VERY debatable.

1) Refering->Noting
2) defines -> defining
3) Really think this entire line should go (your call)

I'll make the arrangements but I think it should stay to show the reference, unless you have a particular reason why it should go?

1) Being a fact -> Observing
2) in order to make electricite <- delete
3) fast ->quickly/swiftly
4) Recommended replacement line:
->OBSERVING that the burning of Fossil Fuels is damaging to the environment
I would not attach a speed to it, because then you get into scientific arguments.

Done.

Query, different between tidal and wave is?
1) generate -> methods to generate

Also done. And I meant to put Hydroelectric :D.

1) Profitable -> efficient/practical/preferable
2) Recommend: geographical position -> environmental situation


Done

1) that any -> all
2) training any -> training
3) avoid any -> avoid/prevent
4) Recommended rewrite:
REMINDING all nations that nuclear power requires trained workers along with proper equipment and infrastructure to operate safely


Done.

1) all it's -> all of its (no apostrophe)



1) places of work -> workplaces
2) located in the tertiary sector <- delete (while it may be less practical for other industries, promoting it means that those that can convert will...depending on how you promote it)


Done.

1) funds into the -> funds for the
2) depending on the form....to introduce <- delete
3) of the required objects -> of the required items to implement the nation's prefered forms of alternative energy sources.



1) passes the -> passes,
2) from any numer of -> from
3) them may have introduced <- delete

O.K. (To replace 'Done')

1) Recommendation: This will not force...poorer economy -> Funding for other nations' developement of alternative energy sources will not be required/mandatory.

1) Swap 4 and 5
2) Recommended re-write:
EXEMPTING Article/Section 3 for the burning of fossil fuels for purposes of transportation or mass manufacturing at the discretion of the host nation.

Both done.

1) may -> will

1) the longer time limit...-> the length of the extension to be based upon the status of the nation's economy


First one ok. Second one brought up problems in Version 2 as people said that it could be interpreted to mean that the nations with the better economy could pay for a time extension.


Don't do sob story 3.



1) apart from -> amongst



DON'T. I'm serious when I say this, DON'T. I am not supporting a scientifically questionable resolution ever again. 122 taught me that lesson. Please, you have enough arguments, you don't need to put in questionable data.

Ok to last 2. The first one, I'll leave for now.

Nice Work Forgottenlands!

Entire proposal is a shambles. Starcra II should've learnt from his last foray into this area that he is ill-qualified, at best, to write an adequate proposal.

I'm still angry at that debacle. Starcra II should issue a public apology and take complete responsibility for it. I would suggest that he must feel responsibility for it lest he would not be 'rewriting' it as we speak.

What a farce.

Entire proposal is a shambles. Starcra II should've learnt from his last foray into this area that he is ill-qualified, at best, to write an adequate proposal.

I'm still angry at that debacle. Starcra II should issue a public apology and take complete responsibility for it. I would suggest that he must feel responsibility for it lest he would not be 'rewriting' it as we speak.

What a farce.

Did you read ANY of the discussion of the orginal proposal, the repeal and it's discussion and the replacement.

I didn't think so, so please don't tell me what I should do and look at what I AM doing. Then judge my actions.

Did you read ANY of the discussion of the orginal proposal, the repeal and it's discussion and the replacement.

I didn't think so, so please don't tell me what I should do and look at what I AM doing. Then judge my actions.Sauvignon Blanc would like to confirm to Starcra II that our delegate has read the entire discussion - probably more than Starcra II itself read - and is extremely well informed on this matter.

Further, Sauvignon Blanc feels that Starcra II has not only demonstrated an inability to think critically of it's own proposals or ideas, but also demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise ideas which have been thoroughly and comprehensively debated against by a vast majority of UN delegates. For these reasons Sauvignon Blanc will be supporting the alternate fossil fuel proposal currently being drafted, and will campaign vehemently against this, and probably all future, Starcra II proposals.

I'll vote against this proposal as vociferously as I did the last. The UN needs to stick to humanitarian aid, and should leave national sovereignty alone.

AK_ID

Entire proposal is a shambles. Starcra II should've learnt from his last foray into this area that he is ill-qualified, at best, to write an adequate proposal.

I cannot believe some of the most DESPICABLE treatment this United Nations has given to one of its members in the past few days. The insults that have been directed at Starcra II have been of the most horrendous nature. As someone who opposed and actively campaigned against Solar Panels II, I am SICK of the treatment that has befallen Starcra II.

Starcra II has remedied the greatest flaws of the past resolution - both in procedure and in area of concern.

Procedure:
- Started debating the draft on the forums
- Willing to make modifications
- Helping with repeal attempts of his/her old resolution

Area of concern:
- No mandatory construction of solar panels
- Taking into account areas that currently have no alternative method of energy production
- Making the resolution about general alternative energy sources
- Addressing concerns about nuclear power

Starcra II may have defended 122 longer that he/she should have, but that defense ended before the resolution was voted in.

I'm still angry at that debacle. Starcra II should issue a public apology and take complete responsibility for it. I would suggest that he must feel responsibility for it lest he would not be 'rewriting' it as we speak.

Starcra II has admitted a mistake, has acknowledged the failings of the original resolution, and is helping with the repeal of the resolution. There is no reason for an apology! If I were to expect any apology, I would expect it from the representative for Sauvignon Blanc for his treatment of Starcra II.

What a farce.

What a disgrace

I'll vote against this proposal as vociferously as I did the last. The UN needs to stick to humanitarian aid, and should leave national sovereignty alone.

AK_ID

Ironically, the last month has been plagued by one member who kept telling the UN to shut up about human rights and pass some environmental resolutions.

This area is for the arrangement of the replacement above. I posted it here before proposing it so people can help me arrange it to suit the majority of the UN. In case you haven't noticed I am supporting the repeal, and I'm supporting both the other replacement as well as building this one up. I'm TRYING to arrange matters in a helpful way without blaming anyone, so if you don't mind, unless you have something constructive to add to the proposal, don't play the smear game and let more respectful UN members help me write up a decent proposal.



I would respectfully suggest to StarcraII that nobody is playing the smear game. You asked for help in rewriting the proposal and as such my advice was to have those more experienced in this area to handle it. You admitted you got it wrong and as such that is comendable but i ask you please do not attempt to correct one error with further errors. On that note the Principality of Babitdom removes itself from all further discussion on this matter as the author is obviously intent on compounding on his errors and is only interested in advice that confirms his own actions.

Quote:

"Ironically, the last month has been plagued by one member who kept telling the UN to shut up about human rights and pass some environmental resolutions.
__________________
Forgottenlord"

Ironically, I am not that member.

Incidentally, I'm surprised the original proposal didn't also include a clause requiring tipping the flipping planet a few degrees in relation to its plane of orbit around the sun to allow for all regions to enjoy 12 hours of sunlight per day, year round. Thank God planet tipping wasn't included -- think of the poor ice caps, lol.

There IS a sane repeal on the threads, folks, and it's not here.

AK_ID

You asked for help in rewriting the proposal and as such my advice was to have those more experienced in this area to handle it.

I asked for advice. Not people telling me not to write any more proposals or consider my critisize me in a way that is not constructive.

but also demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise ideas which have been thoroughly and comprehensively debated against by a vast majority of UN delegates.

You have obviously not read this replacement. Clearly.

--Forgottenlords, thank you for that entire post, I am most grateful.

There IS a sane repeal on the threads, folks, and it's not here.

One Last time - THIS IS NOT A REPEAL!

I cannot believe some of the most DESPICABLE treatment this United Nations has given to one of its members in the past few days. The insults that have been directed at Starcra II have been of the most horrendous nature. As someone who opposed and actively campaigned against Solar Panels II, I am SICK of the treatment that has befallen Starcra II.
I also opposed "Promotion of Solar Panels" and like you, I am getting sick of the sniping and harping against Starcra II. I think it's gone on long enough.
Ironically, the last month has been plagued by one member who kept telling the UN to shut up about human rights and pass some environmental resolutions.
Indeed. And where was that member when there finally was an environmental proposal at vote?
Entire proposal is a shambles. Starcra II should've learnt from his last foray into this area that he is ill-qualified, at best, to write an adequate proposal.

I'm still angry at that debacle. Starcra II should issue a public apology and take complete responsibility for it. I would suggest that he must feel responsibility for it lest he would not be 'rewriting' it as we speak.

What a farce.
And what have you done lately, other than gripe and sling mud? Starcra II might have submitted a flawed proposal, but at least they submitted one. Very few of us (myself included) have submitted, campaigned for, and successfully achieved passage of a resolution. I'm not here to defend the resolution. I had many of the same complaints against it that you do. But Starcra II has authored a resolution, and I respect them for that.

I also opposed "Promotion of Solar Panels" and like you, I am getting sick of the sniping and harping against Starcra II. I think it's gone on long enough.

Indeed. And where was that member when there finally was an environmental proposal at vote?

And what have you done lately, other than gripe and sling mud? Starcra II might have submitted a flawed proposal, but at least they submitted one. Very few of us (myself included) have submitted, campaigned for, and successfully achieved passage of a resolution. I'm not here to defend the resolution. I had many of the same complaints against it that you do. But Starcra II has authored a resolution, and I respect them for that.

Thank you. I'm glad there area number of us who agree with making constructive critisism and arguments.

When this reaches the finished stage, I will try to campaign for it hitting the floor. I may not agree with the issue, but I believe the UN should have a chance to vote on this version and make up their own minds. This version may even get a vote in favor by me when the changes are completed.

I'll offer some constructive advice: Repeal the measure; and don't replace it.

AK_ID

This part doesn't sound right:
MAKING NOTE that -

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

2) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air and clean oceans.
You have it saying "that That". Try this:
MAKING NOTE that -

1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

2) Burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air and clean oceans.
Or this:
MAKING NOTE -

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

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

When this reaches the finished stage, I will try to campaign for it hitting the floor. I may not agree with the issue, but I believe the UN should have a chance to vote on this version and make up their own minds. This version may even get a vote in favor by me when the changes are completed.

Thank you :) All help is very appreciated :)

This part doesn't sound right:

You have it saying "that That". Try this:

Done.

First off, I'm glad to see that someone who has successfully passed a resolution that many consider substandard has returned. Not to sugarcoat it, I do think the solar panel resolution, as it stands, sucks. However, that does not mean that the author of that resolution is guilty of anything other than passing a resolution I think sucks - that is evidenced by said author's willingness to amend or correct the resolution's failings.

That said, what we don't need is another environmental resolution to sit on top of the one we already have. While I support most of the mitigation that the new proposal contains, I firmly believe that we need to repeal the original resolution and then redraft a stronger and more viable resolution. I see no reason why Starcra II shouldn't be at the fore in these processes, but I don't see it as necessary either. Good resolution writing is a collaborative effort, and only one name ends up on the list - if the motivation is getting one's name on the record, I feel that the quality of resolutions suffer.

Thus, my suggestion is to begin the repeal effort with the understanding that a replacement resolution is being drafted. While the repeal project is underway, those couple weeks can be devoted to drafting the replacement. Should the repeal succeed, the draft proposal can be submitted. I consider the "replacement" put forth in this thread is a decent starting point.

Thus, my suggestion is to begin the repeal effort with the understanding that a replacement resolution is being drafted. While the repeal project is underway, those couple weeks can be devoted to drafting the replacement. Should the repeal succeed, the draft proposal can be submitted. I consider the "replacement" put forth in this thread is a decent starting point.
Ficticious Proportions has a repeal currently on page 4 with 71 approvals.

Krioval - A repeal has already been posted, and this resolution will serve as a replacement, not an addition to my previous one. And this version (Version 3) is actually a draft (Well, until the repeal passes at least :)).

I think I may have misunderstood your post so apologies if that is so.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

The Principality of Babitdom strongly urges all U.N nations to withold any support for starcra II and any proposal he may make.

His poorly thought out Resolution #122 has already caused untold problems for many member nations and now he stands before you asking for advise on repealing said resolution.

We respectively suggest Starcra II abandons any plans he has for the rewriting/repeal of his resolution and instead offer his support to those U.N. members already working on the repeal.

Entire proposal is a shambles. Starcra II should've learnt from his last foray into this area that he is ill-qualified, at best, to write an adequate proposal.

I'm still angry at that debacle. Starcra II should issue a public apology and take complete responsibility for it. I would suggest that he must feel responsibility for it lest he would not be 'rewriting' it as we speak.

What a farce.

The people of the Dominion of the Machine Spirit are also not happy with the poorly thought out "Promotion of Solar Panels" resolution however we urge our colleagues in the UN to not resort to ad hominum attacks on each other. Please keep the criticisms to the draft proposal at hand and not to the writer.

Whatever you think of the people of Starcra II or their writing ability, their resolution went to vote and passed. The fact that the delegate from Starcra II is willing to support the repeal of his own resolution that he worked to get passed while asking for group input to a replacement speaks well of his character. This should be encouraged.

If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the 6000 or so nations that voted for the "Promotion of Solar Panels" resolution without participating in the forum discussions.

May your gears mesh in harmony. - End Statement -

Don't just get mad at those 6000 people just for not reading the forum discussion. Get mad at them for not even reading the resolution before voting on it. The majority saw the title and didn't even read it or if they did they have little business being ambassadors or delegates. Someone with as little as a middle school education should of at least had the vaguest of notions as to what the ramifications of the proposal would be as it was written.

I cannot blame any members for their failure to see the obvious rammifications. I had initially supported it, as had several others on these forums. We supported it for we did not know the specifics and were not aware of the sheer monstrosity of the problem at hand. As such, I cannot blame those people for that reason. It was after my beliefs had been challenged both on these forums and on my region board that I saw the errors and changed my belief.

I cannot blame any members for their failure to see the obvious rammifications. I had initially supported it, as had several others on these forums. We supported it for we did not know the specifics and were not aware of the sheer monstrosity of the problem at hand. As such, I cannot blame those people for that reason. It was after my beliefs had been challenged both on these forums and on my region board that I saw the errors and changed my belief.

I read it and thought it was trash, but assumed that since you and others were posting in the thread y'all would be able to point out the more egregious problems. I suppose that the old saying is true: assume and make an ass out of u and me.

I read it and thought it was trash, but assumed that since you and others were posting in the thread y'all would be able to point out the more egregious problems. I suppose that the old saying is true: assume and make an ass out of u and me.

This version is 'trash'? Would you care to point out in a constructive way what is you do not find up to par if it is this version you find displeasing.

Ficticious Proportions has written a very reasonable proposal which now has 86 supporters. It's on page four.

AK_ID

I also opposed "Promotion of Solar Panels" and like you, I am getting sick of the sniping and harping against Starcra II. I think it's gone on long enough.

I voted against it, but maintain the highest respect for Starcra II. I can not say the same about certain frequent UN forum posters which have in fact sniping at Starcra and others.

Hello,

I'd like the following:

DEFINES alternate energy sources to be Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydroelectric and Nuclear generated energy. Along with any further alternative energy sources, that create minimal pollution, that should be discovered over time.

To be slightly reworded:

DEFINES alternative energy sources to include solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear, in addition to any future sources of electrical energy that will reduce the production of pollution that might be developed.

I tend to like open ended lists ... but then again, I come from the national sovereignty sort of opinion, where I like handing some decisions back to nations and away from those who'd like the UN to think for everybody.

I voted against it, but maintain the highest respect for Starcra II. I can not say the same about certain frequent UN forum posters which have in fact sniping at Starcra and others.

Actually, I haven't noted a single regular that hasn't shown a lack of respect towards Starcra II. There are plenty that have attacked the resolution - viciously and extensively - but that doesn't mean they have shown a general lack of respect towards the author. In fact, I have noted a general annoyance by old forum members towards new forum members about the treatment of Starcra II, not just my own.

Actually, I haven't noted a single regular that hasn't shown a lack of respect towards Starcra II.

I have. But I also included "and others" in my post.

I voted against it, but maintain the highest respect for Starcra II. I can not say the same about certain frequent UN forum posters which have in fact sniping at Starcra and others.
I've not seen a single poster whom I would consider a UN forum regular sniping at Starcra. Who are you talking about?

This version is 'trash'? Would you care to point out in a constructive way what is you do not find up to par if it is this version you find displeasing.
I think he meant the original "Promotion of Solar Panels".

Krioval - A repeal has already been posted, and this resolution will serve as a replacement, not an addition to my previous one. And this version (Version 3) is actually a draft (Well, until the repeal passes at least :)).

I think I may have misunderstood your post so apologies if that is so.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Damn! That's what I get for reading too fast. Thanks for the clarification. I'll post something substantive when I've had a bit more time to think about it.

EDIT: Can we please keep the conversation on point from here on out? I think that this thread has enormous potential so long as we keep our eyes on the goal.

Hello,

I'd like the following:

To be slightly reworded:

I tend to like open ended lists ... but then again, I come from the national sovereignty sort of opinion, where I like handing some decisions back to nations and away from those who'd like the UN to think for everybody.

It's been done :D. Thanks.

And thanks to all who are defending me from the sniping in whatever thread :).

I think he meant the original "Promotion of Solar Panels".

I wasn't sure since he posted it in this thread. Oh well!


Damn! That's what I get for reading too fast. Thanks for the clarification. I'll post something substantive when I've had a bit more time to think about it.


Alright then :) No harm, No foul!

Ok, now that the repeal has achieved quorum this will soon be submitted (As soon as the repeal passes), so if anyone has any problems with some part of the proposal, please bring them up so I can submit this in the best possible way.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

starca, i think your proposition is good now

maybe someone already ask it, but maybe it can be interesting in the list of sources of energy to add: "Controlled Nuclear Fusion"

also, a thought, in real word in germany, "controlled nuclear fission" power plants will be shut down by law after 2020
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4536203.stm

maybe we can decide to shut them down also in NS, in let say 50 years, with a delay clause, if it turns impossible

starca, i think your proposition is good now

maybe someone already ask it, but maybe it can be interesting in the list of sources of energy to add: "Controlled Nuclear Fusion"

also, a thought, in real word in germany, "controlled nuclear fission" power plants will be shut down by law after 2020
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4536203.stm

maybe we can decide to shut them down also in NS, in let say 50 years, with a delay clause, if it turns impossible

Aren't nuclear power and nuclear fusion the same thing? If so then nuclear is already listed but if not could you please explain the difference.

I won't include the shutting down of Nuclear plants in this version, however, as it stands, if this resolution passes any future proposal with the aim of shutting down nuclear plants will not be illegal so long as they do not use fossil fuels as an alternative.

Aren't nuclear power and nuclear fusion the same thing? If so then nuclear is already listed but if not could you please explain the difference.

yes you right nuclear is already listed, Ok

just for information:
- all nuclear plant today are "fission" similar to (A-bomb)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
- "Controlled Nuclear Fusion" is not yet a available technology, but there are some experiment about it in real world (similar H-bomb)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

May we respectfully request the honourable member from Starcra II repost a copy of the draft here since a number of alterations have now been suggested. Noting their office has taken note of these suggestions we feel it would be beneficial to all concerned to see the current text as it stands now so as to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Personally I find looking at a draft from a fresh standpoint once amendments has been made helps to iron out those little details that may still be nagging in the back of ones mind.

Furthermore we’d like our esteemed colleagues to consider the following environmental resolutions already in force:

Resolution 39 – ‘Alternative Fuels’
This resolution is already ‘taxing’ the profits of the automotive industries of members at rate of 1%.

Resolution 71 – 'Sustainable Energy Source'
Article 1 in this resolution calls for an overall increase of 2% in the use of renewable energy amongst members states. In addition it recommends various sources of sustainable energy sources including specific reference to the use of Solar Power in Article 3 in geographic areas where it may be appropriate.

Resolution 72 – 'Reduction of Green House Gasses'
This resolution goes much further than it’s predecessor by demanding a 10% decrease in the use of fossil fuels over the next 10 years. At the time of writing, member states should already have ACHIEVED reductions of at least 1%. In addition it makes reference to achieve these goals it will require global interaction and as such recommends various measures to increase communication.

Whilst the Telidian government would agree these three resolutions do have their flaws, nevertheless we are still bound by them and we question the wisdom of adding yet another resolution to do more of the same. We feel there has to be some realisation, for the most part it is developed nations who take the brunt of these resolutions. Granted they add to the problem more so, however if we as an organisation wish to make a difference we will require the economies of these nations to carry out our joint objectives. Without the support of larger more economically powerful states, how do we propose to help grow those less fortunate? It is plainly obvious that if we do not help less developed members develop cleaner sources whilst growing their economies, they will simply leave and what does that do for what should be a global strategy?

We of course hold the Starcra II delegation in high regard and commend their efforts to help the environmental problems facing our planet.

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

May we respectfully request the honourable member from Starcra II repost a copy of the draft here since a number of alterations have now been suggested. Noting their office has taken note of these suggestions we feel it would be beneficial to all concerned to see the current text as it stands now so as to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Personally I find looking at a draft from a fresh standpoint once amendments has been made helps to iron out those little details that may still be nagging in the back of ones mind.

Ammendments are posted on the first page, the original post is edited with the latest arrangements made in bold.

Just as a note, any section referring to stopping the burning of fossil fuels must be worded very carefully and specifically-- otherwise the same problem that plagues the previous one will still afflict it.

Just as a note, any section referring to stopping the burning of fossil fuels must be worded very carefully and specifically-- otherwise the same problem that plagues the previous one will still afflict it.

A note has been made that transport and Manufacturing are exempts from the stopping of fossil fuel burning. Also, a the time was extended to 35 years.

OOC: IRL, the gentleman who runs Dastardly Stench edits fiction as a paid hobby.

Thus, he has volunteered his time to copy edit the proposal. Below, you shall find the proposal with its gramatical errors removed and some of the flowerier language replaced with slightly more pragmatic verbage.

Mind you, this gentleman is aware that this is a very early draft of the proposal, and that signifigant changes have been requested. For these, the gentleman humbly requests the opportunity to give the most complete draft a good once-over, if for no other reason than to insure that someone who knows that "its" is the posessive form of "it" and "it's" is the contraction of "it is" has had a chance to ensure that these words are punctuated properly.

Think of this as a work sample. If you don't like the work, the gentleman will simply stop now and not waste everybody's time.

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

Proposal Name – Implementation of Alternative Energy Sources.
Effects – Environment, All Businesses.
Status – Version 3.

NOTING Resolution #122 and its repeal, and defining this proposal as its replacement.

OBSERVING that the burning of Fossil Fuels is damaging the environment.

MAKING NOTE that -

1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as itself.

2) Burning fossil fuels limits how free our future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying resources that are disappearing as we speak, such as fresh air and clean oceans.

3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, among other effects, melts the polar ice caps.

DEFINES alternative energy sources to include solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear, in addition to any future sources of electrical energy that produce minimal pollution that might be developed in the future.

MAKES NOTE that, depending on, among other things, the climate and environmental situation of the nation, different nations will prefer different energy sources.

REMINDS all nations that the safe production of nuclear power requires trained workers and proper infrastructure.

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members will –

1) Begin projects to promote Alternative energy sources in homes and in workplaces.

2) Set aside an amount of government funds for the manufacturing, distributing and/or building of the required items to implement the nation's prefered forms of alternative energy sources.

3) Over the period of thirty five years after this proposal passes, stop all burning of fossil fuels and generate energy from alternative energy sources, EXCEPT for purposes of transportation or mass manufacturing at the discretion of the host nation.

4) The UN shall hold meetings as often as necessary to discuss the funds needed in order to carry out the project. Funding for other nations' developement of alternative energy sources will not be mandatory, but an option to those who wish to do so.

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

1) The UN shall meet to discuss possible ways of aiding the nations in question.

2) For nations that can demonstrate that the transition from fossil fuels poses an economic hardship, a time extension shall be given, the term of which shall be decided individually for each nation, the longest respective terms being given to those nations with the worst off economies. In the event of a natural disaster in one or more nations, an extension shall also be given.

MAKING note that each nation has the right to decide the price of the new energy sources within its borders, as well as whether to provide subsidies for those with lower income.

FINALLY, NOTING that the transition to alternative energy sources, whether it is restricted to one source or many, will give us the long term benefits we will never enjoy if we do not implement this resolution.

Aren't nuclear power and nuclear fusion the same thing? If so then nuclear is already listed but if not could you please explain the difference.

I won't include the shutting down of Nuclear plants in this version, however, as it stands, if this resolution passes any future proposal with the aim of shutting down nuclear plants will not be illegal so long as they do not use fossil fuels as an alternative.

OOC:

Fission is one type of nuclear reaction that is used to produce power. There
is another type of nuclear reaction, fusion, that can also be used. We have
not yet developed a workable nuclear fusion-driven power development
facility; however, it remains possible. Fusion promises to be less damaging
to the environment than fission.

I would suggest that "mass manufacturing" be replaced with "industrial processes". That's a bit more inspecific and better suited since there are assorted fossil fuel processes (making plastic) that don't fit into manufacturing.

I would suggest that "mass manufacturing" be replaced with "industrial processes". That's a bit more inspecific and better suited since there are assorted fossil fuel processes (making plastic) that don't fit into manufacturing.

Does anyone second this?

Manufacturing is the creation of objects from other objects so making plastic is technically still manufacturing.

This version is 'trash'? Would you care to point out in a constructive way what is you do not find up to par if it is this version you find displeasing.

I was referring to your original Solar Panels proposal, not this one. I haven't gotten around to commenting on this one, and you probably don't want me to.

I was referring to your original Solar Panels proposal, not this one. I haven't gotten around to commenting on this one, and you probably don't want me to.

Ah Ok to your first comment.

Second comment - Feel free to, why not? As long as it's constructive and you suggest arrangements :).

As things currently stand, due to a person leaving the region, I am an endorsement less than the required to submit this replacement, therefore I'm looking for anyone who is willing to do so should I not recieve that extra endorsement.

Just put something at the bottom of the resolution that mentions me and the forum.

Meanwhile any edits are still welcome :D

in this new proposal i would like to see government funds being set aside for an international research into future energy sources e.g. nuclear fusion, since we all know that the current 'environmentally friendly' energy sources produce nowhere near the amount of power that fossil fuels do. the human economy in general would take massive blows in order to realign to a fossil-fuel free world.

in this new proposal i would like to see government funds being set aside for an international research into future energy sources e.g. nuclear fusion, since we all know that the current 'environmentally friendly' energy sources produce nowhere near the amount of power that fossil fuels do. the human economy in general would take massive blows in order to realign to a fossil-fuel free world.

Nuclear energy is included in the list of alternatives.

The amount of government funds are left to the individual nations to decide. I think that's best.

The list of 'Alternative' energy sources that already exists should also include "Ocean Thermal" power-plants (which use the temperature differences between the oceans' surface & its depths, at tropical or subtropical latitudes, to turn turbines): They've been tested in the Real World, and do work, but never caught on... and here in NS St Edmund already uses them to generate a high proportion of its electricity...

Starcra,

Please provide documentation for the following:

"1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

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

3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, amongst other effects, melts the polar ice caps."

Thanks,

AK_ID

Please provide documentation for the following:

"1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

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

3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, amongst other effects, melts the polar ice caps."

What do you mean by documentation? :confused: As in proof?

Yes, as in PROOF.

Please provide documentation for the following:

"1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own. You may as well state that each person who drinks water is harming someone else who is thirsty.

2) Burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air and clean oceans. How does burning fossile fuels limit the freedom of children?
3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, amongst other effects, melts the polar ice caps. Please explain the dozens of previous instances of polar icecap meltings, ALL of which occured prior to the discovery of fossile fuels."

Yes, as in PROOF.

Please provide documentation for the following:

"1) Each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own. You may as well state that each person who drinks water is harming someone else who is thirsty.

2) Burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air and clean oceans. How does burning fossile fuels limit the freedom of children?
3) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that causes the greenhouse effect which, amongst other effects, melts the polar ice caps. Please explain the dozens of previous instances of polar icecap meltings, ALL of which occured prior to the discovery of fossile fuels."

1) Yes, but it has nothing to do with the proposal so would be a waste of space. Apart from which it's a good reason to propose such a resolution.

2) Children - As in the future generations...because it creates air pollution...

3) Oh please! That's no excuse. Because we burn fossil fuels they happen at a faster rate.

I still don't understand where these were supposed to be controversial :confused:

Is it true that the author of the original solar resolution (the resolution that darned near blew the UN to smithereens, BTW) is willing to pooh-pooh questions and suggestions from the opposition?

May I politely suggest that we simply allow the repeal to stand (when passed) and move on to more sensible, less intrusive issues?

AK_ID

I agree with AK_ID.

Is it true that the author of the original solar resolution (the resolution that darned near blew the UN to smithereens, BTW) is willing to pooh-pooh questions and suggestions from the opposition?

May I politely suggest that we simply allow the repeal to stand (when passed) and move on to more sensible, less intrusive issues?

AK_ID

What you said was definately not a suggestion and in the way it was put, it was neither a question.

I will not reply to this issue anymore, it is FAR from relevant to the resolution and seems to be a personal issue which I will not deal with here.

The only reason you're bringing this up is to cause an argument with me and not to improve the resolution as I see it.

I really fear that this replacement is becoming a teethless resolution that will not truly contribute to a better environment. Too many cop-outs for nations.

Personally, I'd like to see a shorter timepath (10-20 years), in which fossil fuel consumption has to be drastically reduced. Let's say halved. Subsidies have to be provided for companies doing R&D for environmentally friendly, sustainable energy sources. These must not rely on energy sources which aren't renewable, or pose serious health risks (such as nuclear energy). This will not effect the economy much, because it creates jobs as well as reduce the dependency on fossil fuels.

Make the time path too long, and nations will not do anything. Don't push this, and nations won't do it. Despite the flaws, the solar panels resolution was accepted. Use that to push this extremely important item through, without getting distracted by those capitalist moaners who couldn't care less for the environment. Be more strict!

Personally, I'd like to see a shorter timepath (10-20 years), in which fossil fuel consumption has to be drastically reduced. Let's say halved. Subsidies have to be provided for companies doing R&D for environmentally friendly, sustainable energy sources. These must not rely on energy sources which aren't renewable, or pose serious health risks (such as nuclear energy). This will not effect the economy much, because it creates jobs as well as reduce the dependency on fossil fuels.

Make the time path too long, and nations will not do anything. Don't push this, and nations won't do it. Despite the flaws, the solar panels resolution was accepted. Use that to push this extremely important item through, without getting distracted by those capitalist moaners who couldn't care less for the environment. Be more strict!

The time path shall stay as is it, it is the median value between both sides of the debate so I think it's fair.

Subsidies are optional.

Nuclear is an option, not compulsory, and there is an extra note about it too.

I don't like being strict :p

I can't be biased toward either side if you know what I mean so I can't do a lot of the things you suggested, thanks though :)

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Since school has now started I have very little time on my hands which is why I haven't posted here in the past week or so.

I'd like to ask if anyone has 2 or more resolutions and would like to submit this resolution to post in this thread and I'll get back to them. Also, any campaigns for this resolution are very welcome and I'd be very grateful since (As above) I don't have the time I had previously.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

I must say that my government is impressed by the current draft. However, in addition to what ever policy problems we may have or not have with the final resolution, my government will oppose this resolution, or any other resolution, that is Starcra II until such time as fromally and publicly appologizes to my nation and the nations of my region for the travesty that was the R 122.

Subsidies are optional.

Nuclear is an option, not compulsory, and there is an extra note about it too.

I don't like being strict :p

I can't be biased toward either side if you know what I mean so I can't do a lot of the things you suggested, thanks though :)

In that case, I see no other option but to argue against your proposal as a waste of UN time, lacking "teeth" to actually do something. All this resolution does now is say "sometime in the future, we should do, er, something. Maybe. If you want." This proposal does nothing but prevent better proposals becoming a resolution.

In that case, I see no other option but to argue against your proposal as a waste of UN time, lacking "teeth" to actually do something. All this resolution does now is say "sometime in the future, we should do, er, something. Maybe. If you want." This proposal does nothing but prevent better proposals becoming a resolution.

I honestly can't see how you see it that way. There is a time length provided and alternatives, to impose any further would be a repetition off the original.

I think this resolution has enough 'teeth' as it is. And this resolution doesn't make things an option, I'm sorry if I don't share your extremist views.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

In that case, I see no other option but to argue against your proposal as a waste of UN time, lacking "teeth" to actually do something. All this resolution does now is say "sometime in the future, we should do, er, something. Maybe. If you want." This proposal does nothing but prevent better proposals becoming a resolution.

I must say this strikes me as somewhat unfair towards Starcra II. The original proposal was deemed too intrusive and harsh on economies of the Nation Stats members. What is trying to be struck is a gradual, moderate path towards energy reduction. Different strategies need to be accomdated in any emissions reduction plan, so I see no problem in this proposal perhaps erring on the side of caution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No. I pre-emptively vote no on this proposal. There is no rational reason (or justification) for the UN to involve itself in national or regional energy issues. Let the folks who live in desert regions use solar power. Let the folks who live in oil-rich regions burn oil. Let the folks who live in river-rich regions use hydro power.

As I've stated before, the use of crude oil as a fuel will go away in time, simply because it is a finite resource. Natural market forces will lead regions and nations toward the most economic replacement fuels, without UN involvement.

Incidentally, in real life, there is new evidence that "global warming" may actually be leading to "global cooling." In other words, as the polar region ice masses melt, the rest of the planet cools (think of dropping an ice cube in a warm cup of tea).

Maybe we should concentrate on writing proposals that make sense, such as requiring all nations to feed their kids oatmeal for breakfast, lol.

AK_ID

As I've stated before, the use of crude oil as a fuel will go away in time, simply because it is a finite resource. Natural market forces will lead regions and nations toward the most economic replacement fuels, without UN involvement.
You've hit the nail on the head ambassador. The problem is not that we are "running out" of crude oil. It's that we will eventually run out of oil that is cheap and easy to extract. At some point in the future, all of the "easy" oil will be gone. At that point it will cost more (in terms of money and energy) to get it out of the ground and to market than it is worth. No nation, whether capitalist, socialist or communist is going to just stand aside and let that happen. As the cheap oil begins to run out, it will become economically expedient to switch over to other energy sources. We use oil now only because it provides a great amount of usable energy at a relatively low cost. It gives the "most bang for the buck" so to speak. When that is no longer the case, we will all stop using it.

No. I pre-emptively vote no on this proposal. There is no rational reason (or justification) for the UN to involve itself in national or regional energy issues. Let the folks who live in desert regions use solar power. Let the folks who live in oil-rich regions burn oil. Let the folks who live in river-rich regions use hydro power.

As I've stated before, the use of crude oil as a fuel will go away in time, simply because it is a finite resource. Natural market forces will lead regions and nations toward the most economic replacement fuels, without UN involvement.

But at what cost? We might as wel say "in a few million years, a comet will hit the earth, destroy human civilization without UN involvement, so why bother?". Market forces will drive up the price of oil first (OOC: like we're seeing now, and will see more and more in the near future), ruining economies because they aren't prepared. Things like this get solved by market forces the hard way. UN enforcement can do it the easy way.

Besides, in the meantime, fossil fuels damage the environment. No matter how environmentally clean my nation is, it will suffer the negative effects of other countries. That's why no-one really does something about it: you either all work together to stop fossil fuel burning, or it won't work and the environment suffers. That's the air your citizens breathe, the food your citizens eat, the water your citizens drink. All because the problem gets pushed to the future, to someone else.

Incidentally, in real life, there is new evidence that "global warming" may actually be leading to "global cooling." In other words, as the polar region ice masses melt, the rest of the planet cools (think of dropping an ice cube in a warm cup of tea).

Maybe, in places. Climate is immensely complex, we barely understand it. Models seem to predict changes more and more accurate as our understanding increases. And don't forget: climate changes whether we influence it or not. But right now, we're at the point where we can prevent changes that will cost billions of lives. Why are you so reluctant to take that opportunity?

Incidentally, in real life, there is new evidence that "global warming" may actually be leading to "global cooling." In other words, as the polar region ice masses melt, the rest of the planet cools (think of dropping an ice cube in a warm cup of tea).
Even in that case, it would make little sense for us to purposefully cause the changes in the climate, whether they lead to warming or cooling. the fact that we don't know the precise effect "global warming" will have doesn't meant we should experiment with the only planet we can live on (as far as we know).

Global warming might lead to worldwide rising of temperatures, worldwide cooling of temperatures, cooling near the poles & warming near the equator, it might even lead first to world-wide cooling and half a century later to world-wide warming. Regardless, I'd rather stop burning fossil fuels and not know the precise effects than burn 'em and know.

Regardless of the affects on global warming, Dastardly Stench will vote
"no" on this proposal because it is our position that said proposal is yet
another instance of the U.N. (pfffft!) sticking its nose where it doesn't
belong.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
U.N. Representative: Dominion of Dastardly Stench