NationStates Jolt Archive

Love and esterel and myself have submitted this repeal originally developed in another thread:

-----------------------------------
Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #122


Proposed by: Ficticious Proportions

Description: UN Resolution #122: Promotion of Solar Panels (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
Let it primarily be noted that the original creator of this resolution, Starcra II, in his own words, has admitted to his resolution having faults and was previously aware of the repeal. He encourages nations to support this repeal as he is writing up a newer, better version of the resolution which will be up for debate before submission to the UN.

This repeal does not condemn solar panels, and the United Nations acknowledges that this resolution is well intentioned, but:

-A- The mandatory objective to ban fossil fuels use in ten years is unrealistic, due to it entailing:
- Too short a timescale for the phasing out of fossil fuels
- Too great a fiscal expense of environmentally-conscious replacements and the introduction of said replacement s
- Too much consumption of resources and of fossil fuels themselves for the materials and processes required for the manufacture of more environmentally-conscious alternatives
- An unforeseen and accidental hindering of many fossil fuel reliant economic sectors such as the aeronautical and airlines sector.
- An impact on power supplies, thus reducing the productive outputs of industries extracting, processing and modifying further resources to make the products that are taken for granted in maintaining our quality of life. This may involve the processing and packaging of foodstuffs, medicines, water and other supplies used in aid programs and our daily lives.

-B- This resolution's requirements will destroy many economies in next 10 years due to the costs of extracting, obtaining and processing the resources required, as mentioned in Section A, and the costs of the economy recovering to the level it was at before the fossil fuel ban would have to come out of already nearly depleted treasuries.

-C- As some nations receive little sunlight each year and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available, the nations must be to allowed to decide between these choices, some of which are more suited to their climates and geography, in order to decrease their use of fossil fuels, whilst maintaining the economic viability and practicality of the replacements.

-D- This resolution falsely states that the combustion of fossil fuels results in holes in the Ozone layer, and while the UN accepts that they theoretically assist the Greenhouse Effect and are aware of its implications, this error must be removed to prevent the misinforming of member states.

The United Nations,

PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source, but

REGRETTING the aforementioned shortcomings,

REPEALS Resolution #122 - "Promotion of Solar Panels".

This resolution was co-authored by Love and esterel

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

At present it is on the fourth page of the proposals list, has 63 endorsements, but requires 67 more.

Delegates who voted for the original resolution: Starcra II, as stated, has realised faults in his original proposal and wishes to work on a replacement which still carries the same concern for the environment. Please approve this repeal so he can get his replacement in place.

Delegates who voted against the original resolution: This repeal needs your support in order to remove the impractical timescale and glaring scientific error from the annals of the UN resolution list. Please approve this repeal so that future resolutions learn from this unfortunate mistake.

Delegates who abstained on the original resolution: Those who opposed the original resolution wish this resolution gone, but those who supported it and also those who authored it wish to remove it and the scientific error it contained to replace it with a more considerate one. Please approve this repeal regardless - even if your views on the situation are neutral, this repeal will allow the debate to progress and not stagnate so that the topics that matter to you can come to the fore as well as repeated attempts to repeal this resolution for the sake of improvement.

I implore all delegates for their support as this resolution favours all sides and those sitting on the fence. Thanks for your time in reading this.

The Bettian delegate has put this proposal to the regional vote, and recommends a YES vote.

Current status: 71 approvals, 59 required. Thanks to all that have helped so far.

Special thanks to CR Oscilloscopes for the crucial support in the Telegram campaign. :)

Only 45 more votes of support needed. I support this repeal, and withdraw my own attempts to repeal #122. Nicely written, Ficticious Proportions, et al.

I urge everyone to support this repeal.

AK_ID

Flanagania wholeheartedly supports this repeal.

Further, after examining some of the potential replacements, it appears that some real progress is being made.

We also note that Starcra II, by supporting this repeal, is showing a maturity seriously lacking in some members.

PS: How do we vote? Is this post considered a vote?

UN Delegates can vote for it. They just approve it in the proposal list.

Only 30 more votes are needed.

That's another 10 in the bag, 20 approvals to go! This baby's going to make it :)

Only 2 more votes of support needed. I hope the repeal makes it to the floor.

AK_ID

It made it to the queue :D .

May the nations of the UN now prepare to vote FOR the repeal.

It made it to the queue :D .

May the nations of the UN now prepare to vote FOR the repeal.

We have already initiated regional polling and anticipate an early vote in favor of the repeal.

It made it to the queue :D .

May the nations of the UN now prepare to vote FOR the repeal.


Ficticious Proportions, congrats

I've already received full support from my region to vote FOR this repeal. Unless my home region undergoes a revolution in the near future (not likely to happen), you have our votes.

Regarding any replacement for the original Solar resolution, we'll have to read it first. I believe the wording of this repeal, and some of the arguments made in these forums by myself and others, contain the germs of a reasonable, far less invasive, replacement.

I'd also like to offer my public apologies to Starcra for being so vociferous earlier. Starcra, I'm certain your intentions were honorable from the beginning, and I'll try to be gentler in the future -- I have a bad habit, even IRL, of slamming bad ideas, and then trying to patch things up later. Chalk it up to old age and grumpiness, I guess.

Cheers,

AK_ID

Nicely done Fictitious! I suppose that makes the other repeals illegal now?.

Ak_Id - Thanks :)

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Congratulations! We will now support this repeal to the hilt.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

I suppose that makes the other repeals illegal now?.

i'm not sure but i don't think so, i think they will be illegal when it will pass
i approved almost all the repeal

i'm not sure but i don't think so, i think they will be illegal when it will pass

Actually when it goes to vote they will be illegal, but they won't be penalised for it if they submitted the before this one achieved quorum.

((I found out now that's why I sort of answered my own question))

Actually when it goes to vote they will be illegal, but they won't be penalised for it if they submitted the before this one achieved quorum.

((I found out now that's why I sort of answered my own question))

Actually, when it passes, it will be illegal. They don't delete for contradictions until something has been passed. Ask yourself, what happens if the first one fails? If we end up voting on two straight that are the same category, the UN membership might go "not this again", but it's perfectly legal.

Actually, when it passes, it will be illegal. They don't delete for contradictions until something has been passed. Ask yourself, what happens if the first one fails? If we end up voting on two straight that are the same category, the UN membership might go "not this again", but it's perfectly legal.

But while my proposal was at vote, another one 'Promotion of Eolic Energy' was deemed illegal - but that one was also a copy/paste of mine so that could have been the reason (In addition to...)

But while my proposal was at vote, another one 'Promotion of Eolic Energy' was deemed illegal - but that one was also a copy/paste of mine so that could have been the reason (In addition to...)
And the plagerism would be the reason it was deleted.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thanks to all of you for your support during the campaign. As we prepare for the vote, I am gracious for the praise, but can I just point out also that (as much as I was an author) Love and esterel deserves equal praise as co-author.

Thanks Love and esterel, now let's get this motion carried! :)

Also a big thanks to CR Oscilloscopes for the invaluable TG assistance.

Thanks to all of you for your support during the campaign. As we prepare for the vote, I am gracious for the praise, but can I just point out also that (as much as I was an author) Love and esterel deserves equal praise as co-author.

Thanks Love and esterel, now let's get this motion carried! :)

Also a big thanks to CR Oscilloscopes for the invaluable TG assistance.

Here, here!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Here, here!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

...and may the pungent aroma of our skunks forever mark your enemies.

Spiro "Spreading" Cloud
Big Stink of Dastardly Stench

Well done for this !

I would like to indicate that other more constraining proposals are still active and should be repealed the same way.

Regardless, this proposal had made me reapply for the UN. My trust in the organization is back, thank you for that !

Guillaume Ier,
Grand Duchy of Trabel

Moves to correct decisions created under the wrong pretenses is the most important part of any organisation. I support this repealment as it would correct the mistakes while keeping the objectives of the legislation in mind.

You mean there are green technologies other than solar panels!?! Stop the presses!

But seriously, this is the first good resolution since Raguvia has joined the U.N. We were this close to making a Raguvian Cheese Attack on the U.N. headquarters to show our displeasure.

"OK Deputy. Plan B. Use the cheese on Plush Skinblob, that damned fat ideologue on the radio."

Thank you all for your words of encouragement and support during this campaign. It gained 203 approvals (more than 1.5 times quorum) and is now being voted on. This thread might as well become the official thread, with administrator assistance, and here is the text of the repeal:

Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #122

Proposed by: Ficticious Proportions

Description: UN Resolution #122: Promotion of Solar Panels (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
Let it primarily be noted that the original creator of this resolution, Starcra II, in his own words, has admitted to his resolution having faults and was previously aware of the repeal. He encourages nations to support this repeal as he is writing up a newer, better version of the resolution which will be up for debate before submission to the UN.

This repeal does not condemn solar panels, and the United Nations acknowledges that this resolution is well intentioned, but:

-A- The mandatory objective to ban fossil fuels use in ten years is unrealistic, due to it entailing:
- Too short a timescale for the phasing out of fossil fuels
- Too great a fiscal expense of environmentally-conscious replacements and the introduction of said replacement s
- Too much consumption of resources and of fossil fuels themselves for the materials and processes required for the manufacture of more environmentally-conscious alternatives
- An unforeseen and accidental hindering of many fossil fuel reliant economic sectors such as the aeronautical and airlines sector.
- An impact on power supplies, thus reducing the productive outputs of industries extracting, processing and modifying further resources to make the products that are taken for granted in maintaining our quality of life. This may involve the processing and packaging of foodstuffs, medicines, water and other supplies used in aid programs and our daily lives.

-B- This resolution's requirements will destroy many economies in next 10 years due to the costs of extracting, obtaining and processing the resources required, as mentioned in Section A, and the costs of the economy recovering to the level it was at before the fossil fuel ban would have to come out of already nearly depleted treasuries.

-C- As some nations receive little sunlight each year and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available, the nations must be to allowed to decide between these choices, some of which are more suited to their climates and geography, in order to decrease their use of fossil fuels, whilst maintaining the economic viability and practicality of the replacements.

-D- This resolution falsely states that the combustion of fossil fuels results in holes in the Ozone layer, and while the UN accepts that they theoretically assist the Greenhouse Effect and are aware of its implications, this error must be removed to prevent the misinforming of member states.

The United Nations,

PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source, but

REGRETTING the aforementioned shortcomings,

REPEALS Resolution #122 - "Promotion of Solar Panels".

This resolution was co-authored by Love and esterel

To those who supported the original proposal: Starcra II wants to improve his resolution, but this can only pass when the old one has been removed. Those doubting his support for the resolution can telegram him directly.

To those who were against the original proposal: Need I campaign to you?

To those who abstained from the original proposal: In light of the impractical timescale proposed (especially for larger nations), and with a better replacement in the works, voting for this repeal can only make things better.

I once again implore all UN members to vote for this repeal, and thanks as ever for your support, positive feedback and discussion. The positive feedback I've received over TG and this forum has been overwhelming. Thanks a lot! :)

Whoa, I blink and the admins have already changed the name of the thread... Faster than a speeding bullet...

:fluffle:

Rookierookie has voted FOR this repeal.

Fellow UN members:

OK, we are back on the right track with this repeal. Now I do understand that there are a great many alternatives for fossil fuels, and The City by the Live Sea would indeed love to utilize them if they become feasable.

My suggestion (and I do believe I will be speaking for us nations that are to the right side of the political line) is for us to look at something like developing a UN sponsored coalition think-tank that will go to work on developing useful alternative energies.

If an alternative energy can become productive and benificial to use, then the UN would not need to become a dictator-like entity and force the world(s) to have to use whatsoever energy sources it so deems.

So there you have it from a conservative suggestion. Hey, I would even be more than happy to help write such a proposal. Imagine that, a commitee where right and left thinking nations come together and word things so that everyone is happy :rolleyes:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hands

Given the already damaging effects that the previous resolution has had on my economy, Barnabas Butterbur will be supporting this proposal but must wait for the regional members support before placing a vote.

Fellow UN members:

If an alternative energy can become productive and benificial to use, then the UN would not need to become a dictator-like entity and force the world(s) to have to use whatsoever energy sources it so deems.


The NSUN is a democratic dictatorship which only forces decisions on its members on the basis of a majority decision.

Imagine that, a commitee where right and left thinking nations come together and word things so that everyone is happy :rolleyes:

It's a pity that so many UN nations don't go on the forum to help us realise that ideal... can't win them all I guess. :rolleyes:

Amazing.....the UN finally comes to its senses.....of course the next silly ban won't be far behind, the nanny states won't be happy until everyone lives in their version of a twisted Utopia.

Our general policy on voting is to wait until we've had the chance to read the forum debate before casting our vote. Not this time. We voted FOR immediately.

We thank the distinguished representatives of Ficticious Proportions and Love and esterel for so quickly preparing this much-needed repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Canada6 is most definitely in favour of this repeal, and is overjoyed with the UN's timing.

:headbang: I cannot believe this is actually happening. The predictions that were made many months ago are comming true. The NSUN has officially gone INSANE.

If this repeal passes it will only prove that NSUN deligates are mindless moronic sheep that just vote AYE for any reason whatsoever. The resolution was approved on September 17. If repealed it would be repealed on September 27! Forever and ever in the annuals of history there will be a record that says in efect "THESE UN DELIGATES WERE MORONS BECAUSE THEY PASSED A RESOLUTION AND THEN REPEALED IT TEN DAYS LATER."

Repeals were supposed to be a method of getting rid of old reslutions that no longer technically applied to the later views of UN resolutions, or just no longer applied. They were not meant as a means of extending the voting process by throwing instant repeals after passage.

The resolution was passed. That was history. The effects are already in place. Any resolution can only undo those effects in part, not in total.

I strongly urge the deligates to think of the historical implications of their actions! This is the worst case scenario that oppoents of repeal law feared. Vote this repeal down, even if you don't like the law, because of the precident it will set. After all, we do have 10 years to repeal this law anyway.

This repeal must be passed, strictley from a economic standpoint it is damageing to my nation and can not be allowed to stand. Fossil Fuels can be made cleaner and burned cleaner, we need to look at that.

And as far as the fact that we just passed it 10 days ago should not be a reason for not repealing it. Are you saying we should live with a bad idea for sometime just because we just passed it. We should fix the problem before it damages our countries anymore.

Joel B
Prime Minister of Saudi Joelrabia

I strongly urge the deligates to think of the historical implications of their actions! This is the worst case scenario that oppoents of repeal law feared. Vote this repeal down, even if you don't like the law, because of the precident it will set. After all, we do have 10 years to repeal this law anyway.Sorry, no. The UN already sullied its reputation with "DVD region removal" and "Protection of Dolphins Act." There's not a lot this organization can do to make itself look much more ridiculous. Besides, "National Systems of Tax" was repealed just six weeks after it passed, and its author also wrote the repeal. Repealing this now would be just about the most sane thing the UN could do following the veritable orgasm of masochistic reasoning that produced the original resolution. We support this repeal, and we will not be supporting any replacement legislation -- nor will we support any future legislative endeavors by Starcra II.

:headbang: I cannot believe this is actually happening. The predictions that were made many months ago are comming true. The NSUN has officially gone INSANE.

If this repeal passes it will only prove that NSUN deligates are mindless moronic sheep that just vote AYE for any reason whatsoever. The resolution was approved on September 17. If repealed it would be repealed on September 27! Forever and ever in the annuals of history there will be a record that says in efect "THESE UN DELIGATES WERE MORONS BECAUSE THEY PASSED A RESOLUTION AND THEN REPEALED IT TEN DAYS LATER."

Repeals were supposed to be a method of getting rid of old reslutions that no longer technically applied to the later views of UN resolutions, or just no longer applied. They were not meant as a means of extending the voting process by throwing instant repeals after passage.

The resolution was passed. That was history. The effects are already in place. Any resolution can only undo those effects in part, not in total.

I strongly urge the deligates to think of the historical implications of their actions! This is the worst case scenario that oppoents of repeal law feared. Vote this repeal down, even if you don't like the law, because of the precident it will set. After all, we do have 10 years to repeal this law anyway.

On the third day of vote, we started seeing a stagnation in opinions on Resolution 122 and as the days wore on, support dwindled for it. This was around the same time that Starcra II declared that he was willing to assist in the repeal (and replacement) of his own resolution, and the UN Old Guard was mobilizing to kill the resolution. At the time voting ended, several regions had reported they were hyperactively debating the resolution as it became more and more evident how impractical the resolution was. However, time just simply stopped too early.

In the last two days of voting, this forum saw the drafting of both repeals and replacements for resolution 122, even before voting had finished, we had already seen the repeal as a foregone conclusion. Yes the UN is going to frustrate many for this action, but I hope that when this information gets entered into the history books, it will get entered correctly.

On Sept 27, the UN shall utter as a whole "We who were limited by our own laws of governance and followed them as all good democracies should follow their own laws of governance hereby fix the mistake that we made 10 days ago and could not fix hereby repair our fatal error. Let history remember this day as the day democracy succeeded. Reasonned debate has truly won over inane blind voting"

Call me cynical, but is there any official odds for and against this resolution passing. If the odds are good enough I might want to place a bet. :D BTW the Palentine is for the repeal.

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

It is in the best interest of Anagonia that we repeal this resolution. In our Opinion, having been unable to voice a vote of our Nation with the Previous Resolution, and seeing the dramatic impact it had upon its passing, it is with great happiness that we repeal the previous resolution of "Promotion of Solar Panels."

In retrospect, Anagonia has used Solar Panals, and hasn't used Fossel Fuels for many decades. Our Economy is mainly based upon Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Powered Vehicals and Power Plants of the Like, with the welcome light of Environmentally Friendly Solar Plants and Houses.

We would vote for a future resolution of this type, however if it does not condemn those lesser Nations still developing, or Modern Nations still using Fossile Fuel Technology or anything of the liking to its extent.

Thank you.

I'm voting for the repeal.

For me the fast repeal of this shows that the system works. Flaws were found, and when (if) this repeal passes, an improved proposal can be laid out.

C.R.O.

I have to say that I agree with what you say in your proposals. I'm glad not everyone is a solar freak who thinks that non-renewable resources are totaly replaceable.

I would like to inform you all, respective members of the UN that last time

that it was voted on this resolution, the majoritiy of the votes approved it.

It is nonsense! Even the people that voted for this resolution are against it.

You are only looking at the short term causes of the apeal of this resolution.

But you do not consider the benefits of this resolution. When are we ever

going to stop polluitng 'our countries'? Every time there is a resoluition, it is

always voted 'for' almost never the majority of the votes go 'against' a

resolution. Why did you not vote 'against' the resolution in the first place, if

you did not like what was proposed?

I would sincerely ask all of you respective members of the UN to reconsider

you decisions.

[CENTER]
President
of the Republic of Drevna Makedonija[/CENTER

In the event of a replacement 'Promotion of Solar Panels' resolution subsequently being introduced, and of this repeating the original resolution's requirement that solar panels be placed on all dwellings & places of business, I would request that exceptions to that rule be specifically allowed in the case of _

a/. Those dwellings & places of business whose location means that they wouldn't actually derive any energy from those panels, for example ones that are situated either under considerable depths of water or out in the further reaches of the solar system.
b/. Those dwellings & places of businesss that occupy "historic" buildings which the nations concerned wish [and may well have legislated] to maintain in conditions as close to their original characters as possible.

This proposal should only be ratified on the basis that we can see the updated resolution before voting to remove the old one. That way no mistakes can be made.

Forgive me if this has already come up in the course of this long discussion thread, but how can a resolution that passed so convincingly a week or so ago now be on path to an equally convincing repeal?

Food for thought.

Steve Perry
President

This proposal should only be ratified on the basis that we can see the updated resolution before voting to remove the old one. That way no mistakes can be made.

Look around, several proposed replacements have been floating around

But you do not consider the benefits of this resolution. When are we ever going to stop polluitng 'our countries'? I would sincerely ask all of you respective members of the UN to reconsider
you decisions.
[CENTER]
President
of the Republic of Drevna Makedonija[/CENTER

Here is the problem :mad:

This Drevna Makedonija doesn't want to improve living conditions in the world. This nation just said that it wants to come into my nation and change the way I do business. :rolleyes:

NO :upyours:

If you can develop a better, enviromental friendly fuel source that will--now get this--BENIFIT my nation, then you have my attention :cool:

Otherwise, let my nation decide what is best.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

PS The difference between this proposal and the labeling resolution is that my nation will benifit by knowing what is in the food products we buy as opposed to being crippled by an inferior fuel source that makes our nation weaker.

The passage of the original resolution, subject to this repeal, was a severe error, possibly the worst in the history of NSUN. It split our nations down the middle and has led to an outbreak of partisanship and ideological warfare unseen before.

We voted for it, because we, blindly and like so many others, valued the message of the proposal above its specific details. We were prepared to put up with its flaws and irregularities, so long as global warming was tackled. When we eventually came to our senses, like so many other nations, it was too late; it passed.

What must be achieved with the new resolution, once this repeal is passed, will be to enshrine a realistic approach to climate change, coupled with a radical agenda to halt the rising tide. We believe the resolution proposed as a replacement is both adaquate and radical enough to follow through on these aims.

Thus, we have and urge all other delegates to, voted for the repeal and give our voice to its cause of a legitimate search for a solution to environmental crises.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

:headbang: I cannot believe this is actually happening. The predictions that were made many months ago are comming true. The NSUN has officially gone INSANE.

If this repeal passes it will only prove that NSUN deligates are mindless moronic sheep that just vote AYE for any reason whatsoever. The resolution was approved on September 17. If repealed it would be repealed on September 27! Forever and ever in the annuals of history there will be a record that says in efect "THESE UN DELIGATES WERE MORONS BECAUSE THEY PASSED A RESOLUTION AND THEN REPEALED IT TEN DAYS LATER."

Repeals were supposed to be a method of getting rid of old reslutions that no longer technically applied to the later views of UN resolutions, or just no longer applied. They were not meant as a means of extending the voting process by throwing instant repeals after passage.

The resolution was passed. That was history. The effects are already in place. Any resolution can only undo those effects in part, not in total.

I strongly urge the deligates to think of the historical implications of their actions! This is the worst case scenario that oppoents of repeal law feared. Vote this repeal down, even if you don't like the law, because of the precident it will set. After all, we do have 10 years to repeal this law anyway.


This logic is what is know as a sunk-cost fallacy. It is the same technique used by a certain RL government's executive administration for continuing a certain military engagement. There are problems with the orignial proposal that need to be fixed. Failing to acknowledge that approving the resolution was a mistake is egocentrism. As has been pointed out by the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN has no noble face to save. We can merely use the tools at our disposal to protect the world economy.

And to the representative from Drevna Makedonija: Did you read the arguments in this forum when the original proposal was at vote? To produce the number of solar panels required to enact the proposal would actually create tons and tons of toxic waste and environmental damage. Solar panels are not made of the rays of the sun, but of mined and processed materials. Those in favor of this repeal, and indeed opposed to the original legislation, do care about the environment. We are simply realists.

Here is the problem :mad:
This Drevna Makedonija doesn't want to improve living conditions in the world. This nation just said that it wants to come into my nation and change the way I do business. :rolleyes:

NO :upyours:
Tell me how you asking for us not to impose laws against your commerce, and then denying our right to have clean air is fair. Your dirty power is polluting the entire NS world, not just yours. You say that the UN nations are trying to come in and control your business. BS. You're doing the same thing. :rolleyes: You are simply employing the plebeian mentality of "I got mine". The topic here is the resolution. The first one was flawed. Granted. Now its going to be relplaced. Good. So stop attacking individual bodies, and get to the point of your argument, if you have one. (Cause right now, it looks like you're out for a brawl.)

Square Rootedness

Solar panels are a good thing to a certain extent, but imposing the promotion of them is NOT the place for the UN. The production of solar panels is not exactly the most environmently friendly process either. Forcing people to have solar panels will not help the environment in the near future. I would suggest the strong promotion of researching and developing a hydrogen economy. A good system for a hydrogen economy is probably realistically 20 to 50 years away, but the promotion of it could lead to sooner developments.

Please vote YES on this repeal of the previous resolution.

The nation of Caimex is in complete agreement of this reppeal and it has our vote. Let us reppeal this absurd and unrealistic resolution.

Vote FOR this reppeal.

-Delegation of Caimex

The fact that the great error made by passing Promotion of Solar Panels is excellent news. Heck, I'm going to rejoin the UN just to vote for this.

As well thought out and as sensible as this resolution is, skepticisim is preventing the govornment of Saint James Island from backing this proposal fully at this time.

First: as important as renewable energy sources are, who is to say solar panels are best?

Second: Since renewable energy is so important, shouldn't we be revising the act, instead of repealing? The new act should include multiple energy sources, and give a longer timeframe, as well as give soe kind of aid or subsidy to nations who are struggling to make ends meet.

Thank you for listening to me,
-James I
High Priest of St. James Island.

shouldn't we be revising the act, instead of repealing?

Sadly, we can't just edit the first proposal or amend it due to technical issues. This means it must be repealed to be replaced.

The Wild West has voted with enthusiasm in support of this repeal.

AK_ID

I will vote for this Repeal in the hope that a new resolution is made to replace this one. I encourage the original writer of the resolution to revise the previous one and submit it with these revisions. If a new resolution isn't made I will be deeply disapointed in the UN in that it was a well intentioned and wise resolution, and is for the good of all the nations within the UN. A better enviroment is a better futre.

--Indy, Elected representitive of Auditorium

As this is being posted, the votes are 2.7k FOR vs. 1k AGAINST. Our nation's trust in the wisdom of the NSUN has been restored and we will support the repeal of resolution #122 untill the end.

The promotion of solar panels cannot be imposed on all nations within a time period of 10 years. This is an unrealistic time frame and is ridiculous. The nation of Caimex however, is in complete agreement that alternative sources of energy must be found before global warming starts taking its toll. Resolution #122 however is not the best way to approach this problem.

For the better of all nations in our world we recommend you to vote FOR the repeal of resolution #122 as we will. The nation of Caimex is in complete agreement of the repeal at hand.

Vote FOR.

- Delegation of Caimex

I have received a telegram attempting to challenge my claim that the science quoted in the original resolution is wrong. They provided no evidence, just a denial claiming that "they had websites to support them", of which they listed none at all.

So to set the record straight to all those nations who think that fossil fuel combustion is the cause of Ozone gas depletion: The University of Wollongong thinks you should think again. (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/HoleStory/intro/intro1.html)

The confusion might be coming from the fact that CFCs ALSO contribute to the Greenhouse effect: As this School Science page details. (http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/chemistry/fossils/p12.html)

So just to clarify:

CFCs (eg from aerosols and refridgerators) contribute to Greenhouse effect - TRUE
Gases from fossil fuel combustion contribute to Greenhouse effect - TRUE.
CFCs (eg from aerosols and refridgerators) contribute to Ozone depletion - TRUE
Gases from fossil fuel combustion contribute to Ozone depletion (As claimed by Resolution #122) - FALSE

This repeal is obviously going to pass.

Now, let us all hope that the replacement for the original solar resolution will be:

A: Practical on an economic basis;

B: Ecologically sensible;

C: Friendly to business and friendly to the environment (if you kill business, you kill the environment, too, simply because folks without jobs don't give a rat's ass about how many trees they chop down to heat their homes);

and D: Replete with common sense for the new century.

I will support a sensible, well-reasoned replacement, and so will my region. We won't, however, support any resolution than will obviously destroy our economies.

AK_ID

The UN Delegate from region of Hadera has voted to support the repeal and advise that other Delegates and all members of the UN do the same

The Kingdom of Antipatris

I have received a telegram attempting to challenge my claim that the science quoted in the original resolution is wrong. They provided no evidence, just a denial claiming that "they had websites to support them", of which they listed none at all.

So to set the record straight to all those nations who think that fossil fuel combustion is the cause of Ozone gas depletion: The University of Wollongong thinks you should think again. (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/HoleStory/intro/intro1.html)

The confusion might be coming from the fact that CFCs ALSO contribute to the Greenhouse effect: As this School Science page details. (http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/chemistry/fossils/p12.html)

So just to clarify:

CFCs (eg from aerosols and refridgerators) contribute to Greenhouse effect - TRUE
Gases from fossil fuel combustion contribute to Greenhouse effect - TRUE.
CFCs (eg from aerosols and refridgerators) contribute to Ozone depletion - TRUE
Gases from fossil fuel combustion contribute to Ozone depletion (As claimed by Resolution #122) - FALSE


Completeley true.

The Republic of Chinowawa is adamant that we have to stop using these fossil fuels immediately or they'll be no planet in the future. Chinowawa is facing, like all other Nations, a difficult time with the environment. We see the only step forward as a complete ban of all non-renewable energy as well as energy which emits carbon dioxide. We have recently banned cars to help reduce this problem. A whole solution is needed immediately - 10 years time is too far away. Chinowawa will therefore not support this repeal.

The Republic of Siewenna recognizes the difficulties some nations may face with the original proposition. Our nation is prepared to bear any hardship it must to save our planet! To that end... until a resolution is floated here that will be satisfactory to meet the goals of the original resolution, Siewenna votes Against.

Those nations who claim we, the NSUN, have no right to tell them to do this aren't looking at the big picture that we all agreed to. By joining the NSUN we recognize that a greater political body of Worldly measure is needed to safe guard our homes and protect our peoples. Those who do not wish the opinions of others put on them can leave the NSUN.

The original resolution was not perfect but it is a start. If tight restraints and time tables aren't applied, without exception, delays are all that will ensue. We must keep this resolution in place till a better one can be drafted, approved, and this resolution can be repealed for redundancy.

When this planet dies... we all die... The Republic of Siewenna will fight to protect everyones right to live! Thus we say vote against the repeal!

The Republic of Siewenna recognizes the difficulties some nations may face with the original proposition. Our nation is prepared to bear any hardship it must to save our planet! To that end... until a resolution is floated here that will be satisfactory to meet the goals of the original resolution, Siewenna votes Against.

Those nations who claim we, the NSUN, have no right to tell them to do this aren't looking at the big picture that we all agreed to. By joining the NSUN we recognize that a greater political body of Worldly measure is needed to safe guard our homes and protect our peoples. Those who do not wish the opinions of others put on them can leave the NSUN.

The original resolution was not perfect but it is a start. If tight restraints and time tables aren't applied, without exception, delays are all that will ensue. We must keep this resolution in place till a better one can be drafted, approved, and this resolution can be repealed for redundancy.

When this planet dies... we all die... The Republic of Siewenna will fight to protect everyones right to live! Thus we say vote against the repeal!



The point is that the resolution that was passed before is NOT good for the environment. Not only was it based on a false premise (that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels is responsible for ozone depletion) but its suggestion for a replacement, universal use of solar panels, introduces an environmentally unsound production activity. The production of solar panels is not ecologically sound. The usage of them is helpful in reducing fossil fuel dependence, but the kind of mass production required to produce panels for the entire world will counter any long term benefit of soalr energy usage by immediately destroying the environment. Please read what others have written before posting the same disproven arguments.

The active resolution is more of a danger to the environment than an aid. It must be repealed immediately.

get to the point of your argument, if you have one. (Cause right now, it looks like you're out for a brawl.)

Square Rootedness

Here's my point: :cool:

Right now, The City by the Live Sea's economy is doing just fine. Of course we are always looking for ways to better our productivity...

So if you came to my nation as entepenuers and said "Hey here is a great energy source...Solar power that will increase productivity," then we will buy it from you.

If you have the audasity to say "Hey, your nation is polluting my nation and I want to put you back into the stone age by making you use exclusively solar energy (which will be more costly and not work half the time--not to mention not power your nation 1/4 strength as well)," then you have my full attention, not to mention my elite military, The Royal Order of the Battle Axe :sniper: :mp5:


Thank you for letting me voice my point,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

PS Once again, the best diplomatic solution to get my attention would be a common UN think-tank that would work on better energy solutions, which would then be open for the takings by all (if they were indeed better than what everyone is using now).

PSS My spies have also alerted me to the fact that every nation that has argued against this repeal are labled as either socialists or left wing love fests...In either case these are nations with not too good of economies from the start and they are taxing their peoples with a minimum of 62--up to 100% meaning that these nations don't give a defication on how their citizens enjoy their own lives--food for thought

Well this to me seems simple. Although my nation is not a socialist nation, in real life I am very supportive of socialist beliefs, however I see not why they would vote against the repeal. It is just a matter of balance what we truely must come too. Yes i agree that using fossil fuels is dangerous and not very efficient. They run out, polute, and in the end are just a bad nuisance. However, in moderation we can concerve fuels, lessen ecological damage, and still have the ability to make money off it and use it in places where it is necessary. Its simply all a matter of ellaborating on circumstances in where Solar Power must be used. :fluffle: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Now, let us all hope that the replacement for the original solar resolution will be:

A: Practical on an economic basis;

B: Ecologically sensible;

C: Friendly to business and friendly to the environment (if you kill business, you kill the environment, too, simply because folks without jobs don't give a rat's ass about how many trees they chop down to heat their homes);

and D: Replete with common sense for the new century.Truly, my only hope for the replacement is that it would be:

A: Nonexistent.

The original resolution was not perfect but it is a start. If tight restraints and time tables aren't applied, without exception, delays are all that will ensue. We must keep this resolution in place till a better one can be drafted, approved, and this resolution can be repealed for redundancy.Erm, actually, any replacement proposed before the current act's repeal would be deleted for duplication. However, the expert timing required to assure that the replacement legislation immediately followed the repeal on the UN docket would still leave us without anti-fossil-fuel legislation for five whole days. Which of course would break your treehugging little heart. :p

*snip**snip*Prime examples for why this legislation was allowed to pass the UN in the first place. :rolleyes:

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR the repeal of this god-awful resolution.

Truly, my only hope for the replacement is that it would be:

A: Nonexistent.
I'm hoping the same thing or if that should not happen that the replacement is
B: Voted down (repeatedly if necessary)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yeldan UN Mission has voted For the repeal. We are currently leaning against supporting any replacements.

The Holy Republic of Saint James Island has finally decided to support this initiative. This decision comes based upon the hope a new clean energy bill will be proposed not long afterward, including all forms of clean and renewable energy.

-High Priest James I

The Holy Empire of Gravlen has voted for this repeal.
Have a nice day.

All hail!

Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR the repeal of this god-awful resolution.


I'm hoping the same thing or if that should not happen that the replacement is
B: Voted down (repeatedly if necessary)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I take much pleasure in informing you that the chances of that happening are roughly nil. So enjoy your moment of triumph while you can. :D

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

Long live green-energy Compadria!

Looks like a fairly good chance of the repeal being passed. If it's not passed, I will immediately resign.

For those who are saying that we should not support this repeal because the last one was passed only a short time ago - I had voted NO as soon as I considered the damage large scale solar facilities had on the environment, and had argued fervently in the thread concerned. At the last day of the voting, the gap between YES and NO dwindled considerably, to the extent that it looked as though the proposal could have been struck down.

Unfortunately, we just ran out of time.

On current technological levels Rookierookie will vote AGAINST any replacements, because we would rather not replace our rainforests with ugly shining solar panels, and we would rather not destroy the entire ecology of Rookierookie.

There are two replacements for the Promotion of Solar Panels resolution, being debated on other threads in this forum. Neither are as narrowly focused as the first and would not require anyone to cut down rainforest to put up solar panels.

The most up to date versions of the proposed replacements are HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444693&page=1&pp=15) and HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553&page=4&pp=15)

If you don't want the UN to repeat the mistakes of the past, help shape sound policy for the future.

I am quite new at this type of thing but i agree that the previous resolution had some problems. It was a good idea but modifications need to be made. I also agree that nation that had proposed the use of solar panels show great maturity by statign that the resolution needs to be gone over.

The Queendom of Etwean supports you. :)

I've just read the complete threads about both of those possible replacement resolutions, and consider the first of them much preferable to the second...

im voting against the repeal environmental regulations are just to important for us to repeal them we need this bill i only wish a bill like this could be passed in reality

Greetings from Birkovia,
My reading of the debate has revealed that many nations have argued that a ban on fossil fuels is highly damaging to their economy.
Yes, this is of course an immediate effect of such a drastic change in a nation's industry. However, many nations seem to have overlooked the fact that such damage will be felt by ALL nations. This would seem to be proven by the fact so many of you have raised this as a cause for the bill to be repealed.
The significance of this is that while a nation may at first be horrified by the change in its economical ability, this will be felt by other nations too and so a nation's standing in world economic ability will not be altered.
For example, the nation ranked 11th suffers a slump as a consequence of the ban on fossil fuels. This slump is also felt by the nation ranked 12th and so they remain 11th and 12th in the world as they both suffer by the same proportion.
Therefore, this bill shouldn't be repealed on the basis of economic ability. No nation will lose any economic competence, and so we should leave this bill in place and enjoy the massive enviromental advantages it would produce.
Birkovia

I agree that the solar panel resolution should be repealed and Altralazz supports you.

There are two replacements for the Promotion of Solar Panels resolution, being debated on other threads in this forum. Neither are as narrowly focused as the first and would not require anyone to cut down rainforest to put up solar panels.

The most up to date versions of the proposed replacements are HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444693&page=1&pp=15) and HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553&page=4&pp=15)

If you don't want the UN to repeat the mistakes of the past, help shape sound policy for the future.Umm, no thanks.

im voting against the repeal environmental regulations are just to important for us to repeal them we need this bill i only wish a bill like this could be passed in realityGood lord, why do we allow some of these nations to vote?

My reading of the debate has revealed that many nations have argued that a ban on fossil fuels is highly damaging to their economy.
Yes, this is of course an immediate effect of such a drastic change in a nation's industry. However, many nations seem to have overlooked the fact that such damage will be felt by ALL nations. This would seem to be proven by the fact so many of you have raised this as a cause for the bill to be repealed.
The significance of this is that while a nation may at first be horrified by the change in its economical ability, this will be felt by other nations too and so a nation's standing in world economic ability will not be altered.Nope. UN resolutions only affect UN nations, so 72 percent of the world is blissfully oblivious to whatever we impose upon ourselves. I might also note, 72 percent of the world is also free to continue to destroy the environment as it sees fit, without worrying about any penalty from the UN.

For example, the nation ranked 11th suffers a slump as a consequence of the ban on fossil fuels. This slump is also felt by the nation ranked 12th and so they remain 11th and 12th in the world as they both suffer by the same proportion.Nope. Sorry. Non-UN nations are not affected. Try again.

Therefore, this bill shouldn't be repealed on the basis of economic ability. No nation will lose any economic competence, and so we should leave this bill in place and enjoy the massive enviromental advantages it would produce."Environmental advantages"? Like having to raze the rainforests to accomodate the thousands of solar panels necessary to power just one large factory? How about the "advantage" of subjecting polar regions to total darkness six months out of the year? Hmm?

Honestly, do some of you even think this stuff through?

- Too short a timescale for the phasing out of fossil fuels

If initiatives aren't started now, then in ten years we'll still be having this discussion again.

Too great a fiscal expense of environmentally-conscious replacements and the introduction of said replacement s

What's the point in having an economy if there will be no environment to master in the future? I agree that other sources of environmentally friendly power should have been put into use with the original appeal (like wind and hydro). However, instead of repealing the act in order to do so, just make similar acts with different environmentally friendly energy sectors.

Too much consumption of resources and of fossil fuels themselves for the materials and processes required for the manufacture of more environmentally-conscious alternatives

Why do you need fossil fuels? Hydrogen sources and hydrolic machinery work fine.

An unforeseen and accidental hindering of many fossil fuel reliant economic sectors such as the aeronautical and airlines sector.

As I said, hydrogen energy sources. It's rocket fuel, it'll make plains go faster too I would assume. But I'm not a physicist.

An impact on power supplies, thus reducing the productive outputs of industries extracting, processing and modifying further resources to make the products that are taken for granted in maintaining our quality of life. This may involve the processing and packaging of foodstuffs, medicines, water and other supplies used in aid programs and our daily lives.

Say's who? They have photosynthetic paints that absorb more energy than plants for PHYSICAL growth. If you painted a car with such paints the battery would never die. Do so with factories and they have their own power sources.

This resolution's requirements will destroy many economies in next 10 years due to the costs of extracting, obtaining and processing the resources required, as mentioned in Section A, and the costs of the economy recovering to the level it was at before the fossil fuel ban would have to come out of already nearly depleted treasuries.

Better that then global warming and it's effects. Which some attribute to the increase in power of hurricanes and storms. So it's either industries or a lot of people... :rolleyes:

As some nations receive little sunlight each year and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available, the nations must be to allowed to decide between these choices, some of which are more suited to their climates and geography, in order to decrease their use of fossil fuels, whilst maintaining the economic viability and practicality of the replacements.

Most countries on a planet spinning at a steady pace receive the same amount of sunlight. And if you're speaking of cloud cover, UV rays can get through clouds.

This resolution falsely states that the combustion of fossil fuels results in holes in the Ozone layer, and while the UN accepts that they theoretically assist the Greenhouse Effect and are aware of its implications, this error must be removed to prevent the misinforming of member states.

Global warming and Ozone depletion are a growing theory with more and more evidence to support it. But to be honest, I don't want to see the dissipation of the Ozone before we have to say, "I told you so."

I urge all UN members to vote AGAINST this repeal! It can be done, and will make for a healthier world.

I urge all UN members to vote for this repeal.

First of all, solar power is not very reliable, contrary to what the resolutions says. Thus, it is inconsstent with the Fairness and Equality resolution, and no resolution may contradict an unrepealed previous resolution.

Secondly, millions of jobs will be lost if a fossil fuel ban is not implemented slowly.

WE must find a better way to end the use of fossil fuels.

I urge all UN members to vote for this repeal.

First of all, solar power is not very reliable, contrary to what the resolutions says. Thus, it is inconsstent with the Fairness and Equality resolution, and no resolution may contradict an unrepealed previous resolution.

Secondly, millions of jobs will be lost if a fossil fuel ban is not implemented slowly.

WE must find a better way to end the use of fossil fuels.

How can you say solar power isn't reliable? The sun provided energy for life to grow on Earth and technology has made more progess in that aspect, making solar panels that can absorb MORE wavelengths than many varieties of plants combined!

Many jobs will also be created in maintaining and building solar panels. And for cars as I've said, hydrogen can be used to couple with that as a FUEL source.

Originally Posted by Grantsburg
How can you say solar power isn't reliable? The sun provided energy for life to grow on Earth and technology has made more progess in that aspect, making solar panels that can absorb MORE wavelengths than many varieties of plants combined!
Here's the thing: plants don't use MP3 players. Comparing the creation of sugars for consumption by a plant to the production of electricity to power our industries and many aspects of our popular culture is inaccurate at best. They are two very different beasts.

Solar panels are useful forms of energy, if they have to go, at least do so in nations incapable of using them.

This repeal will pass. I will never cease to be amazed at how fickle humans are. Last week, the Solar Panel resolution passed with a huge majority of votes, and only gained real opposition when a newbie delegate or two introduced facts and common sense to the debate.

To clarify a point made by someone earlier, yes, every place on Earth receives exactly six months of sunlight annually. And yes, UV light does penetrate cloud cover (although that darned ozone layer does reflect a percentage of UV, lol).

As I stated in the original debate, solar energy is great if you live in the Sahara or the Mojave. It won't work consistently year-round in the higher latitudes (and doesn't work at all for six full months of the year if someone happens to live at the poles). Hydro power works great (IRL), say, in the US Pacific Northwest, but is worthless in the desert regions. Hydro power is yet another good example of a region-centric power source. I've spent most of my life living in areas where down-falling water is plentiful -- maybe I should write a proposal requiring all regions to use hydro power, and to heck with nations without rivers.

Back to fossile (or other oil-based fuels). They aren't going to go away. Crude oil will eventually run out, and will be replaced in industry by oils produced from corn, soy, sunflowers, etc. Hydro power and solar power are not practical fuel sources for powering aircraft or railways; nor will solar or hydro power ever replace the oil-based plastics needed to maintain our modern standard of life. Even the chips in your computers and plastic-based solar cells and the insulation on wires in hydro power plants and the IUDs that keep you from getting prego require oil (crude or bio).

AK_ID

Some vary interesting proposed points have emerged since I went to work this morning. Allow me answer your concerns:

To Grantsburg's points:
What's the point in having an economy if there will be no environment to master in the future? I agree that other sources of environmentally friendly power should have been put into use with the original appeal (like wind and hydro). However, instead of repealing the act in order to do so, just make similar acts with different environmentally friendly energy sectors.

Climate change is gradual - I believe "What's the point in having an economy if there will be no environment to master in the future?" is a gross exagguration. The economic concerns aren't about cost-cutting, saving money where possible or the typical "dark side" of corporate practice here; they're about the actual ability to implement the solar panels in the time period and the impracticality this poses to larger nations. This isn't against the environment, it's against this one poorly phrased resolution. In order to accelerate current infrastructures to meet such demands, especially in the larger nations, would probably cause EVEN MORE environmental damage due to the present reliance on fossil fuels than if we repealed this and had a rethink about how best to phase in newer, cleaner technologies without destroying the environment in doing so!

Why do you need fossil fuels? Hydrogen sources and hydrolic machinery work fine.

Sadly, it's not a case of us choosing to use them, it's a matter of us inheriting an economy and mechanisms that rely on them (this might not apply to MT or FT roleplayers). This repeal isn't against renewable resources - there are better resolutions in the draft for this cause to the one this is attempting to repeal.

As I said, hydrogen energy sources. It's rocket fuel, it'll make plains go faster too I would assume. But I'm not a physicist.

Again, this repeal is NOT against the ENDS, it's against the MEANS proposed. There are better ways to phase them in. We can't just click our red heels together and wish for home. Also, I don't think you meant the type of terrain.

Say's who? They have photosynthetic paints that absorb more energy than plants for PHYSICAL growth. If you painted a car with such paints the battery would never die. Do so with factories and they have their own power sources.

Wrong energy in question. Photosynthetic plants absorb LIGHT energy, batteries are charged by ELECTRICAL energy. You can't connect a plant leaf to a Ni-Cad battery and expect it to run.

Better that then global warming and it's effects. Which some attribute to the increase in power of hurricanes and storms. So it's either industries or a lot of people... :rolleyes:

Again, this is isn't against the ENDS, it's against the MEANS. We appreciate the effects of Global Warming, we just feel that resolution #122 is close to physically impossible to acheive. We're not all concerned about profiteering here.

Most countries on a planet spinning at a steady pace receive the same amount of sunlight. And if you're speaking of cloud cover, UV rays can get through clouds.

UV rays can indeed get through clouds as they are actually water droplets/ice crystals but they will refract the light (UV is light (electromagnetic waves, actually) above our visible range), thus creating random inequalities in UV absorption by solar panels on the ground.

As for "Most countries on a planet spinning at a steady pace receive the same amount of sunlight.", this would be true if the planet weren't tilted at c. 23°. The Earth goes around the sun, as you know, but the angle of the North and South poles don't change (as they are theoretical points of what the Earth rotates (note: NOT orbits) around). This means that for some seasons, the north pole will be closer to the sun than that south pole, and vice versa. At the extremes of this (the summer and winter solstices) the north will receive the longest sunlight it does in the year, and the south the shortest, and vice versa on the opposite solstice. At each solstice one of the poles receives 24-hour sunlight, and the other is plunged into 24-hour darkness due to the 23*° tilt. Notice how in the diagram the entire pole (the arctic/antarctic circles, in fact) are in darkness and light at the two extremes (left and right in the picture)- imagine the planet rotating around the axis (NOT the sun) during the longest day and you'll see my point.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/images/seasons.jpg

You may have heard that the equator is a very warm place to live. That is because points on it are closest to the sun at midday in their respective timezones on the equinoxes (not the solstices). At the solstices, the sun is closest to the tropic of cancer or the tropic of capricorn subject to which is which. This means that each point between the tropics will have two days (or one day if they're on them) in a year during which they are closest to the sun, but the points on the equator not only have a regular time gap between them, they get fairly even yearly sunlight compared to a point close to a tropic, which is closest for two days with very little time between, and then a long gap during which they're further from the sun because of the 23° tilt.

Of course, this completely disregards the landmasses between the tropics and the arctic/antarctic circles which are NEVER closest to the sun, but are never plunged into 24-hour darkness or have 24-hour days. Their variation in sunlight is fairly regular, but the sunlight is not as intense as that recieved between the tropics because they are further away from the sun, reducing the amount of energy solar panels can absorb compared to regions between the tropics.

In summary, your statement isn't quite right - it holds for points on the same latitude, but the closer to the poles they get, the less energy can be absorbed EXCEPT for places between the tropics which will absorb the same amount in the year subject to weather systems, BUT due to the uneven amount received during the year, this doesn't hold.

This would however be surpassable if enough sunlight reached the panels during the peak sunlight time to charge the batteries to account for the defecit - but the batteries would need to be able to store the amount of charge required for the time for which they would have to provide current (Allowing for heat dissipation and slow discharge during disuse - ever wondered why your phone lost half of it's battery when you didn't turn it on or leave it hooked up to the charger for a few days?). This is a technological void that cannot be filled in the 10 year period resolution #122 allows and thus even those in support of solar panel technology should repeal it to allow for us to allow a more generous timescale to improve the equipment our societies will have to rely on.


Global warming and Ozone depletion are a growing theory with more and more evidence to support it. But to be honest, I don't want to see the dissipation of the Ozone before we have to say, "I told you so."

Global warming theory is accepted by the repeal as valid and holding. The products due to the combustion of fossil fuels does NOT lead to Ozone depletion, that is Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons. CFCs (if not already) should be outlawed in a new resolution, but this is not a field resolution #122 seeks to cover with scientific viability. Starcra II accepted this error on his part, and it was one of the reasons behind his support of the repeal.

BassX's point:

Solar Panels Are good
Solar panels are useful forms of energy, if they have to go, at least do so in nations incapable of using them.

We are not condeming Solar Panels. This repeal is against this mandate for their impractical implementation, not their implementation in general. Did you read the resolution in full?

Birkovia's point:

Greetings from Birkovia,
My reading of the debate has revealed that many nations have argued that a ban on fossil fuels is highly damaging to their economy.
Yes, this is of course an immediate effect of such a drastic change in a nation's industry. However, many nations seem to have overlooked the fact that such damage will be felt by ALL nations. This would seem to be proven by the fact so many of you have raised this as a cause for the bill to be repealed.
The significance of this is that while a nation may at first be horrified by the change in its economical ability, this will be felt by other nations too and so a nation's standing in world economic ability will not be altered.
For example, the nation ranked 11th suffers a slump as a consequence of the ban on fossil fuels. This slump is also felt by the nation ranked 12th and so they remain 11th and 12th in the world as they both suffer by the same proportion.
Therefore, this bill shouldn't be repealed on the basis of economic ability. No nation will lose any economic competence, and so we should leave this bill in place and enjoy the massive enviromental advantages it would produce.
Birkovia

First of all, can I thank you for qualifying your points, it makes your argument more credible. However, this doesn't bring non-UN nations into account.

Just to highlight the main issue I have with the argument:
"For example, the nation ranked 11th suffers a slump as a consequence of the ban on fossil fuels. This slump is also felt by the nation ranked 12th and so they remain 11th and 12th in the world as they both suffer by the same proportion."

I hasten to point out here that that assumes that their economies are in all the same sectors, with all the same technologies, relying on the same infrastructure, almost as if nation 12 was a smaller version of nation 11. This isn't true in light of cultural differences that have an effect on working standards and patterns as well as technological and legal/regulatory differences. Besides, our economic qualm is to do with the viability of this in terms of physical capability, not whether we can forsee an X% profit in our 4th quarter projections.

Thanks to all nations for their points, concerns, supports and outcries. I hope this sheds some light for people.

If initiatives aren't started now, then in ten years we'll still be having this discussion again.

The intention of the original author is to replace the flawed legislation with one that is realistic and factually accurate. Initiatives will be started now.



What's the point in having an economy if there will be no environment to master in the future? I agree that other sources of environmentally friendly power should have been put into use with the original appeal (like wind and hydro). However, instead of repealing the act in order to do so, just make similar acts with different environmentally friendly energy sectors.

This resolution demands usage of solar panels. There can be no additional resolutions. We are all currently bound by a contract to completely convert to solar power. More importantly, and I grow weary of repeating this, production of the number of solar panels needed to power the world's industry will almost immediately destroy the environment. When thinking, the proper organ to use is the brain. Though the heart speaks more loudly, it is devoid of logic.


Why do you need fossil fuels? Hydrogen sources and hydrolic machinery work fine.

You should examine the concept of hydrogen fuel a bit more. To produce usable hydrogen, by current methods, involves processing at fossil fuel burning plants. Thus you must use energy to create more enrgy to use. Hydrogen is not yet a viable energy source. Besides, what types of fuels do you think will be used in the production of billions of solar panels? I will give you a hint: they're made from compacted dinosaurs.


As I said, hydrogen energy sources. It's rocket fuel, it'll make plains go faster too I would assume. But I'm not a physicist.

Nor a chemist. See above.



Say's who? They have photosynthetic paints that absorb more energy than plants for PHYSICAL growth. If you painted a car with such paints the battery would never die. Do so with factories and they have their own power sources.

Photosynthetic paints are not an immediate answer. They are a good idea that is still in development. The best that scientists can say about them is that "plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology" (National Geographic, 2005). I think that you underestimate the amount of power used by industry.



Better that then global warming and it's effects. Which some attribute to the increase in power of hurricanes and storms. So it's either industries or a lot of people... :rolleyes:

Again, production of the required number of solar cells will destroy the environment. Other legislation is in the works. It is rather inhumane to suggest that a few years of global warming is not worth the evisceration of millions of people's well-beings. Your view seeks to destroy both the environment and the human population.


Most countries on a planet spinning at a steady pace receive the same amount of sunlight. And if you're speaking of cloud cover, UV rays can get through clouds.

The topic under discussion here is polar areas. We here in the NS world have fellow UN members in Antarctica. For six months they see no sun. You would destroy their region because most of the rest of the world gets plenty of light? I agree that people should stop whining about clouds. Homes that make use of PV cells also make use of capacitors which save elctricity for night-time use. Solar power doesn't work like your three dollar calculator.



Global warming and Ozone depletion are a growing theory with more and more evidence to support it. But to be honest, I don't want to see the dissipation of the Ozone before we have to say, "I told you so."

I urge all UN members to vote AGAINST this repeal! It can be done, and will make for a healthier world.


No one is arguing against the real science behind ozone depletion and global warming. This is not a growing theory. Any scientist worth his/her salt believes it. Only faux science produced by industry and conservative "think tanks" ever contradicts these ideas. The false information contained in the original proposal (which I will have to assume you didn't read) is that fossil fuels are responsible for ozone depletion. CO2 emissions are indeed involved in global warming. They form the pollution layer that traps solar heat in the environment. It is CFCs, however, that cause ozone depletion. What we currently have is a passed resolution that contains a factual error. That means that this error is part of the international debate about environmental issues. It should, and will, be corrected.

I urge all UN members to not be obstinate romantics. This repeal will save the environment from irreparable damage and will allow for realistic approaches to renewable energy production. VOTE FOR THE REPEAL.

If you would like to see the National Geographic article it can be found here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Ficticious Proportions,

Thanks for stating so graciously what I would have stated with far less attention to political correctness. You are so damned diplomatic, I stand in awe. In real life, and online, I have the evil tendency to call stupid people stupid.

AK_ID

Oh, and vote FOR the repeal, folks.

AK_ID

Ficticious Proportions,

Thanks for stating so graciously what I would have stated with far less attention to political correctness. You are so damned diplomatic, I stand in awe. In real life, and online, I have the evil tendency to call stupid people stupid.

AK_ID

Heh. Thanks, AK_ID. You don't want to know what I've felt like saying to some of the points made... I'm surprised I haven't got abusive myself... :) Anger doesn't often win things in the long term, though...

May I both thank those you who responded to my arguements and also apologise for the mistakes you noted. I guess Birkovia is still a nation finding our feet!
On this subject, having read your responces thoughally I cannot emphasise strongly enough the new proposals (namely the second version posted and discussed yesterday night).
It seems incorrect to suggest that this proposal doesn't suit everyone. It fully acknowledges the plight of environmentalists while observing the need for nations to preserve their economies.
Environmentalists seem fully provided for. It clearly states that continued use of fossil fuel cannot continue. Therefore, environmentalists can be safe in the knowledge that there will be a strong and, if this draft is passed, compulsory effort to correct pollution. They also cannot complain about the fact multiple energy sources are now available. There has been some superb points about the flaws of solar power and we feel safe in saying varying forms of renewable power will be needed. This second of the drafts seems to give most hope for an enviromentally friendly industrial future.
As for those who fear economic ruin, the flexibility of the move to renewable energy cannot be bettered. Nations have a chance to protect their economy while moving to an effective new power source with relatively few economic troughs (there will be an inevitable slow down in growth, however).
Vote FOR the repeal and also vote FOR the newly drafted proposal (something we should make a priority to be queued). Those of you who, like me, believe we should concentrate on making energy renewable and who supported my earlier point I urge to vote FOR this repeal. The alternative is a far more realistic route to enviromentally friendly energy.
Birkovia

Voting FOR this repeal is simply a matter of common sense (no offense intended towards the folks who voted for the original Solar Panel fiasco), but voting FOR a replacement will require a lot of thoughtful debate in the UN.

AK_ID

May I both thank those you who responded to my arguements and also apologise for the mistakes you noted. I guess Birkovia is still a nation finding our feet!

No problem Birkovia, every NS nation's been there at some point. :)

Here's the thing: plants don't use MP3 players. Comparing the creation of sugars for consumption by a plant to the production of electricity to power our industries and many aspects of our popular culture is inaccurate at best. They are two very different beasts.

Energy is energy...maybe they didn't teach you that in school. It's the different mechanisms of COLLECTING that energy that differs. Of course we won't use the energy in solar panels for physical growth, but other sources but the exact same amout of energy (if not much more with modern sciences) goes through a solar panel.

Nations of this World

The Confederacy of Githrie does not support any UN solar panel promotion resolution and we ask that you do not either. We are a nation of freedom and we believe the UN should also support freedom and just beging that they are proposing to make fossil fuels illegal is a violation of our beliefs as a nation. Vote for freedom.

Commander in Cheif of the Confederacy of Githrie
'all glory is fleeting'

Grantsburg, did you read my points (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9695324&postcount=91) ?

Climate change is gradual - I believe "What's the point in having an economy if there will be no environment to master in the future?" is a gross exagguration. The economic concerns aren't about cost-cutting, saving money where possible or the typical "dark side" of corporate practice here; they're about the actual ability to implement the solar panels in the time period and the impracticality this poses to larger nations. This isn't against the environment, it's against this one poorly phrased resolution. In order to accelerate current infrastructures to meet such demands, especially in the larger nations, would probably cause EVEN MORE environmental damage due to the present reliance on fossil fuels than if we repealed this and had a rethink about how best to phase in newer, cleaner technologies without destroying the environment in doing so!

Most companies are a long term investment. So is the survival of a species. Like I said, I don't understand why people keep saying fossil fuels. There are other types of fuel out there that are already environmentally friendly.

Sadly, it's not a case of us choosing to use them, it's a matter of us inheriting an economy and mechanisms that rely on them (this might not apply to MT or FT roleplayers). This repeal isn't against renewable resources - there are better resolutions in the draft for this cause to the one this is attempting to repeal.

People are making assumptions then to save a few bucks. I'd rather save lives from the smog that's being produced.

Wrong energy in question. Photosynthetic plants absorb LIGHT energy, batteries are charged by ELECTRICAL energy. You can't connect a plant leaf to a Ni-Cad battery and expect it to run.

Better that then global warming and it's effects. Which some attribute to the increase in power of hurricanes and storms. So it's either industries or a lot of people...

Again, this is isn't against the ENDS, it's against the MEANS. We appreciate the effects of Global Warming, we just feel that resolution #122 is close to physically impossible to acheive. We're not all concerned about profiteering here.

Maybe you didn't skip ahead in my posting where I said there's photosynthetic paints and plastics available to absorb MORE frequencies of lightwaves than plants?? Your whole argument isn't even based on mine.

Global warming theory is accepted by the repeal as valid and holding. The products due to the combustion of fossil fuels does NOT lead to Ozone depletion, that is Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons. CFCs (if not already) should be outlawed in a new resolution, but this is not a field resolution #122 seeks to cover with scientific viability. Starcra II accepted this error on his part, and it was one of the reasons behind his support of the repeal.

There are leads in certain fossil fuels that aren't naturally in teh atmosphere. When you start putting great amounts of substances, or substances that were never there to begin with, in the atmosphere, the homeostatic mechanisms are broken.

As to your long post in the middle (which I won't quote to save space). I think you failed to mention that it doesn't matter than the Earth is on a tilt (I'm well aware of that). Because the Earth rotates itself as it goes around the sun, all areas of the Earth are still hit by the suns like equally. I wish I could esplain it better...but to me it's just common sense. I guess using your north and south pole example, they will distribute the suns light equally, because while one isn't in direct contact for half the year, it is for the other half, and vice versa.

This resolution demands usage of solar panels. There can be no additional resolutions. We are all currently bound by a contract to completely convert to solar power. More importantly, and I grow weary of repeating this, production of the number of solar panels needed to power the world's industry will almost immediately destroy the environment. When thinking, the proper organ to use is the brain. Though the heart speaks more loudly, it is devoid of logic.

Nobody has explain how the environment will become destroyed beyond a shadow of a doubt, except by stating through means which can be avoided to create further environmental damage.

You should examine the concept of hydrogen fuel a bit more. To produce usable hydrogen, by current methods, involves processing at fossil fuel burning plants. Thus you must use energy to create more enrgy to use. Hydrogen is not yet a viable energy source. Besides, what types of fuels do you think will be used in the production of billions of solar panels? I will give you a hint: they're made from compacted dinosaurs.

There is natural hydrogen gases. Plus once you begin creating just a few solar panels, use the energy from that, to separate atoms (if need be), then use the hydrogen fuel to create more panels, then continue the process. Even if you need to use fossil fuels for the first part you won't for long!

Nor a chemist. See above.

It's based on your damaging-to-the-environmental practices that doesn't allow you to think logically and compassionately.

Photosynthetic paints are not an immediate answer. They are a good idea that is still in development. The best that scientists can say about them is that "plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology" (National Geographic, 2005). I think that you underestimate the amount of power used by industry.

Like I said, a car with this paint on it can run the battery forever. A factory with it, should be able to run the factory, plus solar panels can be placed elsewhere. Maybe you should read the entire posting before posting on it piece by piece. Usually (not always though) I will address any flaws in a different section.

Again, production of the required number of solar cells will destroy the environment. Other legislation is in the works. It is rather inhumane to suggest that a few years of global warming is not worth the evisceration of millions of people's well-beings. Your view seeks to destroy both the environment and the human population.

Global warming as I said is believed to be a reason for the warming of the oceans and hence more powerful storms are developing. People's lives are at stake. Not to mention it is KNOWN that people die from smog created by fossil fuels!

The topic under discussion here is polar areas. We here in the NS world have fellow UN members in Antarctica. For six months they see no sun. You would destroy their region because most of the rest of the world gets plenty of light? I agree that people should stop whining about clouds. Homes that make use of PV cells also make use of capacitors which save elctricity for night-time use. Solar power doesn't work like your three dollar calculator.

I've already addressed it. Maybe you haven't heard of batteries?

urge all UN members to not be obstinate romantics. This repeal will save the environment from irreparable damage and will allow for realistic approaches to renewable energy production. VOTE FOR THE REPEAL.

I urge all UN nations who care for people over money to vote against this resolution. We can't be bought out by corporate whores!

Most companies are a long term investment. So is the survival of a species. Like I said, I don't understand why people keep saying fossil fuels. There are other types of fuel out there that are already environmentally friendly.

The reason fossil fuels are being mentioned in this thread is because the resolution which this repeal is trying to remove calls for the complete termination of their use within an impractical timescale.


People are making assumptions then to save a few bucks. I'd rather save lives from the smog that's being produced.

I'm afraid you've missed the point. We're not disagreeing with the intent, we're disagreeing with the timescale mandated.

Maybe you didn't skip ahead in my posting where I said there's photosynthetic paints and plastics available to absorb MORE frequencies of lightwaves than plants?? Your whole argument isn't even based on mine.

I did. If you read my post again, you'll see the very next paragraph in my previous post addressed your photosynthetic paints. I'll assume you meant painting the solar panels with them; will I agree this may enhance them slightly, such experimental technology is not reliable enough. It could be improved, I agree, but by that time, we'd have been forced to install inferior technologies due to the 10 year limitation, one of the key reasons for the repeal.

There are leads in certain fossil fuels that aren't naturally in teh atmosphere. When you start putting great amounts of substances, or substances that were never there to begin with, in the atmosphere, the homeostatic mechanisms are broken.

By "leads" I assume you mean "lead" the metal. Lead is a fairly inert metal, hence it's use in roof linings. When you release a REACTIVE substance into the atmosphere, sure, but lead isn't in that context. The mean reason lead is a problem in fossil fuels is because of lead in exhausts leading to heavy metal poisoning to organic lifeforms at ground level. It's a problem, but leaded petrols have since been banned in many (if not all) countries to counteract this. I do not say with this resolution that everyone who approves this wants to continue using fossil fuels - we're saying that the current timescale of Resolution #122 is impractical, and would have many negative effects in it's execution.

As to your long post in the middle (which I won't quote to save space). I think you failed to mention that it doesn't matter than the Earth is on a tilt (I'm well aware of that). Because the Earth rotates itself as it goes around the sun, all areas of the Earth are still hit by the suns like equally. I wish I could esplain it better...but to me it's just common sense. I guess using your north and south pole example, they will distribute the suns light equally, because while one isn't in direct contact for half the year, it is for the other half, and vice versa.

In terms of hours of sunlight IN A YEAR, sure, but in terms of hours of sunlight EACH DAY, and LIGHT INTENSITY, basically how much energy each panel can absorb, and how long for, the angle of the planet DOES matter, hence I included it. Weaker light intensity means fewer available rays for the panels to absorb per area and thus less power. Did you read my post in full? As in, not scanning? The technology has tons of room for improvement. I'm speaking from an A-Level in Physics.

Although it wasn't addressed to my argument:

It's based on your damaging-to-the-environmental practices that doesn't allow you to think logically and compassionately.

Please don't nay-say. It's not constructive, it's like children arguing in a playground.

I urge all UN nations who care for people over money to vote against this resolution. We can't be bought out by corporate whores!

Grantsburg, I feel you've grossly misread the intention of this repeal resolution. It's main purpose is not to promote fossil fuels in any way, shape or form. It's not condemning renewable energy sources in any way, shape or form. This repeal resolution even acknowledges the greenhouse effect and the way fossil fuel combustion products contribute to it.

If you look at my nations (Ficticious Proportions (note the typing error in Fictitious), Kurui, Atacama, Mass Produced Coleslaw) you will see that they are Left-Leaning College States and Civil Rights Lovefests (at the time of typing). As this page (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_category) shows, it means they have either an authoritarian or centrist view on the economy (that means, highly or moderately restricted, not laissez-faire capitalism at all). I'm not a condoner of some corporate practices at all. This isn't a case of cutting corners, saving money or trying to make a quick buck at all. We see the technical limitations as too great to surmount. Even Starcra II, the original author, agrees with our concerns, hence his desire to produce a better resolution and support this repeal so he can do so.

I'm not against solar panels or any renewable energy source. I'm against this impractical schema for their compulsory introduction (note: NOT against their introduction outright). Given more time in the original proposal, a more reliable technology suitable for powering even the largest nations, and the right for nations to choose which renewable energy sources to choose to suit their geography, geology and climate, would make a lot more sense.

I do feel, however, that your "Corporate whores" comment is very inappropriate and of no benefit whatsoever to the discussion. Especially considering that I'm a left-winger as well.

I'm afraid you've missed the point. We're not disagreeing with the intent, we're disagreeing with the timescale mandated.

Then why are you mentioning things like destroying the environment in the process? 10 years is plenty of time. Solar panels are a relatively recent phenomena and are developing at a very rapid rate. In ten years they'll be much stronger than they are now, especially with initiatives like this!

I did. If you read my post again, you'll see the very next paragraph in my previous post addressed your photosynthetic paints. I'll assume you meant painting the solar panels with them; will I agree this may enhance them slightly, such experimental technology is not reliable enough. It could be improved, I agree, but by that time, we'd have been forced to install inferior technologies due to the 10 year limitation, one of the key reasons for the repeal.

No I mean painting OBJECTS with them. As I said, a car painted with it, the battery would never die. A laptop painted with it provides it with a constant supply of energy. Like I said, paint the factories themselves with it and that will save a lot of this space malarky that was mentioned in the original complaints from the original resolution.

By "leads" I assume you mean "lead" the metal. Lead is a fairly inert metal, hence it's use in roof linings. When you release a REACTIVE substance into the atmosphere, sure, but lead isn't in that context. The mean reason lead is a problem in fossil fuels is because of lead in exhausts leading to heavy metal poisoning to organic lifeforms at ground level. It's a problem, but leaded petrols have since been banned in many (if not all) countries to counteract this. I do not say with this resolution that everyone who approves this wants to continue using fossil fuels - we're saying that the current timescale of Resolution #122 is impractical, and would have many negative effects in it's execution.

Of course I mean lead as the metal. Diesel fossil fuels for instance. And regardless, the increasing CO2 into the atmosphere causes problems. You said you didn't argue with that either. I'm just stating different scenarios that are negative to the environment.

In terms of hours of sunlight IN A YEAR, sure, but in terms of hours of sunlight EACH DAY, and LIGHT INTENSITY, basically how much energy each panel can absorb, and how long for, the angle of the planet DOES matter, hence I included it. Weaker light intensity means fewer available rays for the panels to absorb per area and thus less power. Did you read my post in full? As in, not scanning? The technology has tons of room for improvement. I'm speaking from an A-Level in Physics.

Like I said, all regions of the Earth get the same amount of sun (per year, in case I need to clarify my point)!! I don't know what I have to read to tell you it's a common fact. Because we're not in the sun half the year at a time, we're still not in the sun half the time. And like I said, battery storage would be key for such regions.

Please don't nay-say. It's not constructive, it's like children arguing in a playground.

I only retaliate. S/He said I didn't think logically because I was feeling with my heart. Or something along those lines. So I was proving how logically I was thinking compared to him/her. But you're entitled to your opinion. But perhaps you take his/her side because s/he is on your side already :rolleyes: .

I do feel, however, that your "Corporate whores" comment is very inappropriate and of no benefit whatsoever to the discussion. Especially considering that I'm a left-winger as well.

I'm hearing a lot of fiscal negativities of this resolution, when you claim it's just about time. It's a load of b/s in my opinion. Maybe to you it's about time. Ten years is a lot time though. I mean look at the innovations in computers in that time. With more effort I can foresee rapid growth in this sector.

No I mean painting OBJECTS with them. As I said, a car painted with it, the battery would never die.

You can't just paint a photosynthetic material onto a battery and have it automatically charge, you need the proper circuit runs, you need to generate voltage (it needs to be photovoltaic not just photosynthetic), etc... It's difficult to see how those could be put in paint. We seriously suspect you are misunderstanding some concept you read of somewhere but we invite you to correct us by linking to some technical details regarding this paint you are speaking of.

Fact: To completely replace a country's power production with solar power, at least 95% of that nation's non-domesticated animals and plants will be wiped out.

Fact: Some people seem to think with their rear-ends, and automatically rubber-stamp solar panel resolution without thinking about the environmental damages it WILL cause to them

how sad.

a replacement for the original solar resolution thats going to get passed?

not likely. :rolleyes:
the United Nations seem to be dominated by economically conservative but socially progressive people.

We are rather surprised at the enthusiasm some nations appear to be showing for the Hydrogen Economy, as a viable future source of fuel. I direct those who believe so to the following address and ask them to, perchance, reconsider their opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Then why are you mentioning things like destroying the environment in the process? 10 years is plenty of time. Solar panels are a relatively recent phenomena and are developing at a very rapid rate. In ten years they'll be much stronger than they are now, especially with initiatives like this!

The environmental damage would come from the way current fossil fuel based economies would be accelerated (read: burn more fossil fuels are release more harmful emissions than they would normally over the same period of time) in order to produce these solar panels (read: BEFORE THESE PANELS ARE IN PLACE). Solar Panels don't just materialise out of thin air. The damage to the environment would either happen slowly as we spend time developing a viable solar panel and then install them, or quickly as we rush to fit it all within 10 years, then have to do the same production again when the technology improves to match the standards we'd acheive if we spent time on developing the panels in the first place.

I refer to you to these two clauses in the original text of resolution #122:

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

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

10 years is NOT sufficient time for both the introduction and termination of the use of fossil fuels (regardless of the added few months) when you consider:

-These panels have to be produced.

-These panels have to sustain your nation's national grid, and so we'd have to make a hideously wasteful quantity of them to provide enough power if that were even possible. The technology needs to be improved to prevent such a waste of resources - 10 years is not enough.

-Systems relying on combustion of fossil fuels (such as engines in automobiles and aircraft, metal extraction (eg Iron), steel production and other uses besides) only have 10 years to find ways in which solar panels can replace them whilst maintaining the system's efficiency. 10 years is not enough.

-In terms of Iron extraction, fossil fuels (coal, to be precise) are necessary not for energy, but for a chemical reaction to remove impurities from the iron. The carbon in fossil fuels is REQUIRED for this. With impure iron, steel made from it is weaker - thus constructions dependent on it (esp. reinforced concrete, used in road construction and skyscrapers) can't take as much physical strain and are much much weaker.) Fossil Fuels can't be replaced in as all applications - in some applications, they can't just be withdrawn until we have enough time to research an alternative. 10 years is not enough.

-As much as Solar Panels will improve in 10 years, there's no guarentee of their ability to actually provide enough electricity to power every item of electrical equipment in their home. Also, whilst the technology may improve in 10 years - that only gives us one month to produce the panels and install them everywhere. These have to be researched, designed and implemented. 10 years is not enough.

Upgrading technology involves a chemical/physical theoretical breakthrough, then this theory has to be tested by repeating the original experiment until it can't be disproven so it can be relied upon, then this technology has to be developed for practical use so it can incorporated into new products, which then have to be prototyped, tested as products, any faults having to be corrected by repeating this last piece of the process again, then a manufacturing process has to be set up in a way involving as little wastage as possible (again requiring research) and then, and ONLY then, can the product be deemed reliable. Besides, the improvement only effects new products, we can't just research it, click our fingers and every solar panel is improved - this isn't Age of Empires. 10 years is not enough.

For a practical example - Look at Nuclear Fusion. The theory behind it and it's energy release was discovered during the Manhattan Project in the 1940's, hence it's use in the H-bombing of Nagasaki on the 9th August 1945. (Sure, a bomb is a single use item that doesn't have to stand the test of time) However, fusion reactors have been hypothesised since the 1950's. Where's the practical reactor? An experimental one is being built in France as we speak and there's still no gaurentee of it's feasibility. We have a working solar panel, granted, but as things stand, they're not good enough for the purpose this resolution requires them for. We're against the timescale beyond everything else.

Ten years is NOT enough.

No I mean painting OBJECTS with them. As I said, a car painted with it, the battery would never die. A laptop painted with it provides it with a constant supply of energy. Like I said, paint the factories themselves with it and that will save a lot of this space malarky that was mentioned in the original complaints from the original resolution.

I looked into (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001918.html) this "photoelectric paint" you keep referring to. This article claims "30% efficiency would make quantum dot polymer solar cells competitive with traditional silicon-and-glass panels, and far more functional.". It is just as effective as present-day solar panel technology, highly experimental (although promising, it was only discovered in February and is yet to be made into a product commercially available), but would require more than 10 years of research into it before we could entrust our livelihoods to the technology.

Of course I mean lead as the metal. Diesel fossil fuels for instance. And regardless, the increasing CO2 into the atmosphere causes problems. You said you didn't argue with that either. I'm just stating different scenarios that are negative to the environment.

This contributes nothing that hasn't already been addressed. The repeal accepts the Greenhouse Effect. End of story.

Like I said, all regions of the Earth get the same amount of sun (per year, in case I need to clarify my point)!! I don't know what I have to read to tell you it's a common fact. Because we're not in the sun half the year at a time, we're still not in the sun half the time. And like I said, battery storage would be key for such regions.

You've completely missed my point. They get the same DURATION, agreed, but not the same LIGHT INTENSITY due to the fact that the planet is a sphere (hence, the areas nearer the poles are further away from the sun) and thus receive DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF ENERGY from the sun. It'd be similar to red-shift, but admittedly on a much smaller scale - kept simply, light over a long distance stretches out slightly due to the expansion of the universe, resulting in longer wavelengths in the light that reaches the earth (in this case, from the sun)

The longer wavelengths ( λ ) as a result would result in lower electromagnetic frequencies (f) in the light obtained, as the speed of light (c) through the same medium (in this case, a vacuum, space) is constant.

c = fλ, therefore f = c/λ , as λ increases and c stays constant, c/λ decreases, therefore so does f.

The Energy form the electromagnetic waves (light) would be determined by E=hf, where E is the energy, h is Planck's constant (6.626068 × 10^-34 m² kg /s) and f is the frequency. Lower values of f give lower values of E, as h is constant.

This may not seem a very large difference, but these values are for ONE INDIVIDUAL wave/particle of light. Trillions of them hit one area of the earth in a minute. This difference, multiplied by this magnitude, accounts for a noticable energy difference between regions.

This goes to all nations who refer to the "6 months of sunlight a year" argument - Read this page (http://www.oceansonline.com/seasons.htm) for more information as to why to the light intensity differs between regions. Sunlight in region A isn't the same intensity as sunlight in region B. It's simplified somewhat, but shouldn't pose any real comprehension problems.

I only retaliate. S/He said I didn't think logically because I was feeling with my heart. Or something along those lines. So I was proving how logically I was thinking compared to him/her. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Heh, no worries, I can understand you were provoked. I just didn't catch the mudslinging in the second post you were replying to becuase I was quoting yours to reply to it. :)

But perhaps you take his/her side because s/he is on your side already :rolleyes:

And I thought I was cynical... Nah, as I said, I just missed the antagonisation.

I've lost track of who started it (not that it really matters, to be fair), and this isn't a criticism of you at all, but the problem is when we chuck insults into a reasoning, it makes it seem less reliable and more like a mudslinging act of closed-minded defiance, regardless of whose side they're on. Heck, a couple of the comments I've got in the telegram system of support have been some of the most narrowminded I've seen. Then we get retaliation, and then they retaliate back, and then we just get nowhere with the discussion and just negative impressions of one another. Hell, I'm not perfect by any means!

Let's just chill out a little here. I'm not gonna make anyone kiss and makeup but let's keep it level-headed, open-minded and sensible. That goes for all of us. Including me, of course. :)

I'm hearing a lot of fiscal negativities of this resolution, when you claim it's just about time. It's a load of b/s in my opinion. Maybe to you it's about time. Ten years is a lot time though. I mean look at the innovations in computers in that time. With more effort I can foresee rapid growth in this sector.

Computer innovations are mostly due to the IT explosion in the last decade, in which many people were employed in the sector to write software, use e-commerce and many other advances. The reason it expanded so much was because almost every company used them and so developed their own methods of getting the most out of them, then they shared technologies to create better things. Not as many people are involved with solar panels because solar panels do a lot less than a computer can (when configured and equipped correctly). Computers have also been around a fair while, I hasten to add - Charles Babbage?
The fiscal negativities are primarily (but not solely) the consequence of the timescale and rushing to suit it, which is why the timescale has been the main point used to argue for the repeal, but it's a case of cause and effect. If #122 allowed, say, a fifty year research period to allow us to develop the technologies to a level suitable for powering a nation including producing the product, then a ten year installation period, it would make more sense, as most of the present hurdles could be overcome; we'd have tested and reliable technologies. The elimination of fossil fuels is a secondary (although important) issue because of their uses besides the obvious "combustion engine" use everyone associates them with. Cars can be converted, granted, but many other issues (some aforementioned) remain.

In summary, our technology is not yet ready to completely pass the burden of running our national grids and livelihoods onto purely environmentally-friendly alternatives. This repeal is NOT AGAINST renewable energy sources, I refer you to this line in it:

PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source.

With a suitable research period to bring renewable energy sources up to feasible practicalities and efficencies akin to their fossil fuel counterparts, #122 would have been better and preventing resource wastage in the process, which would have required us to extract more resources from the Earth with possible alternative negative effects such as deforestation to get to the sources.

Ten years is NOT enough. Vote FOR the Repeal.

You can't just paint a photosynthetic material onto a battery and have it automatically charge, you need the proper circuit runs, you need to generate voltage (it needs to be photovoltaic not just photosynthetic), etc... It's difficult to see how those could be put in paint. We seriously suspect you are misunderstanding some concept you read of somewhere but we invite you to correct us by linking to some technical details regarding this paint you are speaking of.

Certainly...I love discrediting people ;) :
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Paintable_plastic_solar_cells_using_quantum_dots#Performance_Characteristics

The environmental damage would come from the way current fossil fuel based economies would be accelerated (read: burn more fossil fuels are release more harmful emissions than they would normally over the same period of time) in order to produce these solar panels (read: BEFORE THESE PANELS ARE IN PLACE). Solar Panels don't just materialise out of thin air. The damage to the environment would either happen slowly as we spend time developing a viable solar panel and then install them, or quickly as we rush to fit it all within 10 years, then have to do the same production again when the technology improves to match the standards we'd acheive if we spent time on developing the panels in the first place.

You seemed to read all my other responses to the other person. Go back and reread them. I proposed a very efficient way of cyclically using hydrogen and solar panels, that will use VERY LITTLE fossil fuels. It's the corporate fiscal responsibilies I see most people dodging...

I'll just take things I haven't already answered and post them. This resolution poses the elimination of fossil fuels. Automotive, airlines, etc, can all use hydrogen fuel. And if they use the energy created from the solar panels to make the hydrogen, it's completely environmentally friendly!! I've already addressed 90% of what you said in that long intermission there. And just to add to your last comment...10 years is plenty of time!

I looked into this "photoelectric paint" you keep referring to. This article claims "30% efficiency would make quantum dot polymer solar cells competitive with traditional silicon-and-glass panels, and far more functional.". It is just as effective as present-day solar panel technology, highly experimental (although promising, it was only discovered in February and is yet to be made into a product commercially available), but would require more than 10 years of research into it before we could entrust our livelihoods to the technology.

You misread it I assume. It absorbs 30% of the wavelengths for energy conversion. That's quite a lot and as I said, more than all plants.

This contributes nothing that hasn't already been addressed. The repeal accepts the Greenhouse Effect. End of story.

Ignore it all you want.

You've completely missed my point. They get the same DURATION, agreed, but not the same LIGHT INTENSITY due to the fact that the planet is a sphere (hence, the areas nearer the poles are further away from the sun) and thus receive DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF ENERGY from the sun. It'd be similar to red-shift, but admittedly on a much smaller scale - kept simply, light over a long distance stretches out slightly due to the expansion of the universe, resulting in longer wavelengths in the light that reaches the earth (in this case, from the sun)

Enough light still gets through. And besides, you mentions the poles. Well I know people in the Northern pole will be glad to hear that pesky little atmosphere that reflects the rays has the largest whole there. So maybe thet receive more sun eh? Lets keep burning everything we can to provide more light to the north and, hopefully, the atmostphere in the south with follow. Maybe that was a bit dry and sarcastic, but that's my humour.

The sun's rays are constantly hitting the Earth. Where rays get deflected, others will come in. It may deflect more, but like I said, it's a contant saturation for 6 months of the year for the poles.

I've lost track of who started it (not that it really matters, to be fair), and this isn't a criticism of you at all, but the problem is when we chuck insults into a reasoning, it makes it seem less reliable and more like a mudslinging act of closed-minded defiance, regardless of whose side they're on. Heck, a couple of the comments I've got in the telegram system of support have been some of the most narrowminded I've seen. Then we get retaliation, and then they retaliate back, and then we just get nowhere with the discussion and just negative impressions of one another. Hell, I'm not perfect by any means!

I'm thinking rationally is all I was trying to point out, and when people start bringing money into it, that's when I get upset. There are ways around the burning of mass amounts of fossil fuels to support the production of solar panels.

But as long as I receive no further antogonizing words, I don't feel the need to attack anyone. Cheers!

But I think 10 years is still plenty of time and my vote and the vote of my UN delegate remains Against this repeal and I hope others will join.

Fact: To completely replace a country's power production with solar power, at least 95% of that nation's non-domesticated animals and plants.

Fact: Some people seem to think with their rear-ends, and automatically rubber-stamp solar panel resolution without thinking about the environmental damages it WILL cause to them

I think you made some mistakes or are missing words or something. That first "Fact" made absolutely no sense.

And you're right, some people like you don't think about the environmental damages that delaying or postponing an act such as the solar panels one will have on the environment :rolleyes: .

We are rather surprised at the enthusiasm some nations appear to be showing for the Hydrogen Economy, as a viable future source of fuel. I direct those who believe so to the folowing address and ask them to, perchance, reconsider their opinion.

What's wrong with hydrogen when solar panels are used instead to make it? That's really out of context because that would be using outdated methods if this repeal is shot down.

This proposal should only be ratified on the basis that we can see the updated resolution before voting to remove the old one. That way no mistakes can be made.

i agree with this sentiment.

the only problem i have with the old resolution was that it's scientific basis, as stated, was incorrect. however, this nation agrees wholeheartedly with all of the proposed actions of the first resolution in blatant indifference towards economical concerns when forced with questions of environmental stability and feels that the benefits of this resolution as passed far outweigh the irrelevance of it's errors.

can we not simply modify the original statement to correct it's errors?

it must be understood that although ten years is perhaps a little quick for a full switch over, there exists less than fifty years worth of fossil fuels available for our use......and as developing nations consume these fuels faster and faster these estimates are falling. it is not impossible that by the time that these developing nations have used enough fossil fuels to bring them up to modern standards, there will not be any left anyways. removing a ten-year deadline is merely postponing the inevitable and perhaps even putting developing nations on a track towards a frighteningly spectacular crash.

this nation does not think that the general assembly understands the true immediacy of the problem and suggests that the assembly casts aside their current concern of any and all matters of economics until such a time comes as our new energy source can realistically sustain our economic models far into the future.

as it is, i will not vote for a repeal of this until it's benefits have been legislated. i strongly suggest that the assembly reconsiders it's vote for this resolution.

Ten years is NOT enough.

i agree that ten years is not enough, which is why we should have started doing this thirty years ago.

as it is, we may only have ten years left to do it - irregardless of whether it's enough or not.

"alright, there's a ten foot storm surg of water threatening to engulf my home. the weatherman says it will be here in ten minutes - but ten minutes is not enough time to get ready! no fair!"

sometimes deadlines do not give one enough time to complete a task properly; we must complete all that we can.

this is not left wing utopianism. this is plain and simple reality.

as for burning all of the fossil fuels to make the solar panels......go ahead, get rid of them. not much point in putting a sip of milk back in the fridge....

I proposed a very efficient way of cyclically using hydrogen and solar panels, that will use VERY LITTLE fossil fuels. It's the corporate fiscal responsibilies I see most people dodging...

Are any of these plants used on a commercial scale today? Is this technology able to work on a practical level? I take you back to the point I made with Fusion power - It's all well and good for us to have beautifully flawless scientific theories as to how to make the world a better place, but until the technologies to execute the theory are implemented, proven and tested, we cannot rely on them. It's like saying "Let's all have fusion power in 10 years" - It's such a wonderful IDYLL but the PRACTICALITY is too weak to accept it. This is nothing to do with "corporate fiscal responsibilities". As I said to you earlier, I'm left wing as well, look at my nations. I'm not a corporate whore.

People invest in a project if they are sure it will succeed and be viable. Resolution #122 is not viable, and so the UN should not invest in it. The author himself saw the shortcomings. Why can't you?

I'll just take things I haven't already answered and post them. This resolution poses the elimination of fossil fuels. Automotive, airlines, etc, can all use hydrogen fuel. And if they use the energy created from the solar panels to make the hydrogen, it's completely environmentally friendly!! I've already addressed 90% of what you said in that long intermission there.

They can't just take hydrogen fuel at the click of your fingers. If you disbelieve me, put hydrogen in a petrol car, and I'll write your obituary when you turn the key. The conversion of the two requires some time, and then you have to trace down every single combustion engine present in your country. For your 959 million, that's not too bad, I imagine. For me, It's almost double the trouble in the same time - imagine what it's like for those with nations in the 5.5 billion range. The UN must consider ALL of it's members.

And just to add to your last comment...10 years is plenty of time!

Defiance does nothing on it's own. If you believe it's enough time, qualify it. I qualified the case against this time limit in several posts on this board and you don't seem to be reading them and taking it in, merely coming back with this over and over again.

I invite you to make your case for the timescale, commenting on why you feel my viewpoint on the timescale is wrong, point by point, every point, if you want this to have any credible relevence to the discussion. A case with no reasons is not a case. A comment doesn't convict a person. QUALIFY or CONCEDE.

You misread it I assume. It absorbs 30% of the wavelengths for energy conversion. That's quite a lot and as I said, more than all plants.

Misread it? I QUOTED it from the text! Read it again.

Ignore it all you want.

I'm not ignoring it. If you must know, Lead in petrol comes from fuel additives which have now been banned in most, if not all countries. This is nothing to do with fossil fuels in general, the timescale, the economic viability, or renewable energy resources, and most importantly, Resolution #122 or this repeal. Now that this tangent has been addressed, can we please return to the topic at hand?

Enough light still gets through. And besides, you mentions the poles. Well I know people in the Northern pole will be glad to hear that pesky little atmosphere that reflects the rays has the largest whole there. So maybe thet receive more sun eh? Lets keep burning everything we can to provide more light to the north and, hopefully, the atmostphere in the south with follow. Maybe that was a bit dry and sarcastic, but that's my humour.

The "hole in the atmosphere" is the Ozone hole, which is presently over the SOUTH pole (Antarctica) and shrinking due to legislation passed in the late 1980s to reduce the use of CFCs in aerosols, Halon fire extinguishers and refridgerators to elimination. This is NOTHING TO DO with fossil fuel combustion. Read my previous posts for the science with revelent links for proof. Have you read this thread in full?

This was possible because alternative propellents for aerosols had been pre-researched, alternative fire extinguishers for all purposes found, and alternative coolants for refridgerators already discovered. Sadly, due to the economic dependence on the fossil fuel economy we've inherited, any change to it, as much as it would be welcomed by some nations who are actually voting for the repeal, must be gradual, and after viable alternatives have been produced to prevent the pace of life. Notice VIABLE alternatives. There are other technologies you have quoted which are theoretically sound but need to be put into practice. By VIABLE, we mean commercially available, mass produced parts that we can do a straight swap for. Of course there are solar concept cars and hydrogen cell cars and this sensory paint, but the cost of these is much more because of their experimental technology. When there are methods of producing these available (not an overnight job by any stretch of the imagination), so much so that it becomes possible for everyone in every nation to have a environmentally friendly mode of transport, the cost of their maintenance, production and running will be that of the current fossil fuel dependent vehicle. This is why a preliminary research time is needed to make them cost less due to suitable supply and consumer confidence. This isn't profiteering - this is making sure that we don't have to use too much of the taxpayer's money on the vehicles in question.

If you replace all these vehicles at current costs for them, the companies producing them would get stupidly rich, which is why we need to reduce the cost of them by researching efficient manufacturing methods for them. As one left-wing nation to another, surely you don't want that sheer divide in income disparity?

The sun's rays are constantly hitting the Earth. Where rays get deflected, others will come in. It may deflect more, but like I said, it's a contant saturation for 6 months of the year for the poles.

But the light intensity is not the same. READ THE LINK. If you disagree, bring the evidence to counteract it in the form of a link. Qualify or Concede.

I'm thinking rationally is all I was trying to point out, and when people start bringing money into it, that's when I get upset. There are ways around the burning of mass amounts of fossil fuels to support the production of solar panels.

The production is only one aspect, and if polymers are needed, they'll have to be made from fossil fuels. There's also the aspects of transportation, maintaining the power supply until people are ready to switch over, storage, production of replacement parts, production of cabling (with plastic insulations, again, from fossil fuels) and various other issues.

But I think 10 years is still plenty of time and my vote and the vote of my UN delegate remains Against this repeal and I hope others will join.

I feel sorry for them if they follow your unqualified claim. QUALIFY or CONCEDE.

i agree that ten years is not enough, which is why we should have started doing this thirty years ago.

as it is, we may only have ten years left to do it - irregardless of whether it's enough or not.

"alright, there's a ten foot storm surg of water threatening to engulf my home. the weatherman says it will be here in ten minutes - but ten minutes is not enough time to get ready! no fair!"

sometimes deadlines do not give one enough time to complete a task properly; we must complete all that we can.

this is not left wing utopianism. this is plain and simple reality.

as for burning all of the fossil fuels to make the solar panels......go ahead, get rid of them. not much point in putting a sip of milk back in the fridge....

You're exaggurating. We're not saying we'll burn all the fossil fuels to make the solar panels, we're saying that some will have to be used to produce them as things stand. If this repeal passes, it will have taken a mere 10 days to get this resolution removed, with a replacement being proposed already, and with enough support soon enough, we could replace this with a better, more practical resolution a mere 20 days after the original idea.

To continue your overreactive metaphor, it'd be like thinking for 20/3650 minutes (c. 5 ms) to decide the best CoA to avoid the flood waters. You could run in a straight line to get away from the wave, or you could make a short detour to get your bicycle and cover a greater distance by the time the water comes.

And as for the "we may only have ten years left" - I hate to break this to you, but climate change is gradual. Ten years left would be when the sea level's risen by 100 metres and the midlands become a desert.

Can I just reiterate that this repeal is NOT a complete opposition to Solar Panels, It's against the Course of Action, not the Cause of Action. Can people PLEASE take that on board?

You're exaggurating. We're not saying we'll burn all the fossil fuels to make the solar panels, we're saying that some will have to be used to produce them as things stand.

....and i'm saying that it's basically irrelevant at this point. even if it takes every bit of fossil fuels that we have left to switch over to solar (or hydro or wind or, as i would think is the best option, a combination of several alternate energy sources) this is still the best option.

consider if we don't start switching immediately. we're going to run out some time fairly soon anyways; then we've got no energy at all and we've burned all the fossil fuel ANYWAYS. why not burn it in a way that helps us sustain ourselves in the long run - ie. in a way that creates the infrastructure to produce renewable energy sources? then, we don't need it anymore anyways and as long as we take the steps required to remove the greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, we're then in a position where we have a clean, sustainable energy source and are on our way to correcting the problems we've created.

i'm currently more concerned about switching over - at any cost - than i am about the consequence, which we are going to have to counteract in a major form ANYWAYS.

we're past the phase where idealism means anything. perhaps had we implemented kyoto, etc we wouldn't be in this mess, but we didn't and we are. we need to focus on pragmatic means to get ourselves off the oil, even if we need to use oil to get there.

furthermore, a large scale switching of energy sources will certainly create jobs and fuel the economy......but even if it didn't, we still need to focus on this.

If this repeal passes, it will have taken a mere 10 days to get this resolution removed, with a replacement being proposed already, and with enough support soon enough, we could replace this with a better, more practical resolution a mere 20 days after the original idea.

.....and what if this does not pass? i'd rather support a modification to the original legislation than a striking down of the current legislation and the UNCERTAINTY hat a new one will eventually replace it.

To continue your overreactive metaphor, it'd be like thinking for 20/3650 minutes (c. 5 ms) to decide the best CoA to avoid the flood waters. You could run in a straight line to get away from the wave, or you could make a short detour to get your bicycle and cover a greater distance by the time the water comes.

well....yeah. but the house is still fucked. i was talking about saving the house, not the person.

so, to continue my "over-reactive" metaphor you must be proposing that we let the earth fall apart and move to mars.

And as for the "we may only have ten years left" - I hate to break this to you, but climate change is gradual. Ten years left would be when the sea level's risen by 100 metres and the midlands become a desert.

i'm talking about *supply* not *consequence*. if china, india, etc keep boosting consumption at ridiculous rates we may have (at the very shortest estimate) ten years left of oil, not ten years until the earth is uninhabitable....

there's actually a time lag between emission and noticeable effect. even if we were to stop burning everything right now, we're going to see the effects get worse and worse for another 50 to 100 years; we not only need to stop burning immediately, we also need to start re-creating forested areas immediately to counter-act the damage we've already created.

Can I just reiterate that this repeal is NOT a complete opposition to Solar Panels, It's against the Course of Action, not the Cause of Action. Can
people PLEASE take that on board?

i understand this; i just agree with the earlier proposed course of action quite adamantly and do not wish to see it watered down to a less effective level.

i propose that we strike down this repeal and circulate a modification proposal that corrects the incorrect science in the original legislation. is this possible under our system of government?

blah blah

to further explain my point:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

so, yes, ten years is not enough time...

.....but ten years is what we have before oil hits $200-$400/barrel and becomes an unlikely fuel source to rely on....

......so we'd better be aiming to transfer within ten years, because even if it's unlikely, it's the only choice that we really have.

Are any of these plants used on a commercial scale today? Is this technology able to work on a practical level? I take you back to the point I made with Fusion power - It's all well and good for us to have beautifully flawless scientific theories as to how to make the world a better place, but until the technologies to execute the theory are implemented, proven and tested, we cannot rely on them. It's like saying "Let's all have fusion power in 10 years" - It's such a wonderful IDYLL but the PRACTICALITY is too weak to accept it. This is nothing to do with "corporate fiscal responsibilities". As I said to you earlier, I'm left wing as well, look at my nations. I'm not a corporate whore.

You say you're not a corporate whore, and I never said you are. But then you go right around and speak of COMMERCIAL scales! It will be practical, if we start now, and in ten years it'll be done. I don't think you listended to my idea of how to get the ball rolling on a environmentally friendly level.

People invest in a project if they are sure it will succeed and be viable. Resolution #122 is not viable, and so the UN should not invest in it. The author himself saw the shortcomings. Why can't you?

Having an environmentally friendly source of RENEWABLE energy in ten years isn't a shortcoming...I'm sorry you feel it is.

They can't just take hydrogen fuel at the click of your fingers. If you disbelieve me, put hydrogen in a petrol car, and I'll write your obituary when you turn the key. The conversion of the two requires some time, and then you have to trace down every single combustion engine present in your country. For your 959 million, that's not too bad, I imagine. For me, It's almost double the trouble in the same time - imagine what it's like for those with nations in the 5.5 billion range. The UN must consider ALL of it's members.

Hydrogen fuel cells will be more appropriate for cars. Although they're almost to a point where they've made hydrogen cars. I think California is going to have the first hydrogen hummer in UNDER TEN YEARS if I heard the report correctly.

Defiance does nothing on it's own. If you believe it's enough time, qualify it. I qualified the case against this time limit in several posts on this board and you don't seem to be reading them and taking it in, merely coming back with this over and over again.

I invite you to make your case for the timescale, commenting on why you feel my viewpoint on the timescale is wrong, point by point, every point, if you want this to have any credible relevence to the discussion. A case with no reasons is not a case. A comment doesn't convict a person. QUALIFY or CONCEDE.

Actually, firstly the burden of proof is now on you. We democratically voted on it, and now you're making claims that it's not enough time. It's plenty of time. As I said, it'll start of slowly, if you want to do it environmentally friendly, then once the ball starts rolling, the manufacturing of solar technologies (in all forms) will grow exponentially. Like I said, take my example which you have repeatedly not addressed.

Misread it? I QUOTED it from the text! Read it again.

I'm beginning to think you're illiterate (but perhaps that's just your stubbornness):
Expected to convert 30 per cent of solar energy into electricity -- a five-fold

From the source I posted before. I think you read it wrong.

But the light intensity is not the same. READ THE LINK. If you disagree, bring the evidence to counteract it in the form of a link. Qualify or Concede.

It's common sense! I don't know what intensity has to do with the amount being absorbed. The rate is going to be 30% using the example above. That seems sufficient to not make a substancial difference. Some regions don't have natural gas at all, why don't we force them to use natural gas?

The production is only one aspect, and if polymers are needed, they'll have to be made from fossil fuels. There's also the aspects of transportation, maintaining the power supply until people are ready to switch over, storage, production of replacement parts, production of cabling (with plastic insulations, again, from fossil fuels) and various other issues.

Plastics and glass...somethings that can be recycled! It's better than burning them into the sky!

And I'm obviously not conceding...like I said, my regional delegate as well as many other in my region believe that 10 years is sufficient time. The burden of proof is on you (if that's the only reason, as you claim, it's impossible to do :rolleyes: ).

to further explain my point:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

so, yes, ten years is not enough time...

.....but ten years is what we have before oil hits $200-$400/barrel and becomes an unlikely fuel source to rely on....

......so we'd better be aiming to transfer within ten years, because even if it's unlikely, it's the only choice that we really have.
Assuming the oil crash theory is true, why should we use the UN to ban oil use then?
Surely the fact that oil would become an unreliable source would cause countries to switch on their own?

To the macrocosmos' points:

....and i'm saying that it's basically irrelevant at this point. even if it takes every bit of fossil fuels that we have left to switch over to solar (or hydro or wind or, as i would think is the best option, a combination of several alternate energy sources) this is still the best option.

This repeal is not to allow us to use fossil fuels forever. It's to allow us to use fossil fuels and slowly phase in alternatives so that we can ensure the practicality of the alternatives on a day to day scale whilst continuing to maintain the electricity demands of our present way of life. A combination of renewable energy sources would be the best solution, hence in the Repeal we state:

-C- As some nations receive little sunlight each year and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available, the nations must be to allowed to decide between these choices, some of which are more suited to their climates and geography, in order to decrease their use of fossil fuels, whilst maintaining the economic viability and practicality of the replacements.

This is NOT a condemnation of renewable energy resources.

consider if we don't start switching immediately. we're going to run out some time fairly soon anyways; then we've got no energy at all and we've burned all the fossil fuel ANYWAYS. why not burn it in a way that helps us sustain ourselves in the long run - ie. in a way that creates the infrastructure to produce renewable energy sources?

We have 50 years of oil, 100 years of coal and 250 of gas if I recall correctly. We're not against the use of fossil fuels to produce solar panels, for any plastic parts, it'd be necessary, but Resolution #122's ban of fossil fuels would prevent the solar panels from being produced due to the inability to use this resource to produce the solar panels we are supposed to rely on.

then, we don't need it anymore anyways and as long as we take the steps required to remove the greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, we're then in a position where we have a clean, sustainable energy source and are on our way to correcting the problems we've created.

Sadly, we can't remove the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. There has been a greenhouse effect (albeit with a smaller amount of gases present and thus a weaker effect) since CO2 was first produced on the Earth as a result of volcanic eruptions before mankind existed. It's been cumulating ever since, but human industrial processes have added to it. Again, we're not against renewables, just this way of introducing them - we consider it to be ridiculously impractical, as has the original author Starcra II who seeks to replace his resolution with a better thought out one.


i'm currently more concerned about switching over - at any cost - than i am about the consequence, which we are going to have to counteract in a major form ANYWAYS.

It's not too bad for your 128 million to suit the demands. However, for larger nations, the timescale, economic expense as a consequence and outright ban on fossil fuel use is not acceptable. We're looking for one of the replacements to allow larger nations to research into more efficient panels and alternatives, so that we can then rely on them without damaging our infrastructures and power supplies and then, when we have an infrastructure to rely upon, then and only then can we phase out fossil fuels.

Would the steam trains have been phased out before the electric ones were in place?

we're past the phase where idealism means anything. perhaps had we implemented kyoto, etc we wouldn't be in this mess, but we didn't and we are. we need to focus on pragmatic means to get ourselves off the oil, even if we need to use oil to get there.

I agree with Kyoto, but Kyoto didn't mandate the complete termination in fossil fuel use with only a 6 month experimental period between the replacements being installed and the end. However, as much as we accept in this repeal that fossil fuels are damaging, we cannot terminate their use so soon.

furthermore, a large scale switching of energy sources will certainly create jobs and fuel the economy......but even if it didn't, we still need to focus on this.

It will also reduce and eventually zero the number of jobs in the fossil fuel plants, and the economic cost due to timescale would probably result in employers laying off workers to make ends meet. Initially, it would have a net effect of zero new jobs as the new ones counterbalance the old ones that are lost. Over time, jobs would actually lost due to the economic collapse this hurried timescale would incite - as you agreed yourself, 10 years is not enough.

well....yeah. but the house is still fucked. i was talking about saving the house, not the person.

Then your priorities aren't in check. Besides, if the house was going to be "engulfed", it'd be surrounded in, if not flooded with water and so you'd probably not want to be in it anyway due to disease and limitation of supplies. Would you really die for your house? I think not.

so, to continue my "over-reactive" metaphor you must be proposing that we let the earth fall apart and move to mars.

That would certainly be a continuation of your over-reaction, but not the metaphor in question. If you're in the line of fire, you get out of the way, it's just common sense.


i'm talking about *supply* not *consequence*. if china, india, etc keep boosting consumption at ridiculous rates we may have (at the very shortest estimate) ten years left of oil, not ten years until the earth is uninhabitable....

there's actually a time lag between emission and noticeable effect. even if we were to stop burning everything right now, we're going to see the effects get worse and worse for another 50 to 100 years; we not only need to stop burning immediately, we also need to start re-creating forested areas immediately to counter-act the damage we've already created.

This resolution's more suitable replacement, if it were applied in the real world, would effect India and China as well and so the demand would decrease. This Repeal is not against the end result, it's against how we acheive it. Ten years is not enough.

The immediate termination of fossil fuels won't happen. We need to phase in replacements or else we'll be living in the dark ages until we can get replacements in. We're not Corporate whores here as I've said before, we're just trying to prevent economic collapse, resulting in job losses, and a severely decreased Quality of Life as a consequence as people can't maintain their existances. We don't want to go back to living in the 1700's.

Deforestation is a completely different kettle of fish, a tangent to the discussion at hand, but the replanting of trees is an excellent idea to prevent soil erosion, and to "lock" more Carbon into the Earth instead of into the layers of greenhouse gases.


.....and what if this does not pass? i'd rather support a modification to the original legislation than a striking down of the current legislation and the UNCERTAINTY hat a new one will eventually replace it.

i understand this; i just agree with the earlier proposed course of action quite adamantly and do not wish to see it watered down to a less effective level.

i propose that we strike down this repeal and circulate a modification proposal that corrects the incorrect science in the original legislation. is this possible under our system of government?

Sadly, we cannot amend resolutions due to technical limitations, and this is why we have to Repeal to Replace. There are drafts being made for a replacement. There's a certainty that one of them will come to vote if it's not ridiculously inefficent like #122 sadly is. This is why #122 has to be repealed. I'm an environmentally conscious left-wing nation, but this is just impractical for job security and the basic economic factors that any nation that doesn't want to live in an economically recessive state cannot afford to ignore.

We remove to replace with better things. In the words of the repeal itself:

This repeal does not condemn solar panels, and the United Nations acknowledges that this resolution is well intentioned

......so we'd better be aiming to transfer within ten years, because even if it's unlikely, it's the only choice that we really have.

I'm NOT against the phasing out of fossil fuels. I'm saying ten years isn't enough. However, if we phase them out over a longer period of time, we have more effective alternatives that require less resources to make (better for the environment), the price of oil falls because the demand is shifted away (making it less of an issue) and our way of life, because of the gradual change, isn't effected severely enough to cause danger to our livelihoods.

To Grantsburg's points:

You say you're not a corporate whore, and I never said you are. But then you go right around and speak of COMMERCIAL scales! It will be practical, if we start now, and in ten years it'll be done. I don't think you listended to my idea of how to get the ball rolling on a environmentally friendly level.

I was referring to one of your previous closing lines with "corporate whore" and by commerical scales, I was referring to whether the plants you suggested were considered viable enough to be relied upon by the common comsumer, whether it were in wide use, whether the technology was viable.

I listened to your idea about how to get the ball rolling, I disagree that it will stop rolling at a point of technological viability if we only give it ten years to roll. Give it fifty, and you'll have chances to make it practical, reliable, and will probably be heralded as an engineering great for making it so.

You deny that 10 years isn't enough. You insist on it being practical within that time. You haven't proved it.

Having an environmentally friendly source of RENEWABLE energy in ten years isn't a shortcoming...I'm sorry you feel it is.

That is a personal attack and I condemn it. As I've said before, this repeal is not against renewable energy. It CANNOT be done in ten years. You still haven't proved your ten year claim.

Hydrogen fuel cells will be more appropriate for cars. Although they're almost to a point where they've made hydrogen cars. I think California is going to have the first hydrogen hummer in UNDER TEN YEARS if I heard the report correctly.

They've had Hydrogen cell vehicles at a developmental level for years. Notice the singular "hummer". They don't say "will be entered into mass production in under ten years". It's experimental, the costs would be ridiculous unless it were to enter mass production and once again, I remind you of the income disparity issues it would cause.

Actually, firstly the burden of proof is now on you. We democratically voted on it, and now you're making claims that it's not enough time.

The Repeal Vote at present:
Votes For: 6,349
Votes Against: 2,296

The vote on #122 as it closed:
Votes For: 8,285
Votes Against: 6,777

Notice the 7:2 ratio compared to the 4:3. The original resolution passed by quite a narrow margin compared to some resolutions, and now public opinion is swinging against it as they realise the flaws in the original.

It's plenty of time. As I said, it'll start of slowly, if you want to do it environmentally friendly, then once the ball starts rolling, the manufacturing of solar technologies (in all forms) will grow exponentially. Like I said, take my example which you have repeatedly not addressed.

I have addressed it, but will repeat it just to be sure you read it this time.

10 years is NOT sufficient time for both the introduction and termination of the use of fossil fuels (regardless of the added few months) when you consider:

-These panels have to be produced.

-These panels have to sustain your nation's national grid, and so we'd have to make a hideously wasteful quantity of them to provide enough power if that were even possible. The technology needs to be improved to prevent such a waste of resources - 10 years is not enough.

-Systems relying on combustion of fossil fuels (such as engines in automobiles and aircraft, metal extraction (eg Iron), steel production and other uses besides) only have 10 years to find ways in which solar panels can replace them whilst maintaining the system's efficiency. 10 years is not enough.

-In terms of Iron extraction, fossil fuels (coal, to be precise) are necessary not for energy, but for a chemical reaction to remove impurities from the iron. The carbon in fossil fuels is REQUIRED for this. With impure iron, steel made from it is weaker - thus constructions dependent on it (esp. reinforced concrete, used in road construction and skyscrapers) can't take as much physical strain and are much much weaker.) Fossil Fuels can't be replaced in as all applications - in some applications, they can't just be withdrawn until we have enough time to research an alternative. 10 years is not enough.

-As much as Solar Panels will improve in 10 years, there's no guarentee of their ability to actually provide enough electricity to power every item of electrical equipment in their home. Also, whilst the technology may improve in 10 years - that only gives us one month to produce the panels and install them everywhere. These have to be researched, designed and implemented. 10 years is not enough.

Upgrading technology involves a chemical/physical theoretical breakthrough, then this theory has to be tested by repeating the original experiment until it can't be disproven so it can be relied upon, then this technology has to be developed for practical use so it can incorporated into new products, which then have to be prototyped, tested as products, any faults having to be corrected by repeating this last piece of the process again, then a manufacturing process has to be set up in a way involving as little wastage as possible (again requiring research) and then, and ONLY then, can the product be deemed reliable. Besides, the improvement only effects new products, we can't just research it, click our fingers and every solar panel is improved - this isn't Age of Empires. 10 years is not enough.

For a practical example - Look at Nuclear Fusion. The theory behind it and it's energy release was discovered during the Manhattan Project in the 1940's, hence it's use in the H-bombing of Nagasaki on the 9th August 1945. (Sure, a bomb is a single use item that doesn't have to stand the test of time) However, fusion reactors have been hypothesised since the 1950's. Where's the practical reactor? An experimental one is being built in France as we speak and there's still no gaurentee of it's feasibility. We have a working solar panel, granted, but as things stand, they're not good enough for the purpose this resolution requires them for. We're against the timescale beyond everything else.

Ten years is NOT enough.

Now prove to me that in 10 years, we can power the entire national grid of a country, run every vehicle, replace every power station, and substitute every fossil fuel application with VIABLE renewable energy resources that have been tested on the field with the SAME POWER OUTPUT, the COSTINGS of the replacements, and HOW YOUR NATION with your IMPLODED economy, and $20.492 billion environment budget (Click here if you don't believe me) (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Grantsburg) would provide renewable energy to your 939 million people, complete with cabling, fusing, safety precautions, transformers, batteries to cope during times without sunlight, electrical viability tests and all other practicality and safety considerations.

When you make a claim, you prove it. If someone claims it's impossible, because they can't see a possibility, you try to prove that it is possible, because if no possible outcome is there, they win. If you want to hold your 10 year mantra, you provide the costings and the data and then I might give your claim more respect than it actually deserves.

Qualify it or Concede it.

I'm beginning to think you're illiterate (but perhaps that's just your stubbornness)

Read the link I gave you in my post and you'll see where it came from. Don't make personal attacks, it's immature. Flaming could get you banned.

From the source I posted before. I think you read it wrong.

No, I was referring to my source having read yours. The reason there was a link in my text was because that link was to the source I was quoting. I didn't put it there to make it look nice, or to decorate the page.

I don't know what intensity has to do with the amount being absorbed.

Concession accepted. Read the link I put in a previous post for the reasons behind this.

The rate is going to be 30% using the example above. That seems sufficient to not make a substancial difference. Some regions don't have natural gas at all, why don't we force them to use natural gas?

This actually does your case more harm that good. It's like saying "Some regions don't have sunlight every day, why shouldn't we force them to use solar panels?" Because they don't always have the sunlight to provide the energy.

Plastics and glass...somethings that can be recycled! It's better than burning them into the sky!

Did you see me proposing that we burnt them into the sky? I recycle. It's just the sheer amount of plastics required would more than likely require more to be produced.

And I'm obviously not conceding...like I said, my regional delegate as well as many other in my region believe that 10 years is sufficient time.

Refer to the vote statistics at present and you'll see why this doesn't stand anymore.

I support this repeal wholeheartedly, as does my home region and allies. I do question the need for a replacement for the original Solar Resolution, however, simply because natural market forces will cause nations to find more economically reasonable sources of energy eventually, anyway.

AK_ID

We support.

First off, the UN should not be telling nations how they should spend their money on energy.

Second, some nations might have the technology to do this.

The argumentation of Grantsburg is not only flawed and contradictory, but also childish. It is apparently not okay for anyone to say anything that could possibly, in any minute way, offend the fragile sensibilities of the Granstburgian representative. However, it is fine for Grantsburg to call others illiterate, use sarcasm ("that's just my humour") or question their economic morality. The Grantsburg approach to debate is to respond to logical arguments with the equivalent of "talk to the hand." It has become glaringly obvious that Grantsburg either does not read counter-arguements, or does not understand what s/he reads. We all understand that you have some unrealistic and myopic views on the proposal and that you oppose the repeal. Your behavior here, however, is reprehensible.

If you were not referring to FP as "corporate whores" then you must have been referring to me. My nation is a "Scandinavian Liberal Paradise" with an imploded economy and a 100% income tax rate. We are not what you would call fiscally conservative. My point in bringing up economics here is a humanitarian one. There are nations that rely on fossil fuels for their well being. To abolish usage of their primary domestic product immediately is to starve their populations to death. I am sure that you will have some short-sighted quip to reply to this with, but economy building is neither a quick nor an easy path. We are not concerned with anyone's profits beyond the fact that profits in corporate countries are the source for the majority of their populations' (the working class) income. In fact your view provides a greater profit incentive as we are all forced to purchase incredibly expensive experimental energy production devices. Your call for instantaneous change would like halt when you could not afford to use your computer or your video games or any other electronic niceties that you enjoy.

As you don't seem to understand the issue of sunlight exposure for polar regions, let me take another tact. You wrote off concerns for these regions with some smarmy snap about batteries. So you apparently know of technology that can produce batteries that store enough energy for an entire nation to use for six months. And of course the cells that collect this energy and the batteries to which they are connected are completely separate from the ones used for energy during the portion of the year when sun exposure is at a premium. Then, when the six months of darkness fall, the entire grid is switched over to these amazing batteries. Just to make sure you get the point I am making here: this would be impossible in implementation.

But please ignore my comments. I would much rather see a response to Ficticious Proportions that makes sense and actually answers his/her arguments. I apologize if this post offends you, but you have done a fine job of offending me and others here. Why is it so hard to try to discuss a mutually effective route to renewable energy? The repeal will pass and you will have alienated everyone who might be willing to work with you to promote a later proposal.

a replacement for the original solar resolution thats going to get passed?

not likely. :rolleyes:
the United Nations seem to be dominated by economically conservative but socially progressive people.

Economically conservative...check. Socially Progressive... :confused: :eek: ??! I think I've just been insulted. My nation is Evily Conservative, thank you very much. God Bless Barry Goldwater!
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

I support this repeal wholeheartedly, as does my home region and allies. I do question the need for a replacement for the original Solar Resolution, however, simply because natural market forces will cause nations to find more economically reasonable sources of energy eventually, anyway.

AK_ID

You're asking for reasonableness? :eek: Here? :eek: I suspect many of my esteemed delegates don't trust natural market forces.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

This repeal is not to allow us to use fossil fuels forever. It's to allow us to use fossil fuels and slowly phase in alternatives so that we can ensure the practicality of the alternatives on a day to day scale whilst continuing to maintain the electricity demands of our present way of life.

i understand this perfectly well and agree with it to an extent. however, our goal should still be complete replacement within a period of ten years as this appears to be the limit that we currently have on an available supply of oil.

i don't doubt that the original proposal is incomplete. an actual proposal on an issue of this magnitude would have to be close to a hundred pages long to have any value. nonetheless, what starcra wrote was sound in it's basic plan if not in it's science; it's science must be cleaned up and it's breadth must be expanded. but it's basic point that we must move to complete this within ten years is, if difficult to accomplish, a goal worth striving towards, and if faced between the original proposal and the alternate solutions i am reading on this board i will continue to support the original (flawed) proposal.

We have 50 years of oil, 100 years of coal and 250 of gas if I recall correctly. We're not against the use of fossil fuels to produce solar panels, for any plastic parts, it'd be necessary, but Resolution #122's ban of fossil fuels would prevent the solar panels from being produced due to the inability to use this resource to produce the solar panels we are supposed to rely on.


1) how much oil we have left is based on an estimate taking into account 1995 levels of oil consumption in east asia; as their consumption increases ten to twenty fold it will make a huge dent in our oil reserves that may be as strong as halving it to 25 years and this is a conservative estimate. furthermore, as demand increases and supply dwindles prices increase such that we probably have five-fifteen years left of oil being a viable energy source. we must have a replacement available in time or our system WILL collapse.
2) COAL?
3) natural gas has some value, certainly, but cannot replace oil.
4) it would certainly be possible and necessary to recycle old plastic.
5) we must accept that plastic will no longer exist in the future anyways and need to find an alternate solution to creating......everything.

if the original proposal is accepted it will mean that the entire world will be forced to focus on energy source replacement extremely intensely, much more so than they are now. it may even become THE largest issue on the planet......and this, i think, is exactly how it should be.

so...YES....i recognize the extremity of the proposal and the difficulty of carrying it out. however, i also recognize the necessity of doing so and hence stand behind if not completely then more than any other option i see before me....

Sadly, we can't remove the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

argh. obviously, we can't remove all of them, nor would we want to; it is necessary that some carbon dioxide exists if we wish to grow corn and potatoes. however, an increase in the number of trees on the planet will clean up increased co2 levels rather nicely if given enough time to do so.

there are other gasses in the atmosphere that can also be cleaned if not removed entirely, which is obviously what i meant, but this would require a rather grand project.....i think it better to worry about this after a new energy source is in place for the simple reason that you are correct in implying that (for the time being) our actions will lead to irreversible short term consequences.

the longer we leave it, the longer the consequences; so let's strive to get off oil immediately.

Again, we're not against renewables, just this way of introducing them - we consider it to be ridiculously impractical, as has the original author Starcra II who seeks to replace his resolution with a better thought out one.

as pointed out, the few points he had that were thought out are the ones that are being removed.

It's not too bad for your 128 million to suit the demands. However, for larger nations, the timescale, economic expense as a consequence and outright ban on fossil fuel use is not acceptable. We're looking for one of the replacements to allow larger nations to research into more efficient panels and alternatives, so that we can then rely on them without damaging our infrastructures and power supplies and then, when we have an infrastructure to rely upon, then and only then can we phase out fossil fuels.

great! but you only have ten years to accomplish this.


Would the steam trains have been phased out before the electric ones were in place?


they would if you ran out of coal.


I agree with Kyoto, but Kyoto didn't mandate the complete termination in fossil fuel use with only a 6 month experimental period between the replacements being installed and the end. However, as much as we accept in this repeal that fossil fuels are damaging, we cannot terminate their use so soon.


kyoto was fifteen years ago; it had TIME to phase things out. we no longer have this luxury.


It will also reduce and eventually zero the number of jobs in the fossil fuel plants, and the economic cost due to timescale would probably result in employers laying off workers to make ends meet.


these jobs will soon cease to exist ANYWAYS.

Initially, it would have a net effect of zero new jobs as the new ones counterbalance the old ones that are lost.

this is probably reasonable.


Over time, jobs would actually lost due to the economic collapse this hurried timescale would incite - as you agreed yourself, 10 years is not enough.


why? economies will become more localized meaning that more jobs will be created as big businesss decentralizes. you can't have a walmart anymore because the shipping, packaging, etc are not sustainable; instead, you'll have little businesses dotting the landscape.

furthermore, you again fail to see that the alternative is a complete loss of oil and oil-related jobs vwith absolutely no replacement at all until the industry collapses ten-fifteen years from now.

when i say that ten years is not enough, i mean to point out that we should have started fifteen years ago not that we need to slow down the process right when it should be speeding up.


The immediate termination of fossil fuels won't happen.


ten years is not immediate.....and it's not an arbitrary number either. it really is our natural time barrier; we have ten years to figure this out.

i'm going to stop this here because i can't be bothered to go on anymore, but i urge a suitable replacement to be presented that takes into account:

1) correct scientific language.
2) an acceptance of a ten-fifteen year time window.
3) more diverse sources than merely solar panelling.

until this is presented i urge all nations to retain this one piece of progressive legislation because even with all of it's flaws and overly naive wording it still really is better than any other option i've seen presented here.

i'm going to stop this here because i can't be bothered to go on anymore, but i urge a suitable replacement to be presented that takes into account:

1) correct scientific language.
2) an acceptance of a ten-fifteen year time window.
3) more diverse sources than merely solar panelling.

until this is presented i urge all nations to retain this one piece of progressive legislation because even with all of it's flaws and overly naive wording it still really is better than any other option i've seen presented here.
Again, if your "oil crash" is true, then this piece of legislature is totally unneeded. Nations will be forced to find new power sources within 10-15 years. What, then, is the point of the resolution?

Again, if your "oil crash" is true, then this piece of legislature is totally unneeded. Nations will be forced to find new power sources within 10-15 years. What, then, is the point of the resolution?

if history has taught me anything it's that nobody figures out that we're fucked, when we are fucked, until after we've been fucked....primarily because it is the rule that governments are inept, corrupt and indifferent to the general well being of future generations if it requires a shift in ideology or an open cheque book.

will it win an election? no. will it alienate a base? yes. well, fuck it then.

in short: it's too expensive for nations to take the initative on their own. they need a great deal of persuasion, and a law is one thing that will persuade.

otherwise, we are doomed to merely fuck up as every other civilization has and every future civilization probably will. nothing will change, especially when it's expensive, unless the government is forced to change it. internal pressure is one way to force a nation to change but external pressure is equally important if the general population within a country is too complacent or ignorant to give a fuck.

let's not be the next rome, guys.

You deny that 10 years isn't enough. You insist on it being practical within that time. You haven't proved it.

You haven't proved it to be too little time! There is still doubt!

That is a personal attack and I condemn it. As I've said before, this repeal is not against renewable energy. It CANNOT be done in ten years. You still haven't proved your ten year claim.

Prove it cannot be done!

They've had Hydrogen cell vehicles at a developmental level for years. Notice the singular "hummer". They don't say "will be entered into mass production in under ten years". It's experimental, the costs would be ridiculous unless it were to enter mass production and once again, I remind you of the income disparity issues it would cause.

Sorry Hummer came to mind because that is what the Senator will be driving. Other cars will obviously follow. And you're talking about income desparity yet you claim to be a leftist... :rolleyes: .

The Repeal Vote at present:
Votes For: 6,349
Votes Against: 2,296

The vote on #122 as it closed:
Votes For: 8,285
Votes Against: 6,777

Notice the 7:2 ratio compared to the 4:3. The original resolution passed by quite a narrow margin compared to some resolutions, and now public opinion is swinging against it as they realise the flaws in the original.

Your point. I said it was democratically elected. The owner of the original apparently started posting negative propaganda to it during the first vote.

I have addressed it, but will repeat it just to be sure you read it this time.

Yes I read those issues when you addressed them. You're looking at them at the most negative means possible. It can be done and those don't prove otherwise. It just seems like pessimistic people who want to save money.

Now prove to me that in 10 years, we can power the entire national grid of a country, run every vehicle, replace every power station, and substitute every fossil fuel application with VIABLE renewable energy resources that have been tested on the field with the SAME POWER OUTPUT, the COSTINGS of the replacements, and HOW YOUR NATION with your IMPLODED economy, and $20.492 billion environment budget (Click here if you don't believe me) would provide renewable energy to your 939 million people, complete with cabling, fusing, safety precautions, transformers, batteries to cope during times without sunlight, electrical viability tests and all other practicality and safety considerations.

When you make a claim, you prove it. If someone claims it's impossible, because they can't see a possibility, you try to prove that it is possible, because if no possible outcome is there, they win. If you want to hold your 10 year mantra, you provide the costings and the data and then I might give your claim more respect than it actually deserves.

Qualify it or Concede it.

As I said the burden of proof is on you. I've proposed a way it can be done environmentally friendly and you haven't even addressed it or shot it down. So in the words of you...Qualify or Concede it!

Read the link I gave you in my post and you'll see where it came from. Don't make personal attacks, it's immature. Flaming could get you banned.

It's quite irritating when you keep saying qualify or concede over and over. It doesn't contribute to your debate, sorry for my "flaming?" :confused: Isn't Flaming saying the same thing over and over?

Concession accepted. Read the link I put in a previous post for the reasons behind this.

In your explanation you gave you said that it didn't seem like a lot being deflected anyway. At any given point, rays will get through. I don't feel it will make that great an impact. Besides other than scientific outposts, I don't know too many people who live in Antarctica or the severe northern regions. Therefore they require less energy anyway.

This actually does your case more harm that good. It's like saying "Some regions don't have sunlight every day, why shouldn't we force them to use solar panels?" Because they don't always have the sunlight to provide the energy.

What are you talking about? I'm getting frustrated saying the same thing over and over. Every place receives sunlight half the time, and darkness the other half. How many times must I say it??

Did you see me proposing that we burnt them into the sky? I recycle. It's just the sheer amount of plastics required would more than likely require more to be produced.

Plastics are made from oils that are used for fossil fuels. I'd rather see them go to a renewable source also, then delay their usage as fuels as you would have it!

Refer to the vote statistics at present and you'll see why this doesn't stand anymore.

Because your debate was brought up first. Firstly, how many people use this? I've responded to maybe 5 different people. So you have YOUR version on the main UN page...you can't post mine up there. Too bad most people are apathetic.

The argumentation of Grantsburg is not only flawed and contradictory, but also childish. It is apparently not okay for anyone to say anything that could possibly, in any minute way, offend the fragile sensibilities of the Granstburgian representative. However, it is fine for Grantsburg to call others illiterate, use sarcasm ("that's just my humour") or question their economic morality. The Grantsburg approach to debate is to respond to logical arguments with the equivalent of "talk to the hand." It has become glaringly obvious that Grantsburg either does not read counter-arguements, or does not understand what s/he reads. We all understand that you have some unrealistic and myopic views on the proposal and that you oppose the repeal. Your behavior here, however, is reprehensible.

I'm talking to you...so your "talk to the hand" comparison is laughable. You're a clown...You aren't even referring to the topic on hand. And I didn't begin to insult until I was provoked by you I recall... :rolleyes:

If you were not referring to FP as "corporate whores" then you must have been referring to me. My nation is a "Scandinavian Liberal Paradise" with an imploded economy and a 100% income tax rate. We are not what you would call fiscally conservative. My point in bringing up economics here is a humanitarian one. There are nations that rely on fossil fuels for their well being. To abolish usage of their primary domestic product immediately is to starve their populations to death. I am sure that you will have some short-sighted quip to reply to this with, but economy building is neither a quick nor an easy path. We are not concerned with anyone's profits beyond the fact that profits in corporate countries are the source for the majority of their populations' (the working class) income. In fact your view provides a greater profit incentive as we are all forced to purchase incredibly expensive experimental energy production devices. Your call for instantaneous change would like halt when you could not afford to use your computer or your video games or any other electronic niceties that you enjoy.

Fossil fuels can be used for other things, like plastics. I don't see how their economy would suffer by transitioning to a plastic society that can be used in the production of solar technologies!

And when people are dying from fossil fuel usage and you're referring to video games, you strike me as very compassionate!

As you don't seem to understand the issue of sunlight exposure for polar regions, let me take another tact. You wrote off concerns for these regions with some smarmy snap about batteries. So you apparently know of technology that can produce batteries that store enough energy for an entire nation to use for six months. And of course the cells that collect this energy and the batteries to which they are connected are completely separate from the ones used for energy during the portion of the year when sun exposure is at a premium. Then, when the six months of darkness fall, the entire grid is switched over to these amazing batteries. Just to make sure you get the point I am making here: this would be impossible in implementation.

Umm... car batteries last quite a long time and run a large mechanical machine. In the Arctic regions that also have more open space which means more space for panels and for large batteries. And as I've said to Ficticious Proportions, less people live there to begin with!

But please ignore my comments. I would much rather see a response to Ficticious Proportions that makes sense and actually answers his/her arguments. I apologize if this post offends you, but you have done a fine job of offending me and others here. Why is it so hard to try to discuss a mutually effective route to renewable energy? The repeal will pass and you will have alienated everyone who might be willing to work with you to promote a later proposal.

You seem to ignore my comments and the bulk of your argument isn't even based on the topic or on things I've already discussed.

Like I said, the burden of proof that 10 years isn't enough time is on you. Concede....concede....concede... :rolleyes:

My spies have also alerted me to the fact that every nation that has argued against this repeal are labled as either socialists or left wing love fests...In either case these are nations with not too good of economies from the start and they are taxing their peoples with a minimum of 62--up to 100% meaning that these nations don't give a defication on how their citizens enjoy their own lives--food for thought
With all due respect, isn't the purpose of the UN to improve the quality of life for everyone, not just those that can afford it? :rolleyes: While I will anticipate your valid point that fossil fuel power is cheap and efficent for the poor, it has a definite limit in source, and will soon demand that different sources, inevitably more expensive, will be needed, and will not be affordable for the lower classes. More food for thought. I will once again, as a disclaimer, say that I did vote for this repeal, as the original resolution was flawed, and hopefully it's replacement will be worthy of a vote. (I think you need to weed out some of your spies. ;)

Sqare Rootedness

Prove it cannot be done!
Prove that you are not an eggplant with two heads, six arms, eleven legs, and five noses!

And you're right, some people like you don't think about the environmental damages that delaying or postponing an act such as the solar panels one will have on the environment .
Some people never recognize that solar panels actually take up more space than the entire landmass of their country. Some people never recognize that the environmental damage of chopping down all the rainforests in the world will be more damaging to the environment than doubling the number of fossil-fuel plants. Some people never recognize that toxic materials are produced during manufacturing. Some people never recognize that the procuring of the raw materials for solar panels do equal damage as mining of oil and coal. Some people never recognize that the waste after the construction need to be dumped somewhere, which is either on land or in the sea, both of which annihilates the environment. Some people never recognize that about as much energy is needed to produce a solar panel as the amount of energy the panel will generate in a year.

In short, people who support large-scale solar panel facilities don't give a damn about the environment.

Like I said, the burden of proof that 10 years isn't enough time is on you. Actually, no. My compass is spinning in your direction when it comes to BoP. Furthermore, the claim that a nation of 5 billion will able able to produce enough power for those citizens without covering every micrometer in 100% efficient solar cells seems rather extraordinary to me.

And we all know what extraordinary claims require...

Prove that you are not an eggplant with two heads, six arms, eleven legs, and five noses!

I would if I could post pictures of myself ;) .


Some people never recognize that solar panels actually take up more space than the entire landmass of their country. Some people never recognize that the environmental damage of chopping down all the rainforests in the world will be more damaging to the environment than doubling the number of fossil-fuel plants. Some people never recognize that toxic materials are produced during manufacturing. Some people never recognize that the procuring of the raw materials for solar panels do equal damage as mining of oil and coal. Some people never recognize that the waste after the construction need to be dumped somewhere, which is either on land or in the sea, both of which annihilates the environment. Some people never recognize that about as much energy is needed to produce a solar panel as the amount of energy the panel will generate in a year.

In short, people who support large-scale solar panel facilities don't give a damn about the environment.

Firstly what's this complete idiocy I'm hearing about chopping down rainforests for no reason??? Of course it would be environmently damaging, but why do people keep using it as an excuse??? What waste? What toxic materials during production? There are more efficient, environmentally friendly ways of doing all those things (and I proposed one of them) but you people keep refusing to listen. I give a lot more respect to the environment than you are. You keep saying you're going to use the most environmentally damaging means possible, when as I've said, much better means available!

Actually, no. My compass is spinning in your direction when it comes to BoP. Furthermore, the claim that a nation of 5 billion will able able to produce enough power for those citizens without covering every micrometer in 100% efficient solar cells seems rather extraordinary to me.

And we all know what extraordinary claims require...

In this repeal all they say is that the original resolution can't be done in 10 years. They don't prove it. So as I said, the burden of proof is still on you. There's still doubt of this claim, as there very well should be. And back to my corporate whore argument, the repeal discusses fiscal negativities too :rolleyes: . But I think i've addressed every issue from the repeal. But I reluctantly agree...it obviously CAN'T be done if people like you Rookierookie, Ficticious Proportions, Syndicalasia, Freedomstaki and others (those are all those I could see on this page off-hand) don't care about the environment enough to take action!! And speaking of Freedomstaki's argument which I just noticed:

We support.

First off, the UN should not be telling nations how they should spend their money on energy.

Second, some nations might have the technology to do this.

When fossil fuels result in smog and global warming which result in deaths...I'm pretty sure that's when the UN should step in. Unless of course you don't mind your people dying, in which case the UN should be making sanctions against you.

Firstly what's this complete idiocy I'm hearing about chopping down rainforests for no reason??? Of course it would be environmently damaging, but why do people keep using it as an excuse??? What waste? What toxic materials during production? There are more efficient, environmentally friendly ways of doing all those things (and I proposed one of them) but you people keep refusing to listen. I give a lot more respect to the environment than you are. You keep saying you're going to use the most environmentally damaging means possible, when as I've said, much better means available!

Well let's think about this one, if the primary aim of the resolution was to protect the environment and foster more ecologically friendly fuels, then decimating an entire biome is not perhaps the best way to go about things. Equally, there is waste during the production of solar panels and toxic materials are used:


The toxicological properties of gallium arsenide have not been thoroughly investigated. However, it is considered highly toxic and carcinogenic.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide

And a further note: Arsenide = Arsenic (the stuff that killed Napoleon).

And what better means, I see according to my sources: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panels#Theory_and_construction) that there appears to be only one efficient way of manufacturing solar panels and it isn't that safe nor non-toxic.


In this repeal all they say is that the original resolution can't be done in 10 years. They don't prove it. So as I said, the burden of proof is still on you. There's still doubt of this claim, as there very well should be. And back to my corporate whore argument, the repeal discusses fiscal negativities too . But I think i've addressed every issue from the repeal. But I reluctantly agree...it obviously CAN'T be done if people like you Rookierookie, Ficticious Proportions, Syndicalasia, Freedomstaki and others (those are all those I could see on this page off-hand) don't care about the environment enough to take action!! And speaking of Freedomstaki's argument which I just noticed:

When exactly, without putting to fine a point, are you going to accept that getting a nation to switch from say, fossill fuels comprising 60% of fuel sources, to near 100% solar panel usage, is downright impossible. Sure, you could argue that men can jump 25 metres and say, "you haven't disproved it, so the burden of proof rests on you to prove that it is impossible to do so". Yet the fact is, people can't, unaided, jump 25 metres. It's reality, accept it.


Sorry Hummer came to mind because that is what the Senator will be driving. Other cars will obviously follow. And you're talking about income desparity yet you claim to be a leftist...

Please don't be so snide, it is distinctly undecorous in this debating forum.


What are you talking about? I'm getting frustrated saying the same thing over and over. Every place receives sunlight half the time, and darkness the other half. How many times must I say it??

This isn't real life and even if it was, some countries in the far north or south, go into complete darkness for 6 months of the year. What would they do if they had to rely on solar panels?

So in conclusion, I ask you Grantsburg, to at least in part accept the flaws in your argument and acknowledge that, in this debate at least, you are putting forwards, what is, in many respects, a weak case.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

What is it wrong with these guys? First they voted "Promotion of Solar Panels", and now they're voting it out? Can't people make their mind? Or do they just vote "FOR" about everything?

Before I begin, Compadria, thank you for attempting to bring this bi-directional arrogance fest (I am not excluding myself from this description) back to its senses.

I give a lot more respect to the environment than you are. You keep saying you're going to use the most environmentally damaging means possible, when as I've said, much better means available!


I cannot speak on behalf of the others, but to grossly summarise my argument (note, this doesn't abandon previous posts), I was saying that these panels would have to be produced, connected, transported, and the resources for them extracted (I am aware of recycling, but it can only contribute to some of the load) under current infrastructure, which would have to be accelerated to take the load. As this present infrastructure that we are seeking to replace is (regretfully) fossil fuel based, as the acceleration of it to suit the timescale would produce further greenhouse emissions at a proportionally accelerated rate. This would give us panels which wouldn't have advanced by much over the time. Most counter arguments to this point have only considered one factor of a process of complete infrastructual reform containing tens, if not hundreds.
The same amount of environmental damage would be done if we worked on the same work slowly over, say, fifty, perhaps even as few as twenty-five years, and this would give enough time for us to have more efficient panels more suitable for the global energy provision that #122 mandates them being used for.

I have posted this several times before and yet you continually ignore it. Read it as it written, not what you want it to say to fuel your argument.

There's still doubt of this claim, as there very well should be. And back to my corporate whore argument, the repeal discusses fiscal negativities too . But I think i've addressed every issue from the repeal. But I reluctantly agree...it obviously CAN'T be done if people like you Rookierookie, Ficticious Proportions, Syndicalasia, Freedomstaki and others (those are all those I could see on this page off-hand) don't care about the environment enough to take action!!

I resent this accusation, Grantsburg, 12% of my budget is on the environment and I even wrote in the repeal "PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source". I have already stated that the repeal is against the mandate and NOT THE INTENT, SEVERAL TIMES. This accusation is completely unfounded. Grow up.

Sorry Hummer came to mind because that is what the Senator will be driving. Other cars will obviously follow. And you're talking about income desparity yet you claim to be a leftist...

Although this was originally a counter to my point, I would like to point out to Grantsburg here that income disparity is how great the rich-poor divide is. The profit aspects from the present high costs of the experimental technologies would cause a frankly unacceptable level of income disparity. Left-wing nations seek to reduce income disparity as it is viewed as unfair by them. 25% of my present budget (view NSEconomy) is on Social Equality, seeking to counteract it. Also, considering you're in the Marxist Leninist region, Communism took this line of thought to the point of giving everyone exactly the same wage to prevent income disparity. This is why I meantioned it - It's not a capitalistic term at all. Having gone into a Marxist Leninist region, I'm surprised you weren't aware of this key part of socialist, let alone communist philosophy!


What are you talking about? I'm getting frustrated saying the same thing over and over. Every place receives sunlight half the time, and darkness the other half. How many times must I say it??

Read the link Grantsburg. Do you actually have any idea of the physics involved DESPITE me trying to link you to sources of information and do the calculations before your eyes?

So in conclusion, I ask you Grantsburg, to at least in part accept the flaws in your argument and acknowledge that, in this debate at least, you are putting forwards, what is, in many respects, a weak case.

I think this is as diplomatic a phrasing as you'll get. I would also like to echo my request, which The Most Glorious Hack seconds me as needing addressing:

Prove to me that in 10 years, we can power the entire national grid of a country, run every vehicle, replace every power station, and substitute every fossil fuel application with VIABLE renewable energy resources that have been tested on the field with the SAME POWER OUTPUT, the COSTINGS of the replacements, and HOW YOUR NATION with your IMPLODED economy, and $20.492 billion environment budget (Click here if you don't believe me) would provide renewable energy to your 939 million people, complete with cabling, fusing, safety precautions, transformers, batteries to cope during times without sunlight, electrical viability tests and all other practicality and safety considerations.

When you make a claim, you prove it. If someone claims it's impossible, because they can't see a possibility, you try to prove that it is possible, because if no possible outcome is there, they win. If you want to hold your 10 year mantra, you provide the costings and the data and then I might give your claim more respect than it actually deserves.

Qualify it or Concede it.

In other news, Flaming is making unqualified insults on a board. You've repeated your denials more than I've repeated Qualify or Concede and seem to have not taken on board the facts we have presented to you.

With regards to your "not enough people living at the poles" comment - you've forgotten that many nations between the arctic/antarctic circles and the tropics, and thus receive less light than those who lie between the topics, and so get a weaker light intensity, and therefore do not acquire as much energy from solar panels. I've tried to link you to several sources to explain the importance of light intensity but you just seem to be ignoring it.

A closed mind is like a clenched fist - It may cause damage as it wants but in ignoring correction it will never open the hand to receive the accolades it could acquire if it listened. Resilience is only one aspect of debating style. You're missing the reasoning, proof and above all have a tendancy to brand people rather than address their points. If you listened, you could be ten times the debating force we're seeing here. Unless you stop scan-reading and jumping to conclusions, sadly, that couldn't happen in ten years either.

Well let's think about this one, if the primary aim of the resolution was to protect the environment and foster more ecologically friendly fuels, then decimating an entire biome is not perhaps the best way to go about things. Equally, there is waste during the production of solar panels and toxic materials are used:


The toxicological properties of gallium arsenide have not been thoroughly investigated. However, it is considered highly toxic and carcinogenic.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide

And a further note: Arsenide = Arsenic (the stuff that killed Napoleon).

And what better means, I see according to my sources: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...nd_construction) that there appears to be only one efficient way of manufacturing solar panels and it isn't that safe nor non-toxic.

How is this waste produced? They use the materials in them. People don't have to consume them. The people producing the panels should obviously where proper protective materials!

Nor does that article mention that it's bad for the environment when used in solar panels!

Furthermore, the same article claims:
It is claimed that if one fourth of the nation's pavement and buildings in cities alone were converted to incorporate solar panels, these could power the entire United States.

So all this nonsense about chopping down rainforests is even less grounded!!

When exactly, without putting to fine a point, are you going to accept that getting a nation to switch from say, fossill fuels comprising 60% of fuel sources, to near 100% solar panel usage, is downright impossible. Sure, you could argue that men can jump 25 metres and say, "you haven't disproved it, so the burden of proof rests on you to prove that it is impossible to do so". Yet the fact is, people can't, unaided, jump 25 metres. It's reality, accept it.

And that fuel source is slowly going kapoot! We aren't arguing jumping 25 meters! And I made an admission (reluctantly)...if people like yourself refuse to be environmentally friendly, in 10 years people will be dying from smog and the world will continue to warm up creating more powerful tropical storms which kill people.

Please don't be so snide, it is distinctly undecorous in this debating forum.

No it has everything to do with the topic on hand. People are caring about money more than people. Just pointing that out...and mainly because they SAY they are leftist (people who should care even less about money).

This isn't real life and even if it was, some countries in the far north or south, go into complete darkness for 6 months of the year. What would they do if they had to rely on solar panels?

So in conclusion, I ask you Grantsburg, to at least in part accept the flaws in your argument and acknowledge that, in this debate at least, you are putting forwards, what is, in many respects, a weak case.

Ok...for the last time for the ignorant: Batteries for storage!!!!

The only flaw is people refuse to listen to my means to ensure this can be done environmentally friendly. And it's weak because you haven't listened to half my arguments as I just pointed out :rolleyes: .

No it has everything to do with the topic on hand. People are caring about money more than people. Just pointing that out...and mainly because they SAY they are leftist (people who should care even less about money).

That's really blaseé. Leftists disagree with some of the more immoral aspects of corporate practice and feel that money should be assigned fairly (for each according to his abilities, for each according to his needs). To completely disregard the economy is completely nonsensical - it has to sustain nations, allow them to produce food

Ok...for the last time for the ignorant: Batteries for storage!!!!

But have you considered how many they'd need to store the charge required to provide electricity to the world on a rainy day? One battery doesn't store an entire nation's energy needs. There's a lot of electrical aspects (Wattage, Efficiency, Dissipation, Current, Charge that can be stored (I won't say "Capacity" as this may cause confusion), the Resistance in cabling them all together, the reduction in efficiency with continued use and many others besides) that you've not taken into account here.

You've also evaded a lot of points addressed.

The only flaw is people refuse to listen to my means to ensure this can be done environmentally friendly. And it's weak because you haven't listened to half my arguments as I just pointed out :rolleyes:

You've only got your sights set on the end result, and not the starting point we're embarking from. This isn't "build an environmentally friendly infrastructure" issue solely, it's a "convert an environmentally damaging infrastructure to an environmentally friendly one in an impractically short space of time whilst maintaining as little disruption to your populace as possible". This isn't a case of swapping over a LEGO brick or something, sadly, we're not starting from a clean slate like your hypotheses seem to envisage.

Kirisubo already had experiments running for renewable energy sources.

We already use the tides and running rivers to generate electrical power. some power is also generated by wind power.

Even our wood is renewable since bamboo grows very quickly.

Every country has to find their own way and forcing them to change to pure solar power in ten years is crazy by any stretch of the imagination.

Let each country find their own way and you'd be surprised what results we could come up with rather than steam rollering this proposal through.

I am glad the honourable delegate from Grantsburg has (attempted) to answer my points, though I shall offer a series of rebuttals to his replies.

It is claimed that if one fourth of the nation's pavement and buildings in cities alone were converted to incorporate solar panels, these could power the entire United States.

Note the key word "claimed", not "garantueed" nor "believed" nor even "expected". This is pure, unadultered, speculation. Anyway, a fourth of the nations pavements, I fail to see how a pavement would be a useful collector of solar energy.

How is this waste produced? They use the materials in them. People don't have to consume them. The people producing the panels should obviously where proper protective materials!

The first part of your argument is difficult to follow :confused: :( . The second part is rather lacking in compassion, from someone who has accused others of being 'corporate whores', yet here appears to blame the health problems of the workers as being their own fault.

And that fuel source is slowly going kapoot! We aren't arguing jumping 25 meters! And I made an admission (reluctantly)...if people like yourself refuse to be environmentally friendly, in 10 years people will be dying from smog and the world will continue to warm up creating more powerful tropical storms which kill people.

Utter hyperbole, though I'm interested to note your use of the word 'slowly', in conjunction with 'fuel source is - going kapoot (kaput is the spelling)'.

No it has everything to do with the topic on hand. People are caring about money more than people. Just pointing that out...and mainly because they SAY they are leftist (people who should care even less about money).

Being polite and not casting aspersions on the character of other gamers is key to the preservation of the civility inherent within this forum. No one wants to put profit before people; Ficticious Proportions and myself are both 'Civil Rights Love Fests', deeply committed to sensible fiscal policy and business practices, as well as the environment. Most others in this forum, on both sides, are too. So we are leftist, no matter what you may define as such.


Ok...for the last time for the ignorant: Batteries for storage!!!!

The only flaw is people refuse to listen to my means to ensure this can be done environmentally friendly. And it's weak because you haven't listened to half my arguments as I just pointed out .

1). Don't call other people 'ignorant', as it's insulting to our intelligence and demeans us.

2). Show me a battery that can store enough energy to power an industrialised nation for 6 months and i'll be very impressed.

3). We have listened to your arguments. We're not impressed to be quite frank, thus is why we don't agree with you. If anything, you're not listening to our arguments.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well-stated, Ambassador Otterby.

AK_ID

Thank you AK_ID :)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

Compadria, thanks for your contributions to this thread. There are times where you need more than one point of view to break the ice, your input is valuable. :)

Ok, well I think the law is right but not right for the hunters and others that cant support there family if they dont get enough money how are they going to live. So I propose a theory that the pounds on the animal(s) they hunt is 50% of the family's weight. So hunters = :sniper: yes. Killing for no reason :eek: :mp5:

Thank you Ficticious Proportions for your kind praise. :)

I must say, we've never had so much of it for such a modest set of contributions; we really are quite touched, thank you again.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

That's really blaseé. Leftists disagree with some of the more immoral aspects of corporate practice and feel that money should be assigned fairly (for each according to his abilities, for each according to his needs). To completely disregard the economy is completely nonsensical - it has to sustain nations, allow them to produce food

It's not disregarding the economy. It's thinking about it in non-monetary terms!

I resent this accusation, Grantsburg, 12% of my budget is on the environment and I even wrote in the repeal "PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source". I have already stated that the repeal is against the mandate and NOT THE INTENT, SEVERAL TIMES. This accusation is completely unfounded. Grow up.

26% of my money goes to the environment...Your point?

Although this was originally a counter to my point, I would like to point out to Grantsburg here that income disparity is how great the rich-poor divide is. The profit aspects from the present high costs of the experimental technologies would cause a frankly unacceptable level of income disparity. Left-wing nations seek to reduce income disparity as it is viewed as unfair by them. 25% of my present budget (view NSEconomy) is on Social Equality, seeking to counteract it. Also, considering you're in the Marxist Leninist region, Communism took this line of thought to the point of giving everyone exactly the same wage to prevent income disparity. This is why I meantioned it - It's not a capitalistic term at all. Having gone into a Marxist Leninist region, I'm surprised you weren't aware of this key part of socialist, let alone communist philosophy!

I bloody-well know what income disparity is!! If you were a leftist, major corporations, like energy, would be under government control (and ultimately controlled by the people) so nobody would be any richer than anyone else. The fact that you're using it as an excuse not to follow through with the creation of solar panels leads (not the metal this time!) me believe you are leftist by word alone. You obviously misinterpretted my intent. I love your assumptions about me though.

Note the key word "claimed", not "garantueed" nor "believed" nor even "expected". This is pure, unadultered, speculation. Anyway, a fourth of the nations pavements, I fail to see how a pavement would be a useful collector of solar energy.

Note the fact you haven't proven it can't be done in 10 years. Although let me post the wording:
The mandatory objective to ban fossil fuels use in ten years is unrealistic, due to it entailing:
- Too short a timescale for the phasing out of fossil fuels - Too great a fiscal expense of environmentally-conscious replacements and the introduction of said replacement s
- Too much consumption of resources and of fossil fuels themselves for the materials and processes required for the manufacture of more environmentally-conscious alternatives
- An unforeseen and accidental hindering of many fossil fuel reliant economic sectors such as the aeronautical and airlines sector.
- An impact on power supplies, thus reducing the productive outputs of industries extracting, processing and modifying further resources to make the products that are taken for granted in maintaining our quality of life. This may involve the processing and packaging of foodstuffs, medicines, water and other supplies used in aid programs and our daily lives.

I've addressed all those issues on page 3-4 of this debate. Like I said, it's impossible because the people I've argued with here don't care about the environment.

As to the bolded area...saying it doesn't prove it. We wouldn't know if it's possible, or impossible unless we've tried!!

The first part of your argument is difficult to follow. The second part is rather lacking in compassion, from someone who has accused others of being 'corporate whores', yet here appears to blame the health problems of the workers as being their own fault.

Sorry you can't follow. And it's not lacking compassion at all. It's providing worker safety!! For goodness' sake, people misinterpret everything I say!

Utter hyperbole, though I'm interested to note your use of the word 'slowly', in conjunction with 'fuel source is - going kapoot (kaput is the spelling)'.

Sorry I even looked up the word's spelling...I wrote that quick before I left for class.

Alright, the natural gas reserves are depleting quickly?? What do you want to hear? You'll hear whatever you want anyway :rolleyes: .

Being polite and not casting aspersions on the character of other gamers is key to the preservation of the civility inherent within this forum. No one wants to put profit before people; Ficticious Proportions and myself are both 'Civil Rights Love Fests', deeply committed to sensible fiscal policy and business practices, as well as the environment. Most others in this forum, on both sides, are too. So we are leftist, no matter what you may define as such.

So what? You're leftists by name then. The UN is about saving lives, not pocket books!

1). Don't call other people 'ignorant', as it's insulting to our intelligence and demeans us.

2). Show me a battery that can store enough energy to power an industrialised nation for 6 months and i'll be very impressed.

3). We have listened to your arguments. We're not impressed to be quite frank, thus is why we don't agree with you. If anything, you're not listening to our arguments.

I've posted the battery comment at least two other times. It's your own ignorance if you haven't read it!

Like I said, batteries in cars last years, not to mention there's more free space in arctic regions for storage and collecting solar energy. I don't see how they will suffer.

Kirisubo already had experiments running for renewable energy sources.

We already use the tides and running rivers to generate electrical power. some power is also generated by wind power.

Even our wood is renewable since bamboo grows very quickly.

Every country has to find their own way and forcing them to change to pure solar power in ten years is crazy by any stretch of the imagination.

Let each country find their own way and you'd be surprised what results we could come up with rather than steam rollering this proposal through.

Grantsburg too uses solar and wind energies, and our cars run on environmentally friendly means. I just don't want to suffer due to other persons' (I've listed a few names, there are nearly 9000 others) lack of compassion for the environment!

You've only got your sights set on the end result, and not the starting point we're embarking from. This isn't "build an environmentally friendly infrastructure" issue solely, it's a "convert an environmentally damaging infrastructure to an environmentally friendly one in an impractically short space of time whilst maintaining as little disruption to your populace as possible". This isn't a case of swapping over a LEGO brick or something, sadly, we're not starting from a clean slate like your hypotheses seem to envisage.

No...I've got it sighted on the process too. Something you've evaded and haven't rebutted.

The problem that is occurring here is that the others you are referring to haven't done that.

They're prosposing fiscal negativities as an excuse not to follow through with the resolution.

And I don't want to waste my time explaining things I've explained numerous times again.

Well done, Grantsburg. You have continued to show your complete inability to present a reasonable argument by hurling insults. You are wrong on every count. The responsibilty to show that ten years is enough time is on you. Ficticious Proportions has presented a sound argument against your claims that you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or answer. You have nothing but disdain for all who have any opinion that is not yours, and your have absolutely no concrete knowledge about the answers you propose or the responses you ignore. Car batteries are constantly recharged by running the car's engine and do not serve to power the whole car. That is a worthless analogy. You have yet to answer anyone in any realistic way. Your suggestion that I have been off topic is laughable. Your response to any well reasoned argument is insult and random self-praising comments, or baseless conjecture. It gives me great pleasure to see this repeal passing by a large margin and your factless, pointless arguments ignored by anyone with a brain. Perhaps, when you mature, you will see the uselessness of pursuing hyper-idealistic concepts with absolutely no concrete knowledge of the world you live in. Fortunately, the vast majority of UN nations are able to consider more than one single factor when weighing the merit of an international resolution. I fear for the population of your country. First learn how to read and understand what you read. Then learn how to think separate from your emotions. Maybe then, if you also learn to repect your opposition, you will figure out how to interact with other people. I am afraid that you have lost.

I can't believe anyone has the patience to continue reading and responding to Grantsburg's posts.

The Grantsburg representative is clearly not returning the favor of reading and considering anyone else's words, and continues to make the same unfounded arguments, even when confronted with evidence against his claims.

I am simply amazed by the patience I have seen exhibited by a number of countries. You have my admiration.

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

It's not disregarding the economy. It's thinking about it in non-monetary terms!

Therefore you've not considered the exact practicalities of it. The economy is about the management and assignments of money. Even Soviet Russia had to think of it's economy in monetary terms in order to decide how much wage each of their workers would get.

26% of my money goes to the environment...Your point?

My point is you accused me falsely. Considering there are 11 areas for it to go on, 12% > 1/11 of the budget. Your statistic has nothing to do with the accusation. All nations with 25% or less environment budget aren't suddenly destroying the planet. This isn't a "holier than thou" complex here.

I bloody-well know what income disparity is!! If you were a leftist, major corporations, like energy, would be under government control (and ultimately controlled by the people) so nobody would be any richer than anyone else. The fact that you're using it as an excuse not to follow through with the creation of solar panels leads (not the metal this time!) me believe you are leftist by word alone. You obviously misinterpretted my intent. I love your assumptions about me though.

Stop misperceiving yourself as a victim here. You're also forgetting international trade potential. Not all leftists are completely public-sector. That's communist. Socialism allows for some private-sector economy. You're the one making assumptions that all left-inclined nations are Communists.

Besides, your social equality budget is 9%, compared to my 25%. For such a profound Marxist-Leninist, I'm sorry, but that's somewhat insufficient for your aims. You'd be more at risk from income disparity than me.

Note the fact you haven't proven it can't be done in 10 years. Although let me post the wording:

Note the fact that you haven't proven it CAN be done in 10 years. Democratic acceptance in the original resolution is not proof. If it was, we wouldn't need courts of appeal after trial by jury - and imagine the miscarraiges of justice you'd have, proof of the inviability of your democratic acceptance claim. At least I've expressed aspects that I believe would make it less than reasonable, you've just flatly denied and assumed that the present infrastructure can just be halted and switched overnight like a child with Lego bricks. I'm sorry, but your house was built by adults with proper construction equipment and it took a lot longer to build - let alone a completely revised electricity infrastructure.

I've addressed all those issues on page 3-4 of this debate. Like I said, it's impossible because the people I've argued with here don't care about the environment.

And we've presented counter-arguments on pages 4-11 now that you've repeatedly ignored by regurgitating your old argument, forcing us to repeat ourselves in an attempt to get you to actually read them instead of reading what you want to read because of your obsessive misconception of all your opposition as environmentally damaging corrupt capitalistas UNDER FALSE PRETENSE. For whichever deity's sake, Grantsburg, do you not notice that one of the reasons for the repeal, written in the text, is so that A NEW ONE CAN REPLACE THE OLD ONE, not just to remove the old one, as AGREED WITH THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Starcra II's done more research into the issue and sees our points for this repeal. Your accusations of us being environmentally disregarding are UNFOUNDED, now grow up and leave them alone.

As to the bolded area...saying it doesn't prove it. We wouldn't know if it's possible, or impossible unless we've tried!!

But the sensible person plans ahead and assesses the situation. It's like saying "we could swim across this vat of a mysterious clear substance we can't identify without being harmed". You don't just dive in and try, you do chemical analysis to make sure that it's something safe like water, and not a vat of concentrated Sodium Hydroxide which would burn like hell.

This is an important lesson in life, Grantsburg, you mustn't dive straight into things or else you'll end up killing yourself prematurely. Assess, plan the best C of A, and then you can get conclusions, usually the same ones you were aiming for, with less harm, and the ability to improve along the way. Please don't hurt yourself.

Grantsburg too uses solar and wind energies, and our cars run on environmentally friendly means. I just don't want to suffer due to other persons' (I've listed a few names, there are nearly 9000 others) lack of compassion for the environment!

Drop the false accusations. This resolution applies to the whole UN, some nations of which have fossil fuel based economies like the present day because of their history. To enforce a mandate only some nations with different backgrounds could acheive on them all, within the NS context, is just inconsiderate because of their inability to comply.

No...I've got it sighted on the process too. Something you've evaded and haven't rebutted.

You've got it sighted on a scientific hypothesis, which doesn't stand as proof for the practicalities and engineering aspect. You've not got it sighted on the starting point either.

Sorry I even looked up the word's spelling...I wrote that quick before I left for class.

Then study harder and you might see our way of thinking by the time you get out of school.


Grantsburg, your persistance is good, but you're still viewing this with a preconception, and the replies you make are giving you what psychologists call "A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy". You misperceived this as against solar panels altogether to start with, in a negative tone to mark your displeasure, saw our reasons and then lapsed into branding us, causing sharp denials that satisfy your impressions of capitalist hypocracy, even though many of those supporting this repeal aren't capitalist. Open your mind.

As things stand:

Votes For: 10,732

Votes Against: 3,360

I'm afraid, Grantsburg, your war is practically over. The misperception of this debate being environmentalist vs environmental apathy didn't really do any favours, and caused both sides to flare up because of the repetition both sides likewise had to involve.

I propose we call it a day, and focus towards shaping the replacement this repeal desired, as it will be a better use of our time than "crying over spilt milk". It's another aspect of life in which we have to assess our current situation, and then figure how best to move on from it - Like the old resolution didn't.

Let's look forward now, instead of feebly attempting to scrape the pyramid into dust.

... if people like yourself refuse to be environmentally friendly, in 10 years people will be dying from smog and the world will continue to warm up creating more powerful tropical storms which kill people.People are caring about money more than people. Just pointing that out...and mainly because they SAY they are leftist (people who should care even less about money).Ok...for the last time for the ignorant: ...If you were a leftist, major corporations, like energy, would be under government control (and ultimately controlled by the people) so nobody would be any richer than anyone else. The fact that you're using it as an excuse not to follow through with the creation of solar panels leads (not the metal this time!) me believe you are leftist by word alone.Like I said, it's impossible because the people I've argued with here don't care about the environment.So what? You're leftists by name then.I just don't want to suffer due to other persons' (I've listed a few names, there are nearly 9000 others) lack of compassion for the environment!I see that any nation that is not a total Grantsburg clone is either ignorant, hates the environment, or (and this is my favorite one) is not a real leftist. It seems you have crossed over from ordinary "Marxist Leninism" to pure, unadulterated Stalinism, Grantsburg.

On another point, if you don't want to suffer from global environmental desolation, I'd check with the 72 percent of the NS world that does not belong to the UN and is under no obligation to abide by its laws. Most UN nations are already inclined to protect the environment -- that is, if the overwhelming votes in favor of most environmental resolutions (and the vote that produced this resolution in the first place) are to be considered genuine. So this resolution really does next to nothing to improve the quality of the world's environment. Burning of fossil fuels shall continue unabated in the sector of the world that is already less inclined to protect to the poor trees.

On another point, if you don't want to suffer from global environmental desolation, I'd check with the 72 percent of the NS world that does not belong to the UN ....Or, for that matter, I might have blessed the UN with my enlightenment during the debate on the actual resolution, at which time we had already pretty much resolved upon repeal. I honestly cannot see what constructive purpose is served by stumbling into the forum at the last minute the raise the banner of discord.

Not that it really matters, but I'll reply to some of the more asinine posts:

I see that any nation that is not a total Grantsburg clone is either ignorant, hates the environment, or (and this is my favorite one) is not a real leftist. It seems you have crossed over from ordinary "Marxist Leninism" to pure, unadulterated Stalinism, Grantsburg.

Ignorance to the highest degree. The way Stalin developed his economy he had no regard for the environment or the people working in the factories. Read up on your history son, he also was a dictator.

Also, I only revealed what those people claimed to be mistruths. THEY started the claims they were leftist, then continue to show ignorance for the left's ideologies!

On another point, if you don't want to suffer from global environmental desolation, I'd check with the 72 percent of the NS world that does not belong to the UN and is under no obligation to abide by its laws. Most UN nations are already inclined to protect the environment -- that is, if the overwhelming votes in favor of most environmental resolutions (and the vote that produced this resolution in the first place) are to be considered genuine. So this resolution really does next to nothing to improve the quality of the world's environment. Burning of fossil fuels shall continue unabated in the sector of the world that is already less inclined to protect to the poor trees.

At the end of the original resolution a small number of people began to recall their votes. And I've already discredited the removal of trees as complete stupidity!

My point is you accused me falsely. Considering there are 11 areas for it to go on, 12% > 1/11 of the budget. Your statistic has nothing to do with the accusation. All nations with 25% or less environment budget aren't suddenly destroying the planet. This isn't a "holier than thou" complex here.

Well I don't like the "Holier than thou" reference seeing Grantsburg is avowedly Atheist, but I prefer to save lives...sorry you don't feel the same way.

Therefore you've not considered the exact practicalities of it. The economy is about the management and assignments of money. Even Soviet Russia had to think of it's economy in monetary terms in order to decide how much wage each of their workers would get.

The USSR was State Capitalist! Try again. You don't need money to have an economy. The definition of an economy is the way people allocate their resources (Saves you time looking it up). The fact it involves money is a Capitalist hegemon.

Note the fact that you haven't proven it CAN be done in 10 years. Democratic acceptance in the original resolution is not proof. If it was, we wouldn't need courts of appeal after trial by jury - and imagine the miscarraiges of justice you'd have, proof of the inviability of your democratic acceptance claim. At least I've expressed aspects that I believe would make it less than reasonable, you've just flatly denied and assumed that the present infrastructure can just be halted and switched overnight like a child with Lego bricks. I'm sorry, but your house was built by adults with proper construction equipment and it took a lot longer to build - let alone a completely revised electricity infrastructure.

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT CAN'T BE DONE!! IT'S STILL UP TO YOU TO DO THAT. NOT THAT IT MATTERS AT THIS POINT, YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IS OUT THERE, MINE AND A FEW OTHERS', IS IN HERE WHERE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ!!!

And we've presented counter-arguments on pages 4-11 now that you've repeatedly ignored by regurgitating your old argument, forcing us to repeat ourselves in an attempt to get you to actually read them instead of reading what you want to read because of your obsessive misconception of all your opposition as environmentally damaging corrupt capitalistas UNDER FALSE PRETENSE. For whichever deity's sake, Grantsburg, do you not notice that one of the reasons for the repeal, written in the text, is so that A NEW ONE CAN REPLACE THE OLD ONE, not just to remove the old one, as AGREED WITH THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Starcra II's done more research into the issue and sees our points for this repeal. Your accusations of us being environmentally disregarding are UNFOUNDED, now grow up and leave them alone.

No I've refuted many of them. And ignored the ones that are illogical. I find it utterly stupid that people are claiming my lack of logic when nobody has addressed my environmentally friendly way of creating solar panels!!!

But the sensible person plans ahead and assesses the situation. It's like saying "we could swim across this vat of a mysterious clear substance we can't identify without being harmed". You don't just dive in and try, you do chemical analysis to make sure that it's something safe like water, and not a vat of concentrated Sodium Hydroxide which would burn like hell.

This is an important lesson in life, Grantsburg, you mustn't dive straight into things or else you'll end up killing yourself prematurely. Assess, plan the best C of A, and then you can get conclusions, usually the same ones you were aiming for, with less harm, and the ability to improve along the way. Please don't hurt yourself.

How is creating solar panels deadly??? That's the most asinine thing I've heard. Speaking of logic, these idiotic analogies that have nothing to do with solar panels don't prove anything!! KEEP IT TO SOLAR PANELS!!

Drop the false accusations. This resolution applies to the whole UN, some nations of which have fossil fuel based economies like the present day because of their history. To enforce a mandate only some nations with different backgrounds could acheive on them all, within the NS context, is just inconsiderate because of their inability to comply.

That's nice...they are responsible for people's lives. Hitler killed Jews in History...I suppose that makes it okay (there's a stupid analogy for you!).

You've got it sighted on a scientific hypothesis, which doesn't stand as proof for the practicalities and engineering aspect. You've not got it sighted on the starting point either.

No it's quite practical. And you haven't addressed why it isn't practical. But this coming from teh creator of this repeal who just says it can't be done in 10 years with no proof. I agreed to a compromise, there's no certain way of predicting the future (so asking me to do so is stupid) unless we try!

Grantsburg, your persistance is good, but you're still viewing this with a preconception, and the replies you make are giving you what psychologists call "A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy". You misperceived this as against solar panels altogether to start with, in a negative tone to mark your displeasure, saw our reasons and then lapsed into branding us, causing sharp denials that satisfy your impressions of capitalist hypocracy, even though many of those supporting this repeal aren't capitalist. Open your mind.

Nice assumption. Maybe that's why I don't reply to half your rebuttals :rolleyes: .

And to Syndicalasia...I won't bother quoting you, either stop cheerleading or propose an argument!

And someone asked to see an example of a battery. Obviously they don't exist on a long scale, because the people in the arctic as so obviously pointed out, rely on fossil fuels.

I can't believe anyone has the patience to continue reading and responding to Grantsburg's posts.

The Grantsburg representative is clearly not returning the favor of reading and considering anyone else's words, and continues to make the same unfounded arguments, even when confronted with evidence against his claims.

I am simply amazed by the patience I have seen exhibited by a number of countries. You have my admiration.

You must have some admiration for me. Having to read useless offtopic comments like yours! I assume you're a cheerleader too and not a representative of a country?

Ignorance to the highest degree. The way Stalin developed his economy he had no regard for the environment or the people working in the factories. Read up on your history son, he also was a dictator.

Also, I only revealed what those people claimed to be mistruths. THEY started the claims they were leftist, then continue to show ignorance for the left's ideologies!Ummm, I was referring to your insistence that only leftists who march in lockstep with yourself are truly leftist*; kinda Stalinist, don'tcha think? Stalin's status as a dictator, or his disrespect for the environment, is neither here nor there.

At the end of the original resolution a small number of people began to recall their votes. And I've already discredited the removal of trees as complete stupidity!You should have saved yourself the energy of replying here, as this statement bears no relevance whatsoever to my original point.

* And you only continue to prove my point with your most recent post.

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT CAN'T BE DONE!! IT'S STILL UP TO YOU TO DO THAT. NOT THAT IT MATTERS AT THIS POINT, YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IS OUT THERE, MINE AND A FEW OTHERS', IS IN HERE WHERE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ!!!
Bloody hell, you were told, by a mod no less, that the burden of proof is on you, so, as we say in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, either put up or shut up.

Having got that out of the way, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites votes FOR the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Represnetative

I apologize in advance for not reading all the posts in this thread, but I would ask that you let me jump in for a moment.



YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT CAN'T BE DONE!! IT'S STILL UP TO YOU TO DO THAT. NOT THAT IT MATTERS AT THIS POINT, YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IS OUT THERE, MINE AND A FEW OTHERS', IS IN HERE WHERE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ!!!

If you can figure out a feasable way to build enough solar panels in ten years to power a nation of 783 million that won't deplete our treasuries and cripple our economy in one fell swoop, then by all means, my government is interested in hearing them. This pipe dream you speak of would very well revolutionize mass production to the point where we could raise armies literally overnight.



No I've refuted many of them. And ignored the ones that are illogical. I find it utterly stupid that people are claiming my lack of logic when nobody has addressed my environmentally friendly way of creating solar panels!!!
[...]
How is creating solar panels deadly??? That's the most asinine thing I've heard. Speaking of logic, these idiotic analogies that have nothing to do with solar panels don't prove anything!! KEEP IT TO SOLAR PANELS!!

I suggest you read up on what it takes to produce photovoltaic cells and various types of solar collectors. Not only have they been demonstrated a detriment to surrounding wildlife (birds have been documented to fly into such mirror-like surfaces, in some cases which are 200 meters high), but gallium arsenide, an ingredient in the production of solar panels, is highly toxic and is just one of many hazardous materials used in solar panel construction.



No it's quite practical. And you haven't addressed why it isn't practical. But this coming from teh creator of this repeal who just says it can't be done in 10 years with no proof. I agreed to a compromise, there's no certain way of predicting the future (so asking me to do so is stupid) unless we try!

Again, we're seeing a drastic disconnect here between a pipe dream and reality. Solar panels are extremely impractical as a means of mass power generation, and until we see some drastic, groundbreaking new advancements in the field of solar power, they will always be impractical and frowned upon by the realistic minds of the United Nations.

Not only that, but you're ignoring that once the ten year deadline rolls around, all fossil fuel burning ceases.

Let's think about that for a moment.

Rubber, plastics, insecticides, gels, industrial lubricants, nylon, iron, steel, titanium, aircraft, aspirin, herbicides, glue, and many other commodities that are considered a necessity for modern society use fossil fuels at some point during their production. Hell, with this limitation you can't even use lighters or a charcoal grill.

Are we seeing the sheer stupidity of the previous proposal here yet?



And someone asked to see an example of a battery. Obviously they don't exist on a long scale, because the people in the arctic as so obviously pointed out, rely on fossil fuels.

*chuckles* Mmhmm... not anymore, right?

The resolution Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels" was passed 10,922 votes to 3,403.

Wow, what a nail-biter that was...

Ficticious Proportions, congrats

"Promotion of Solar Panels" is now the fastest resolution to have been repealed... 10 days

*applauds* :) :D

FFS....you know nothing about burdens of proof. But like I said, I agree with you guys (I kind of have to at this point). It won't get done in 10 years because people here don't care about hte environment, or care to ask for reasoning. You made the claim it's not feasably done, you didn't prove it to nearly 24% of the people enough to make them change their minds. As I said, only ~1,800 views were made on this page. Many of those were the same people over and over again no doubt. You made claims that aren't factual, just opinion to get your way.

No point in quoting anyone at this point...I've probably said half the things already...thank God this is only a game. I hope none of you are going into politics...

May I first of all, before I begin on my main point, congratulate all those who voted for this repeal, to ensure that a better resolution will pass, with greater protection for the environment, next time this is debated. I paticularly thank those who tenaciously argued against scare-mongering and scientific fraud. :D

Now to my central point, that of rebuffing the arguments of Grantsburg (unecessary, yet it feels strangely satisfying).

Also, I only revealed what those people claimed to be mistruths. THEY started the claims they were leftist, then continue to show ignorance for the left's ideologies!

How? Why are you adopting this 'Better than thou' (since you claim to be Atheist, I will not use 'Holier than thou') attitude with regards to other peoples beliefs. You are presenting yourself as a caricatiure socialist, not someone with balanced left-wing beliefs.

Well I don't like the "Holier than thou" reference seeing Grantsburg is avowedly Atheist, but I prefer to save lives...sorry you don't feel the same way.

How many times have we asked you to stop being so snide? FGS, it really is deeply annoying and I note you haven't answered the point.

The USSR was State Capitalist! Try again. You don't need money to have an economy. The definition of an economy is the way people allocate their resources (Saves you time looking it up). The fact it involves money is a Capitalist hegemon.

You're right about the USSR, it was State Capitalist. But saying things like "you don't need money to have economy", is superfluous, because modern economies wouldn't function without capital or money. The only economies that can function without money are the bead and cattle economies, which, I note, are not hitting the headlines as far as economic growth goes.

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT CAN'T BE DONE!! IT'S STILL UP TO YOU TO DO THAT. NOT THAT IT MATTERS AT THIS POINT, YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IS OUT THERE, MINE AND A FEW OTHERS', IS IN HERE WHERE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ!!!

1). Don't yell.

2). Why can you not put forwards a coherent case for your argument. You haven't proved it can be done, only stated so and then hurled abuse at those who disagree with you.

How is creating solar panels deadly??? That's the most asinine thing I've heard. Speaking of logic, these idiotic analogies that have nothing to do with solar panels don't prove anything!! KEEP IT TO SOLAR PANELS!!k

You can tell someone is losing an argument when:

1). They don't answer the point/question.

2). They insult their opponents.

3). They ignore previously displayed information (i.e. the Arsenide fact I mentioned earlier).

That's nice...they are responsible for people's lives. Hitler killed Jews in History...I suppose that makes it okay (there's a stupid analogy for you!).

Yes, it is. And very offensive as well, I'm disappointed that you choose to stoop to that level.

And someone asked to see an example of a battery. Obviously they don't exist on a long scale, because the people in the arctic as so obviously pointed out, rely on fossil fuels.

You must have some admiration for me. Having to read useless offtopic comments like yours! I assume you're a cheerleader too and not a representative of a country?

More insults and then in the first paragraph, you completely contradict you're previous argument about batteries. Incidentally, you never answered my question about what kind of battery can store the energy requirements of an industrialised nation over 6 months. Which one is that then?

FFS....you know nothing about burdens of proof. But like I said, I agree with you guys (I kind of have to at this point). It won't get done in 10 years because people here don't care about hte environment, or care to ask for reasoning. You made the claim it's not feasably done, you didn't prove it to nearly 24% of the people enough to make them change their minds. As I said, only ~1,800 views were made on this page. Many of those were the same people over and over again no doubt. You made claims that aren't factual, just opinion to get your way.

Our claims were factual and yours weren't. You whipped up hysteria and cultivated an atmosphere of vicious contempt for your fellow members, whilst we treated you civilly and conducted a measured conversation. For shame on you sir.

I hope none of you are going into politics...

I'm so sorry to disappoint you :p .

In short, that is all I will say for this matter.

I congratulate all delegates who supported and voted for this repeal and all members who argued for it in the halls of this illustrious forum ;) .

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Not that it really matters, but I'll reply to some of the more asinine posts:

You've FINALLY accepted defeat then. You don't need to reply here. Go home.

Also, I only revealed what those people claimed to be mistruths. THEY started the claims they were leftist, then continue to show ignorance for the left's ideologies!

In your unproven, unqualified, understated, arrogant opinion which in light of the events of this thread is now bereft of any diplomatic weight whatsoever.

At the end of the original resolution a small number of people began to recall their votes.

That's because they realised what you are refusing to accept. We're not stopping you meeting the deadline independently if you so desire, you just don't have the right to inflict that upon that UN majority who disagree with you.

Well I don't like the "Holier than thou" reference seeing Grantsburg is avowedly Atheist, but I prefer to save lives...sorry you don't feel the same way.

Grantsburg, it's a figure of speech. Your last comment is irrelevent to any point. It's just flamebaiting.

The USSR was State Capitalist! Try again. You don't need money to have an economy. The definition of an economy is the way people allocate their resources (Saves you time looking it up). The fact it involves money is a Capitalist hegemon.

"Economy n. community's system of using it's resources to produce wealth." - The Oxford Popular Dictionary and Thesaurus, Parragon.

If communist nations didn't need money, they wouldn't have currency. Russia has had the Ruble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruble) for ages. Cuba the Cuban Peso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_peso). You point is absolutely false.


YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT CAN'T BE DONE!! IT'S STILL UP TO YOU TO DO THAT. NOT THAT IT MATTERS AT THIS POINT, YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IS OUT THERE, MINE AND A FEW OTHERS', IS IN HERE WHERE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ!!!

Shouting just makes you look like you're losing your mind, and you can't think rationally without it. You're not thinking beyond the immediate as usual. The original resolution made the unproven claim that it was possible in 10 years. This repeal is an objection to that, raising questions for it to answer that have been far from satisfied. You might feel you answered those questions. We disagree and this is why we stand by our argument. Waving your arms up in the air, saying "It does! It does! You lose! You're not reading it properly" and throwing your toys out of the... metaphorical pram before you take objection to that and try to dodge the issue with a tangent again just doesn't hold for debates. It may on your school playground, but it doesn't here, which is why Hack, in his years of moderation experience, realises where the burden falls - the case for the 10 year claim being sufficient. It's sole representative present - you.
The first claim must be proved before the counter-claim can be tried against the testimony - as Compadria has iterated with his athletic example - or else you are trying the counter-claim against AN ASSUMPTION that the original claim holds. Counter-claims disprove the theory and logical conclusions of original claim to be viable; in the absence of a solid, costed, forward plan for the completion of such a project in ten years, with as accurate an estimation as possible (notice, not guess, estimate, based on properly researched figures) and accounts for safety, recovery procedures in the case of problems occuring and planning for intangible costs, The counter-claim holds true. The original was not proven. To convince the counter-claimants, by the international standards of debate and analysis, you must prove the original claim as it's sole representative present. So far, your absence of a realiable plan as proof is the basis of our argument being successful.

No I've refuted many of them. And ignored the ones that are illogical. I find it utterly stupid that people are claiming my lack of logic when nobody has addressed my environmentally friendly way of creating solar panels!!!

Grantsburg, we have. We're finding it utterly stupid that you don't acknowledge that we've replied to the issue. "Ignoring the ones you deem illogical" demonstrates perfectly to us that you're approaching this with a closed mind as always. Denial doesn't devoid an argument of logic. You've not sufficentally refuted them. We've given reasons why. You've given nothing but verbal flak. It's almost as if you're trolling with the repeated denials and misbrandings.


How is creating solar panels deadly??? That's the most asinine thing I've heard. Speaking of logic, these idiotic analogies that have nothing to do with solar panels don't prove anything!! KEEP IT TO SOLAR PANELS!!

I was referring to the planning process with that metaphor required for any infrastructal change to any system. This is what the old resolution would entail, as do all changes. You test the water before you swim in it. The only thing idiotic here is your lack of thinking beyond the immediate. This repeal does NOT say "SOLAR PANELS ARE BAD". We're against the lack of consideration given to the aforementioned, but sadly, in your case, ignored issues associated with infrastructual change by a sizable faction in the UN.

You've just epitomised for us with your own personal case why we feel we have to repeal this resolution. If you disagree with consequential thinking, then the UN isn't for you.

That's nice...they are responsible for people's lives. Hitler killed Jews in History...I suppose that makes it okay (there's a stupid analogy for you!).

I'm afraid the overreactions do nothing but pull your own pants down, and prove to us further that you can't actually address the case presented to you in a mature fashion.

No it's quite practical. And you haven't addressed why it isn't practical. But this coming from teh creator of this repeal who just says it can't be done in 10 years with no proof. I agreed to a compromise, there's no certain way of predicting the future (so asking me to do so is stupid) unless we try!

I've addressed it several times with practicality doubts. We weren't asking you to predict the future, we were asking you to plan ahead and realise your plans shortcomings. Especially with your imploded economy due to... not planning ahead. What a shame. To which you'll probably come back with "You're not a leftie, you care about money only! Capitalist whore!". I hate to break it to you, but you need some money to buy basic life essentials with.



Nice assumption. Maybe that's why I don't reply to half your rebuttals :rolleyes: .

Assumption? I'm going from the evidence you're displaying. The reason you don't reply to half of my counter-points is that your case is falling flat because you're outnumbered by logical and rational minds.

Grantsburg - You have been defeated. Go home before you taint the UN's reputation more than the original proposal already did.

FFS....you know nothing about burdens of proof. But like I said, I agree with you guys (I kind of have to at this point). It won't get done in 10 years because people here don't care about hte environment, or care to ask for reasoning. You made the claim it's not feasably done, you didn't prove it to nearly 24% of the people enough to make them change their minds. As I said, only ~1,800 views were made on this page. Many of those were the same people over and over again no doubt. You made claims that aren't factual, just opinion to get your way.

I hate to break it to you, but we proposed reasons. You put forward denials. The tactic you mentioned is the one the original resolution passed on and what we stood against, and with your repeated returns, literally to the end.

No point in quoting anyone at this point...I've probably said half the things already...thank God this is only a game. I hope none of you are going into politics...

You're being a bad loser, Grantsburg. That's a poor show - and you're still making personal attacks. Shame on you.

Now back to more important and intellectual matters:

I'd like to thank the co-author Love and esterel who deserves equal praise for this resolution.
CR Oscilloscopes should also be of note for his invaluable assistance in TG campaign in which almost every delegate against the original resolution was contacted by either CR or myself.
Telidia and the associated circle of somewhat secretive allies have also been a fundamental part in the campaign, helping to allow us to realise the mistake in the Solar Panels resolution before it finished the vote, and not only swung the vote on the original to severely damage it's credibility, allowed Love and esterel and myself to commence work on the repeal posthaste.
Also, I'd like to take this moment to thank the UN for correcting it's error of 10 days ago. Hopefully, we can turn this around now and return to the days of proper thinking out being applied to resolutions instead of us all jumping to conclusions at the header like so many do. Let's get back to how things should have been within the UN. :)

Also, I'd like to take this moment to thank the UN for correcting it's error of 10 days ago. Hopefully, we can turn this around now and return to the days of proper thinking out being applied to resolutions instead of us all jumping to conclusions at the header like so many do.

Return to what days now?

Not to deny that there have been instances in which the climate of thoughtful deliberation you describe prevailed in the UN... it's just that we're unfamiliar with there being some past period of time in which this was commonplace.

Yes, Reformentia, it's hard to see (except on the NSwiki timeline), but there was a time (admittedly shortlived) when the UN was as such a point. It was in the very early days - sadly, the ideas were removed because they were satisfied by technical changes.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like also to thanks every nation who emitted politely their concern on the forum, every delegates who approved the repeal, and every UN members who voted against the original proposition or for the repeal

We would like also to thanks Starcra II, for his constructive attitude.

We would like also to thanks Starcra II, for his constructive attitude.

The Theoretical Dominion of Ficticious Proportions would like to second this, and apologises for not thanking you sooner, Starcra II, for your openness and will to co-operate. :)

Here! Here! Starcra II deserves our praise for his noble ability to compromise and acknowledge the short-comings of his proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon him.

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

Love and esterel and Ficticious Proportions, well done.

And I echo the thought that Starcra ll was more than gracious in assisting in the repeal.

AK_ID

We would like to add our thanks to the distinguished representatives of Ficticious Proportions and Love and esterel for their authorship of this repeal. We would also like to warmly commend the honorable representative of Ficticious Proportions for his fine attempts to keep the debate on a civil and constructive level in very trying circumstances. Rest assured, sir, that did not go unnoticed.

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

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

No point in quoting anyone at this point...I've probably said half the things already...thank God this is only a game. I hope none of you are going into politics...For your own sake, I hope you don't go into real life, much less politics. It would halve your life expectancy, whether it is being beaten up, or getting a heart attack because somebody said something that didn't completely agree with you.

Rookierookie would like to offer its congratulations and gratitude to the authors of this proposal which has made this resolution come true.

I would also like to thank all the nations, including ourselves, who foolishly voted in #122's favor, without which this repeal would never have been possible.

We would like to add our thanks to the distinguished representatives of Ficticious Proportions and Love and esterel for their authorship of this repeal. We would also like to warmly commend the honorable representative of Ficticious Proportions for his fine attempts to keep the debate on a civil and constructive level in very trying circumstances. Rest assured, sir, that did not go unnoticed.

We would like to thank Ausserland for the surprising, but nevertheless greatly appreciated compliment. :)