NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, I have submitted the proposal that I have been woking on here in the forums, the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. Please have your regional delegate endorse this worthy cause. Here's a link to the previous discussion thread about it Original Discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553)

The proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

DEFINITIONS

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

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

The UN hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Terms of the resolution

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

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

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

Thanks for your time.
Peace!
Ateelatay

This proposal is far better than the original, but there are several questions that I know will be brought up by member nations in my region.

One: Why bother phasing out a "finite" source of fuel, when it will phase itself out eventually, anyway? When gasoline hits 10 bucks a gallon, alternative fuels will show up like ticks on an Arkansas hound dog.

Two: The proposal mentions a 5% increase in UN aid to nations that meet the reduction goals. Since the UN can't tax nations, where does the UN get money? And is the UN actually able to provide aid to any individual NationState?

Three: "Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need" makes me wonder whom will define "significant?

Four: Shouldn't we consider the possibility that poorer nations may be forced to burn pre-fossil hydrocarbon fuels (trees, for example) in order to meet the reduction standards? God save the rain forests. Or even worse, some tiny arctic and antarctic nations may revert to burning whale oil. God save the whales.

Yes, this is a more reasonable proposal than was the Solar Panel fiasco, but it needs a bit more refining (no pun intended).

AK_ID
Grumpy Delegate, The Wild West

There are two problems I see with this, and both of those are problems that only exist due to the complex nature of NS:
1) Some countries inhabit other planets, others may have sentient species that only exist due to pollution, etc. It also has the problem that, due to the existance of intergalactic nations that fossil fuel resources for many nations are indeed infinite (e.g. "Ooh Look! The Galatic Empire of Frang found another planet made entirely of coal")
2) The problem that New Cobdenia will have; we are a past tech nation (C. 1930). Thus, we haven't got the technology to implement such change without, effectively, going backwards

This proposal is far better than the original, but there are several questions that I know will be brought up by member nations in my region.

One: Why bother phasing out a "finite" source of fuel, when it will phase itself out eventually, anyway? When gasoline hits 10 bucks a gallon, alternative fuels will show up like ticks on an Arkansas hound dog.

Thank you very much for your concerns. I will try and address them one at a time.

One: The reason I don't want to wait until it must be done is because I do not, as I'm sure many nations do not, have as much faith in the free market as it seems you do. Left completely free, the market only changes when it has to, which means that that point may be after fossil fuel burning has done irreparable damage to the environment. When gasoline hits 10 bucks a gallon, people won't simply say, "ok, guess we have to change the entire energy infrastructure over night," they will revolt. People, in the US anyway, are dependent on their cars like they are dependent on blood, they will not willingly give that up, especially if it involves the cost of an entirely new car to run on the new fuel.

This proposal is not nearly as extreme as the Promtion of Solar Panels one, it only gently nudges countries in the direction of phasing out fossil fuels and does not completely phase them out, but leaves them with 10% of their current consumption rate.

Two: The proposal mentions a 5% increase in UN aid to nations that meet the reduction goals. Since the UN can't tax nations, where does the UN get money? And is the UN actually able to provide aid to any individual NationState?

Yes, I left this somewhat ambiguous for a reason. True, the UN cannot tax, but it is not prohibited from giving any aid it recieves to countries that need it. Also, aid does not necessarily mean money, it could be advisory aid, technilogical assistance to help countries develop clean, renewable energy technologies.

The NSUN is kind of abbiguous in itself, it would obviously cost money to run, but it is never mentioned where that money comes from. It also only covers the legislative branch of the organization, there are no security councils or trade councils staffed by representatives of nations.

Anyway, it makes it difficult to give incentives in proposals, which many nations ask for and suggest, when it is unclear how the NSUN gets and distriburtes any money, the ambiguity of the incentive leaves nations open to interepret as they see fit.

Three: "Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need" makes me wonder whom will define "significant?

I think the conditions for "significant need" were laid out as clearly as they could be without getting too technical and long. Whoever is in charge of seeing that nations comply with resolutions, be it the UN at large or councils not mentioned by the NSUN, would determine if in fact the nation in question had demonstrated significant need based on the accepted conditions.

Four: Shouldn't we consider the possibility that poorer nations may be forced to burn pre-fossil hydrocarbon fuels (trees, for example) in order to meet the reduction standards? God save the rain forests. Or even worse, some tiny arctic and antarctic nations may revert to burning whale oil. God save the whales.

Poorer nations would likely not be as dependant on fossil fuels as the richer ones and would likely use much more animal power for agriculture and transportation, so it shouldn't be as hard for them to comply. It would be likely that much of their heating and cooking energy needs already come from biomass sources. The proposal does talk about sources of energy that are ultimately unsustainable and says that nations must consider tham as temporary sources to use until they are able to run on clean renewables.

Yes, this is a more reasonable proposal than was the Solar Panel fiasco, but it needs a bit more refining (no pun intended).

Thanks. I would like to point out, though, that this proposal has been up for refinement since before the Promotion of Solar Panels was even passed, the link to the original discussion is at the top of the page. I believe you yourself even commented on it.

by New Cobdenia: 1) Some countries inhabit other planets, others may have sentient species that only exist due to pollution, etc. It also has the problem that, due to the existance of intergalactic nations that fossil fuel resources for many nations are indeed infinite (e.g. "Ooh Look! The Galatic Empire of Frang found another planet made entirely of coal")
2) The problem that New Cobdenia will have; we are a past tech nation (C. 1930). Thus, we haven't got the technology to implement such change without, effectively, going backwards

1) I'm not sure that the UN would technically have jurisdiction over other planets or space colonies or what have you, and I don't know how it would be that they would have membership in a terrestrial UN. But, regardless, if they are part of the UN and have any contact with other member nationstates, they should abide by the same rules as all other UN nations. And yes, one could roleplay there nation to do anything, including be a bizzaro world where they do the opposite of what the UN says, but if resolution writers had to include language to cover any possible type of nation, resolutions would talk about nothing else and nothing would get passed. Resolutions aren't meant to make every single UN naiton happy, just to find the best possible solution to problems for the most nations.

2) See my response to AK_ID about poorer nations, it would basically be the same for time-warped nations. Again, resolutions should be writen for the majority of UN nations, and I would guess that the vast majority of NS nations are in the here and now, with average RL technilogical capabilities

If a space colony nation is a members of the UN, then it has jurisdiction. I don't see why we need to be forced to use less fossil fuels when there is no shortage of fossil fuels in NS.
NS does not equal real life.
ANd most nations are probably future tech as opposed to modern tech, in my experience

Grf. Sorry. I was writing when apparently this went through.

I submitted a quite similar resolution proposal, Alternative Energy Initiative (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9728605#post9728605).

My pardons. Please let me know if we should throw support towards one or the other.

Maybe it would work if you changed fossil fuels to scarce natural fuel resources? That way it would work for past tech nations like myself, who have lots of oil but are slowly running out of coal, and for future tech nations that have lots of oild and coal but are running out of uranium and mangenese nodules or whatever?

No matter what tech you are at, fossil fuels are finite and non-renewable. However, if you are playing past-tech, or future tech, never mind fantasy, many UN resolutions do not make sense.

I suppose Mordor has plenty of geothermal power from Mt. Doom, but no, elves are not a renewable biomass fuel resource to burn. (Well, maybe they are.) Anyway...

For those playing outside the present time, it is more the effect and intent that binds you, than the wording.

The wording is binding according to UN rules. It's common and statute law here, not the code Napolean

Then, consider this: if you are playing in a medieval tech, you're already in compliance.

If you are playing in future tech, you are likely already on to something else as a fuel source.

So in either case, you're 35 years early in compliance.

For those who are in the steam age? You're in trouble, because that was an era mostly run on coal, gas lighting, oil and kerosene -- fossil fuels. You'll have to go to biomass (wood).

Note that solar power was also being collected during the turn of the last century, and windmills, dams, and waterwheels have been around since the time of Rome.

If a space colony nation is a members of the UN, then it has jurisdiction. I don't see why we need to be forced to use less fossil fuels when there is no shortage of fossil fuels in NS.
NS does not equal real life.
ANd most nations are probably future tech as opposed to modern tech, in my experience

It's not as much about the shortage as about the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

Again, I am not going to write a proposal that considers every possible type of nation. You probably wouldn't be burning much fossil fuel in space anyway. My resolutoin is based on what I think would be best for almost all nations.

Ns may not be real life, but decisions must be based at least partially in reality to have any credibility, otherwise I could write a proposal to change the laws of physics and make all fossil fuel pollution turn into harmless substances.

If most nations are future-tech, they should have no trouble complying because they will have advanced clean, alternative energy generation capabilities.

By Cobdenia: Maybe it would work if you changed fossil fuels to scarce natural fuel resources?

This would be a very awkward term and does not address the main point of the resolution, to decrease environmental damage from energy generation.

By Listeneisse: For those who are in the steam age? You're in trouble, because that was an era mostly run on coal, gas lighting, oil and kerosene -- fossil fuels. You'll have to go to biomass (wood).

For these nations, they may need to seek help from more advanced nations. But they still are required to increase funding to develop clean, renewable energy generators, which would probably benefit them in the long run because they would skip the whole step of having massive infrastructure and many more people, all dependant on fossil fuel.

This would be a very awkward term and does not address the main point of the resolution, to decrease environmental damage from energy generation.

What environmental damage? And surely burning wood and linseed oil is pretty damaging, but they wouldn't count because they're not fossil fuels!

This would be a very awkward term and does not address the main point of the resolution, to decrease environmental damage from energy generation.

What environmental damage? And surely burning wood and linseed oil is pretty damaging, but they wouldn't count because they're not fossil fuels!
Maybe it's true that burning wood and lineseed oil is also very bad to our planet envinorment,but we need also to manage it as far as can,in consideration of the economy etc.
The Adnarian Democratic Republic will support this idea,because we need to save our plant,and if not now,when?
George Forest,
Science and Envinorment Minister,Democratic Republic of Adnaria,
David Contacts,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

What if we're not running out of fossil fuels, our neighbors don't mind the pollution, and we really like fossil fuels?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The good people of Discordinia, rich in both coal and oil, have already spent a goodly amount of money on their many coastal wind-farms.

The good people of Discordinia do not understand why they should be required to further limit their fossil fuel usage, nor why they should assist other countries in doing so via their annual NSUN dues.

Finally, the good people of Discordinia feel no need to shift existing monetary resources away from R&D on cold-fusion technology to employment of inferior technologies such as biomass or solar-cells.

The good people of Discordinia will not support this measure.

Cookie I, El Jefe

This would be a very awkward term and does not address the main point of the resolution, to decrease environmental damage from energy generation.

What environmental damage? And surely burning wood and linseed oil is pretty damaging, but they wouldn't count because they're not fossil fuels!

The environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels and transporting them. I don't think I need to explain how this damages the environment, it's pretty well documented.

My proposal clearly defines what clean, renewable sources of energy are, if the sources you listed are in fact as damaging as you claim, they could only be used as an interim source, as laid out in the proposal, until more clean, renewable sources can be used. I know that wood would be worse than fossil fuel, if used on the same scale, but I have never heard of using linseed oil as an energy source.

By Texan Hotrodders What if we're not running out of fossil fuels, our neighbors don't mind the pollution, and we really like fossil fuels?

Then I would say that your use of fossil fuels is negligeable enough to not make it hard to come into compliance, or you are misinformed or living in denial.

But, since we are talking hypotheticals, consider this: what if my nation really likes consuming disposable goods and dumping them wherever we please when we are done with them, including on other neighboring nations. And let's say that the people of my nation don't really mind the pollution and the neghboring countries don't care much either. Does this then mean that all countries of the world should be able to just go about dumping trash on whoever they want? Does this also mean that it is good for your own people, in the long-run, to keep dumping waste everwhere?

The point is, is the UN just about serving the needs of your own country, or is it about working with nations from around the world to solve global issues, such as fossil fuel use? If the answer is the former, why even bother with the UN? You obviously can deal with every issue on your own the best.

By Discordinia: The good people of Discordinia, rich in both coal and oil, have already spent a goodly amount of money on their many coastal wind-farms.
The good people of Discordinia do not understand why they should be required to further limit their fossil fuel usage, nor why they should assist other countries in doing so via their annual NSUN dues.
Finally, the good people of Discordinia feel no need to shift existing monetary resources away from R&D on cold-fusion technology to employment of inferior technologies such as biomass or solar-cells.

That's great that your country is already workig on this issue, you should have no trouble complying.

Not every country is as far along as you and need to start thinking about this issue and acting on it before it is to late to change. The proposal makes no mention of NSUN dues, but where would you rather see them go, if there are any?

The proposal does not stop you from R&D of cold fusion and in fact encourages it, fusion being a clean, renewable source.

Finally, the good people of Discordinia feel no need to shift existing monetary resources away from R&D on cold-fusion technology to employment of inferior technologies such as biomass or solar-cells.

One of the main reasons many renewable energy sources are considered "inferior" is lack of investment. If even some the money lavished on fossil fuel exploitation since climate change was recognized had been spent on wind, solar, etc, we would be in a far better situation to think about R&D projects such as cold fusion.

The current climate situation demands that we invest in practical, proven technologies. If we continue to consume fossil fuels at our current rate while waiting for a more exiting means of salvation, there may well be no civilization left to support cold fusion when it becomes practical.

Another important step would be to improve energy efficency of buildings, and encourage people to use less power. This could potentially have as great an impact on carbon emissions, for a fraction of the cost.

Then I would say that your use of fossil fuels is negligeable enough to not make it hard to come into compliance, or you are misinformed or living in denial.

Wrong on both counts. The citizens of the Federation consume vast amounts of fossil fuels each day. One would think that they would begin to run out, but scientific studies performed in an effort to address the concerns of energy advocacy groups have found no evidence that the Federation's fossil fuel supply will ever run out.

But, since we are talking hypotheticals, consider this:

That was not a hypothetical scenario. That's the Federation's situation.

The point is, is the UN just about serving the needs of your own country, or is it about working with nations from around the world to solve global issues, such as fossil fuel use? If the answer is the former, why even bother with the UN? You obviously can deal with every issue on your own the best.

The decisions of the United Nations can have far-reaching negative consequences as we saw with "Promotion of Solar Panels. Whether the Federation is a member of the UN or not we could still be harmed by ineffective and ill-considered policies that waste resources for no gain and damage the world economy. Given that, why would the Federation--even with its brilliant, ethical, and effective system of government--not be active in ensuring that the UN does not harm the Federation?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

One of the main reasons many renewable energy sources are considered "inferior" is lack of investment.There's a Catch-22 here.

Some renewable energy sources were, until quite recently, inferior means to produce energy on a cost basis to conventional fossil fuel energy production.

Nowadays, because of advances in solar power cell efficiency and wind turbine design, costs to produce, install the equipment, and operate and maintain renewable energy systems (including physical plant or acreage) are quite competitive, especially compared to traditional fossil fuel production.

It's actually relatively easy to get a wind turbine up that can produce 660 kW. $10 Million could get you fourteen 660 kW turbines and transformers, enough to produce energy for 3,600 homes, with a lifespan of 30 years. That's an investment of about $2,777 per home, or, about $92 a year if annualized over the life of the turbine. Of course, there's costs of maintanance, possible land leases, insurance, operations, etc. It's just an example of the fact that any small community might now be able to say, "I think it's a good time to think about trying this ourselves."

Getting those turbines up takes about 3-6 months, presuming cooperation from the community and permitting goes through.

There is a TTA (Time to Adopt) curve for any technology. We're early yet in that curve for wind and solar power.

In many cases, wind turbine and solar chip fabrication plants are operating at or near peak production, and cannot meet demand. Which, ironically, drives the price of the equipment up. This is ironically good and bad for equipment production companies, since it maximizes their profit in the short term, even if it is a relatively small pie they are feasting on, and prevents the pie from growing to a far larger and more robust market.

Only by majorly investing in production facilities can we produce a surplus of solar cell production capacity, thus meeting or exceeding demand, increasing competition, lowering prices as a result, thus spurring adoption of wind and solar energy products through improved ROI for the consumer.

In other words, the more we invest in wind and solar, the greater economies of scale and lower costs per individual user or unit of energy we can get in the market -- up to certain physical and economic limits.

There's room for far greater efficiencies still in the wind and solar energies.

The oil industry is about as efficient as it's going to get. Or, a little less efficient if people keep buying these SUVs and Hummers. (Dreadfully inefficient vehicles, I must say.)
_____
RL Source
Lincoln Wind Energy Facility (http://www.wpsc.wpsr.com/news/windenergy.asp)

Wrong on both counts. The citizens of the Federation consume vast amounts of fossil fuels each day. One would think that they would begin to run out, but scientific studies performed in an effort to address the concerns of energy advocacy groups have found no evidence that the Federation's fossil fuel supply will ever run out.

Then I guess your Federation is not based in reality. You cannot have it both ways; consuming vast amounts of polluting, finite resources and never running out and/or damaging your environment beyond its ability to support you.

That was not a hypothetical scenario. That's the Federation's situation.

Since your Federation is a fictitious place, yes it is a hypothetical situation, not to mention you started your sentence with, "What if."

I could just as easil say, "my people need pollution to live." This might work fine for RPing, but it would be unrealistic to basse a proposal affecting the entire UN on this.

The decisions of the United Nations can have far-reaching negative consequences as we saw with "Promotion of Solar Panels. Whether the Federation is a member of the UN or not we could still be harmed by ineffective and ill-considered policies that waste resources for no gain and damage the world economy. Given that, why would the Federation--even with its brilliant, ethical, and effective system of government--not be active in ensuring that the UN does not harm the Federation?

I didn't mean to make it an "either/or" situation, I asked if it should only be about your own country. Just to clarify, is this Federation refuring to your country or region? Anyway, obviously each UN naiton should be concerned with what's best for its people, but should it not also be concerned for what's best for the world?

Okay, I think I need to point something out that Ateelay is unable to grasp:

NS does NOT equal real life


Then I guess your Federation is not based in reality. You cannot have it both ways; consuming vast amounts of polluting, finite resources and never running out and/or damaging your environment beyond its ability to support you.

The federation may have found a way to manufacture fossil fuels and despose of the pollution

Since your Federation is a fictitious place, yes it is a hypothetical situation, not to mention you started your sentence with, "What if."

You need to read DLE's guide to UN arguements. That there is a classic "Techwank" reply, which is unacceptable, whereas the original arguement of various technologies put forward by Texan Hotrodders and myself are perfectly acceptable

Anyway, obviously each UN naiton should be concerned with what's best for its people, but should it not also be concerned for what's best for the world?
Which world? The NSUN encompasses many different worlds and planets. Some will be effected by fossil fuels, some wont. If they are affected, than they can alter their own policy according; but there is no logical reason to force it on nations when it isn't there problem and will never be a problem to them.

Don't like it? That's your problem

Why JUST Solar and Wind? Whatever happened to Hydroelectric, Geothermal and Tidal? Furthermore, different sources of energy, ie; Cold Fission. No need to have alot of things locked into stone.

Okay, I think I need to point something out that Ateelay is unable to grasp:

NS does NOT equal real life

It may not equal real life, but if it has absolutely no basis in reality, why make a proposal about anything? For any issue you could say, "my nation has solved this problem completely with no ill effects so why should I care about it?" It's like sidestepping every issue because, in your fantasy world, problems con be solved by saying they are. I have seen no valid arguement for including every possible type of nation in the wording of my proposal, let alone a way of doing so. All you all keep saying is that you don't have to deal with the problem because your nation is beyond the laws of RL physics.

so what I'm really asking is how do you propose I write a resolution to satisfy every type of fantastical nation in every time period?

The federation may have found a way to manufacture fossil fuels and despose of the pollution

Give me one reasonable scenario where this could be true.

You need to read DLE's guide to UN arguements. That there is a classic "Techwank" reply, which is unacceptable, whereas the original arguement of various technologies put forward by Texan Hotrodders and myself are perfectly acceptable

Tell me where I find this and maybe I will. And what do you mean by techwank?

Which world? The NSUN encompasses many different worlds and planets. Some will be effected by fossil fuels, some wont. If they are affected, than they can alter their own policy according; but there is no logical reason to force it on nations when it isn't there problem and will never be a problem to them.

I again go back to my arguement that NS nations must have some basis of reality or it doesn't matter what a resolution says. If a nation could just make up any reality, there would never be any problem complying with any resolution.

For instance, the Promotion of Solar Panels resolution caused quite a disturbance, why? If nations can just say that solar panels in there country cost next to nothing and they have solved efficiency problems and storage problems, why was it such a big deal? I submit that it was because, in RL this would have been a disaterous proposal and it in fact had no basis in reality. One issue that people kept bringing up was abou the pollution that is created from manufacturing solar panels. Why is it a vlaid arguement to say that your nation has solved pollution problems from burning fossil fuels but not a valid arguemtn to say that they have solved pollution problems from manufacturing solar panels?

By Amarak IV: Why JUST Solar and Wind? Whatever happened to Hydroelectric, Geothermal and Tidal? Furthermore, different sources of energy, ie; Cold Fission. No need to have alot of things locked into stone.

Who is this question addressed to?

The DLE Guide to UN Arguements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423925)


14. Techwank reply- This is an attempt to illegitimize a player's arguements by targetting an example they have used, calling it techwank, instead of dealing with their actual arguements.

15. "But I don't like/play/want to deal with that technology level!"- Then maybe you shouldn't have joined the UN. The UN is made up of a multitude of nations, which in turn are made up of multiple technology levels and types. While you may not like it, you still must deal with the fact your proposal about guns does affect that nation with the massive warships in orbit.

so what I'm really asking is how do you propose I write a resolution to satisfy every type of fantastical nation in every time period?

Don't write resolutions that would cause a problem in that sense.

Give me one reasonable scenario where this could be true.
Magic? Superior technolgy?
Before you say we don't have the technology, or tha magic doesn't exist, it does here

I again go back to my arguement that NS nations must have some basis of reality
Well, they don't. A good resolution should be something in which technology has no basis, or if it does, only effects those of a certain technology level (e.g. Safe disposal of nuclear power; if you are in the past, you have no nuclear power so it is immaterial. If you are in the future, you are probably already complying, if you are in the present, you would probably want someone to make sure you are desposing of the waste anyway)

If a nation could just make up any reality, there would never be any problem complying with any resolution.
Or some people like to be consistant and not change to dodge every resolution

Wang Chun is interested in doing what makes economic sense for Wang Chun. If a commodity is plentiful, we use it. If it is scarce, we conserve it.

If pollution does damage, the polluter is liable for that damage. If there is no damage, then we don't believe there is a pollution problem.

With that in mind, Wang Chun considers this resolution to be a system of artificial price controls on a commodity, controls that would damage Wang Chun's economy for no reason of benefit to Wang Chun. We vote no.

OOC: Since this seems to be all OOC commentary anyway...

Then I guess your Federation is not based in reality. You cannot have it both ways; consuming vast amounts of polluting, finite resources and never running out and/or damaging your environment beyond its ability to support you.

No, the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders is not based in reality. This is NationStates, an online political simulation game in which folks can and often do roleplay their nation.

Since your Federation is a fictitious place, yes it is a hypothetical situation, not to mention you started your sentence with, "What if."

Let's not muddle the distinction betwee In-Character and Out-of-Character quite so much. Out-of-Character, an anarcho-socialist federation that pollutes like hell and never runs out of resources would be ridiculous, and no one would suggest otherwise (at least I hope so). In-Character, my nation is perfectly viable.

I could just as easil say, "my people need pollution to live." This might work fine for RPing, but it would be unrealistic to basse a proposal affecting the entire UN on this.

Ah. I see. Taking into account the fact that some folks roleplay nations that don't conform to the parameters of the real world just isn't something you're willing to do. That's fine. Others have taken that approach as well. If that's the case, just say so up front when you post a proposal thread and save yourself all the trouble of trying to make an online political simulation game that allows unlimited resources and generates farcical effects for policy choices into a "realistic" model.

I didn't mean to make it an "either/or" situation, I asked if it should only be about your own country. Just to clarify, is this Federation refuring to your country or region? Anyway, obviously each UN naiton should be concerned with what's best for its people, but should it not also be concerned for what's best for the world?

The Federation is referring to the nation, not a region. Good question.

And yes, I do roleplay the Federation as very much concerned about the world, but it has no interest in sacrificing the unique and valid approaches of its own or those of other nations in an effort to create a singular order of mediocre nations under the banner of the UN.

OK then, I guess I can understand y'all's point of view better now. When I wrote this resolution I had a view of the NS world that is more in line with the real world than the one your nations opperate in. However, I still do not agree with that point of view because I feel it makes it too easy to get around issues that would nat be nearly as easily dealt with in the real world. I realize that NS is a game and therefore fantasy, I just prefur to opperate with more of a real world view.

I am sorry that the resolution does not address the unique situation of your nations, but I am still having trouble grasping how it possibly could. Your concerns have been noted, though and if I have to resubmit the resolution I would hope that you would try and help me understand how to take into account your unique world views.

I would like to point out, though, that this proposal had been up for discussion and revision since before Promotion of Solar Panels was passed and it was only a day or two before I submitted it that I even became aware of the "alternate reality" point of view. I am not saying that it is any fault of yours, just that it, along with my general experience with NS, leads me to believe that you all's point of view is a very small minority and, given the difficulty of writing a resolution to satisfy every possible reality, not one that makes it worth the effort to consider. I mean no offense by this, I just don't know how it could reasonably be done.

Regardless, the main part of you all's arguement is that nations opperating with different physics and time periods will have a harder time complying or have found a way to make it a non issue, correct? I still don't see how it could hurt anyone in the long-run to switch most of their energy from fossil fuel based energy, to clean, renewable energy.

I am sorry that the resolution does not address the unique situation of your nations, but I am still having trouble grasping how it possibly could. Your concerns have been noted, though and if I have to resubmit the resolution I would hope that you would try and help me understand how to take into account your unique world views.

How about something like this?


Title: Energy Responsibility Act

Category: Environmental
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Ateelatay

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that for many nations within this body the environmental impacts of energy production are negative.

FURTHER NOTING that the needs of those member nations who find energy production unnecessary should be considered out of respect for their right to self-determination.

OBSERVING that this energy production can reasonably be maintained for the sake of the overall quality of life of the persons residing in member nations.

URGES all member nations for whom it is necessary and appropriate to take practical measures that will prevent harmful environmental degradation due to energy production.

ENCOURAGES all member nations for whom it is necessary and appropriate to invest in the development of safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient methods of energy production that are drawn from sources that are reliable and/or renewable.

How about something like this?

We can see why you would have no problem with your proposed replacement, as it doesn't actually require you or anyone else to do anything whatsoever...

We can see why you would have no problem with your proposed replacement, as it doesn't actually require you or anyone else to do anything whatsoever...

Ain't it grand how I can just churn those sovereignty-friendly suckers out like crude oil? ;)

Exacellent, Texans.

My idea was to create another bally commitee to ensure that fuel was used as economically as possible in each nation. But your idea is better!

[Ambassador Riley holds a cell phone aloft, from which the voice of the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico, loudly and angrily squawks:]

DO THE MATH, EINSTEIN!!!!

We're only 28 percent of the world; how in hell could you possibly figure that shooting ourselves in the foot economically would improve the Earth's atmosphere, when 72 percent of the Earth is still free to trash the environment as it sees fit?! Not to mention the fact that, hey, most of the world's environmentally conscious nations are already in the UN, so further regulating them won't do much; many UN nations are past- or future-tech and thus do not burn much fossil fuels anyway; and plenty UN nations do not even share this planet. So how exactly would this legislation improve our planet's atmosphere, when in fact, given everything I've just mentioned, all this would really do is lay waste to our economies?

I can see by the blessedly suicidal Resolution #122 and the rash of ensuing "more reasonable replacements" that the UN has been hit hard by the Stop Fossil Fuels Now! fad. We can wait it out. The Federal Republic will not support this proposal.

Texan Hotrodders: There are many issues that I think the UN shouldn't decide on, issues like regulating education, morallity issues such as the death penalty, and deciding what type of government is best for people. however, when it comes to issues that are not restricted by naitonal borders, such as issues of pollution and certain trade issues, I feel that it is only th UN that can properly deal with these issues. This is why I have made my proposal, because I don't trust the free market to regulate itself and make oil unprefurrable in time to switch to something else. I feel it is better to give nations a little push and in the process comprimise a little sovereignty and economic might, than it would be to watch as entire civilizations collapse because they waited too long for the free market to correct their mistakes.

In essence, I believe it is better to shoot ourselves in the foot economically, than in the head environmentally. The foot wound can be healed in time, but the head wound. . . not so much.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: It seems as though you are arguing two contradoctory things at once. You talk about how this resolution would do little because of all the environmental nations in the UN, past/ future tech naitons, and so on. But then you say that we would be "lay[ing] waste to our economies" by passing this resolution, I don't see how both could be.
I would also like you to consider that this proposal does not end all fossil fuel use, but rather brings it down to 10% of its current rate of consumption.

To all: I appreciate those of you who have raised concerns that I had not considered, but the time for ammendments has long passed and the resolution will now be going to vote. It is now up to the UN at large to decide if it is acceptable. I will obvouslly continue to field questions here, but realize that I plan on standing by my resolution as it is.

Rookierookie votes For this resolution.

I vote against this resolution. If there was already a alternate fuel and heating source I would say yes but if this gets passed the layoff's, and deaths would be massive with no fuel for heat or power. Send in the assassins! :mp5:

Despite the good intentions, it's too little, too late. A 10% reduction in 45 years is not enough. We vote against and hope for a more strict proposal (say, 50% in 20 years at the very least, no excuses).

Except that such a strict deadline would have the same effect as the Promotion of Solar Panels. In addition, what are you going to replace them with?

You only have to look at Ateelatay Nation's economic status to see how foolish this bill is.

I've decided to abstain on this resolution.

Nothing against the resolution itself, I've not read it, or the draft thread on the subject because I am just totally bored with the whole pollution/fossil fuel/environment argument after the solar panel resolution hoo haa.

Tzorsland will vote against the resolution. In the end we will do this because of one reason and one reason only. Recent history has proved that people will vote for anything no matter what the vote is for. This means that reslutions that are only marginally approved will probably be marginally repealed shortly thereafter. Since The Nifty Republic of Tzorsland does not want to see the UN list of resolutions filled with scratch marks of resolutions passed one day and repealed the week next, we will not vote for any resolution that looks as though a repeal might pass the next week.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: It seems as though you are arguing two contradoctory things at once. You talk about how this resolution would do little because of all the environmental nations in the UN, past/ future tech naitons, and so on. But then you say that we would be "lay[ing] waste to our economies" by passing this resolution, I don't see how both could be.
I would also like you to consider that this proposal does not end all fossil fuel use, but rather brings it down to 10% of its current rate of consumption.Nope. Sorry. I'm arguing that regulating the fossil-fuel output of just 27-28 percent of the Earth's nations -- only a portion of which would be affected -- will not significantly improve the condition of the Earth's atmosphere, and will indeed harm the economies of nations that are affected. Or did you miss that?

We frankly cannot believe that this resolution would achieve quorum, especially after the UN so quickly realized and corrected its folly with #122 Promotion of Solar Panels. Is the UN conventional wisdom so outlandishly erratic?

Not to worry, however: The Federal Republic has every intention of getting around this. Our Creative UN Solutions Agency is already recommending that in order to get around this bulwark of foolishness, we increase our national fossil-fuel output this year by 1,000 percent, thus throwing off the three-year average and allowing us to burn fossil fuels at a rate we are comfortable with, even after the effects of this resolution are felt. This measure should effectively neutralize the mandate for a 2-percent decrease per year over 45 years, as well as this legislation's moronic assumption that nations will stay the same size over time and require the same amount of energy in order to function.* It should also hold us over until the UN gets over this ridiculous FOSSIL FUELS BAD!!! fad, and decides once again to reverse itself, hopefully not for the purposes of proposing yet another "more reasonable" replacement.

Oh yeah, and we vote AGAINST.

* (Nope. Nations in this game do increase in size, at a rather dramatic rate, and will require more energy to function as they expand -- yet this resolution requires all nations to decrease fossil-fuel consumption on an arbitrary regressive scale calculated using the the same "ceiling consumption rate" year by year, even as the nations grow. Consequently, this resolution mandates much more than a simple 2-percent annual reduction.)

however, when it comes to issues that are not restricted by naitonal borders, such as issues of pollution and certain trade issues, I feel that it is only th UN that can properly deal with these issues. This is why I have made my proposal, because I don't trust the free market to regulate itself and make oil unprefurrable in time to switch to something else.Heh. We wouldn't trust free markets either, were our national economy as dysfunctional as yours (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=ateelatay).

Greater Boblandia will not support this resolution. While we must disagree with Omigodtheykilledkenny’s defeatist viewpoint on environmental regulations, we concur that the fossil fuel brouhaha that erupted following resolution 122’s repeal has led to the creation of several useless resolutions, with this being one of them.

Once again, we have a resolution that makes broad assumptions about our energy policies, and demands that we make a complete transfer to a certain system of power generation, just this time with a longer amount of time to come into compliance. Also, this resolution demands that we drop our use of hydrocarbon products by 2% each year. Due to the already massive amount of money that we sink into public transit, our only option would be to make serious inroads on our refining industries.

If we fail to do so, Article IIB suggests that the UN may take punitive actions against us. The only way to avoid such a fate would be for the government to seize privately owned heavy industries and shut them down until we come into compliance. This is absolutely unacceptable. Member nations’ energy policies are not necessarily plastic and the United Nations is not the resolution author’s ideological sledgehammer.

Texan Hotrodders: There are many issues that I think the UN shouldn't decide on, issues like regulating education, morallity issues such as the death penalty, and deciding what type of government is best for people. however, when it comes to issues that are not restricted by naitonal borders, such as issues of pollution and certain trade issues, I feel that it is only th UN that can properly deal with these issues. This is why I have made my proposal, because I don't trust the free market to regulate itself and make oil unprefurrable in time to switch to something else. I feel it is better to give nations a little push and in the process comprimise a little sovereignty and economic might, than it would be to watch as entire civilizations collapse because they waited too long for the free market to correct their mistakes.

In essence, I believe it is better to shoot ourselves in the foot economically, than in the head environmentally. The foot wound can be healed in time, but the head wound. . . not so much.

OOC: I appreciate the sentiment, but you're still assuming a "realistic" model where resources actually run out. In NationStates, that's simply not the case. You are of course free to roleplay as if it is the case for your nation, but please, I beg you, refrain from foisting your roleplay preferences on the rest of us via a UN resolution.

We frankly cannot believe that this resolution would achieve quorum, especially after the UN so quickly realized and corrected its folly with #122 Promotion of Solar Panels. Is the UN conventional wisdom so outlandishly erratic?
And yet, it did.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote against this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

we vote against, on the account that we like dinosaurs and giant ferns in longhorn country. but even more so in our car.

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote no. Blah, blah blah poorly worded, blah blah sovereignty, blah blah. Market forces blah blah blah scientific development blah blah blah blah, edible panties.

Sorry -- I just figured since nobody will read legitimate objections and everyone votes without thinking more than half a second anyway, why bother to invest the time to be eloquent and detailed? God knows the drafters of these pieces of shit don't.

Blah blah blah resolutions without thinking about implementation, blah blah blah blah airheaded morons, blah blah blah blah, aw fuck it.

Magister Blah of Intangeblah
Blah blah delegate Greater Blah.

Oh, god, it reach quorum. Yet again the majority of delegates and UN members will shew themselves up for what they are: Thicker than two short planks...

I voted against this resolution because I feel that it will seriously hurt my countries economy and do very little for the environment. I just feel it simply isn't worth it.

Comparison... (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=cobdenia&nation2=Ateelatay&nation3=&nation4=&nation5=&nation6=)

Cobdenia's GDP ($): $54,507,235,413,338.8224
Atelaay's GDP ($): $26,634,062,337.9979

There I am 2046.5 times richer. Despite Atelaay being 1.875 times bigger than me. Would I rather my people earnt $60,901.93 a year on avarage, or $15.87 a year on average? I wonder why someone from such an impoverished nation (with a quarter unemployment and no consumption) would be more interesting in something as abstract as global warming than saving the lives of it's own people?

However, here is the best statistic:

Cobdenia's defence expenditure: $ 3,161,265,446,323.3409
Atelaay's defence expeniditure: $0.00

Hmmm...I'm sure that after being forced to live in super poverty for so long, the people of Atelaay would welcome the Cobdenian Army with open arms; especially considering my defence expenditure alone is 18.69 times larger than there entire economy!

It looks like I misunderstood this proposal. I thought it would have us cut usage by 10%. If it is to eliminate 90%, and only go to 10% usage then My Capitalistic, Evil Conservative nation cannot support this. One reason is y'all want to eliminate nuke power by fission as well. I've got a nation which soon will be approaching 1 billion people. I need a cheap, always relable, alternative energy source that I can count on now(you notice I didn't say safe). Unless my nation's mad scientists develops superconductors, a perpetual energy machine, or cold fusion technology before this comes to vote, then I shall vote no.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

I support this proposal because of the clauses that allow for time extensions. These extensions should allow rapidly industrializing countries, like Beanertia, to continue industrializing and increasing fuel consumption until they have the infrastructure and capital to switch to alternative energy sources such as nuclear and renewables.

The proposal is hugely biased in favour of developed countries. If country X is using 1 million units of fuel per year, while country Y is using 100, and if, say, 90 units is the minimum necessary for a basic standard of living, then country X will end up with 100,000 units - still more than enough, while country Y would end up with 90.
This resolution, as worded, seems designed to keep the poor poor. If reworded so all nations had to cut down to an equal level of use (or an equal level per head of population) I would vote for it - as it is I cannot support this...

The Dictatorship of Elowo cannot support this.

Our government has outlawed the current use of sunlight as we find it causes cancer in kittens. Nuclear power was tested and we found that, after losing one quarter of our country, it was not safe and therefore, outlawed. Geothermal power made the air smell, therefore it too was outlawed. We thought about burning wood, but then our forests which consist of many Silverback Gorillas began eating people. Think Congo. So the chopping down of our forests was outlawed as well.

Oil, Coal and Natural gas are stable forms of energy. Sure they pollute the air, but the air can handle it. It's strong, been around for a long time. Once we use up the fossil fuels, we will have found an alternate, non-kitten cancer causing, odor free, safe and renewable fuel to use.

this legislation's moronic assumption that nations will stay the same size over time and require the same amount of energy in order to function.*

* (Nope. Nations in this game do increase in size, at a dramatic rather rate, and will require more energy to function as they expand -- yet this resolution requires all nations to decrease fossil-fuel consumption on an arbitrary regressive scale calculated using the the same "ceiling consumption rate" year by year, even as the nations grow. Consequently, this resolution mandates much more than a simple 2-percent annual reduction.)

That's right. St Edmund's population was less than 5 million for most of the past three years but has recently risen very dramatically: Freezing consumption at the average level of those three years would therefore involve a MAJOR reduction in usage per capita which simply wouldn't be feasible. St Edmund therefore votes AGAINST this resolution.

If people REALLY want a replacement for the repealed Solar Panels resolution then I recommend the one which that earlier resolution's own promoter has also been drafting: They've paid a lot more attention to other people's complaints, and it's actually quite reasonable...

Just wanted to say congrats for achieving quorum!

Cheers ;)
Starcra

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

Is this even feasible? Is it possible to have industry or transportation after reducing consumption 90% from the present average? Have you considerd the possibility that renewable energy sources may not be adequate to replace fossil fuels, effectively halting industry, transportation, electricity output, and so forth. I think decreasing the consumption of fossil fuels to 10% of the present use is radically extreme, unrealistic, and incredibly dangerous to the state of every country's economy and social welfare.

I think that reducing fossil fuel is right, but I think that we should consider researching new ways to MAKE fossil fuel, it might be possible.

I think that reducing fossil fuel is right, but I think that we should consider researching new ways to MAKE fossil fuel, it might be possible.

the one drawback if that it requires a lot of energy to do this. The stuff usually requires great pressure and heat. You can produce gasoline from coal, but as I understand the process is rather expensive,and not too efficient, at least now. Perhaps if prices continue to go up, then it will become feasable.

Best summed up by the Hon. Delegate from Intangelon and Greater Seattle - Blah, blah blah, & Blah! Stupid resolution from stupid people who believe that flatulence can power their Mopeds! Using fossil fuel may be a waste of resources and may dirty up the environment, but until stable fusion power is acheived, then it's better than dung burning or waiting for the sun to power up my Hummer! The Democratic States of Big Johns will vote this down and will hunt and kill any nation that supports it!


The Big John Delegate to the UN

You're insane. There's no other way to explain it. Why? Because THERE ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE. People think we need energy, sure. But be realistic! Nuclear Fission creates electricity, NOT fuel. The overwhelming majority of energy usage is for transportation. Electricity cannot replace this. Why? Because we don't have effective electric cars!

Telling nations what fuel they can use, and what fuel they can't isn't just wrong, it's pointless. There isn't any sort of replacement or measures in your place to replace. Research DOESN'T always come up with a solution. Getting our economies down to 10% of what they were is a just plain BAD idea.

The proposal is hugely biased in favour of developed countries. If country X is using 1 million units of fuel per year, while country Y is using 100, and if, say, 90 units is the minimum necessary for a basic standard of living, then country X will end up with 100,000 units - still more than enough, while country Y would end up with 90.
This resolution, as worded, seems designed to keep the poor poor. If reworded so all nations had to cut down to an equal level of use (or an equal level per head of population) I would vote for it - as it is I cannot support this...

I would have to agree. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect poor nations to comply with this proposal.

I vote against this resolution. If there was already a alternate fuel and heating source I would say yes but if this gets passed the layoff's, and deaths would be massive with no fuel for heat or power. Send in the assassins! :mp5:

Hold on, death and layoffs? What are you talking about? Yes, over the course of this resolution's implementation certain jobs will be lost, but there would also be job growth in the R&D sector of clean renewable energy sources.

May I also point out that this resolution calls for a reduction of fossil fuel consumption over a reasonable amount of time, not a complete elimination. You could still, after the reduction is complete, use fossil fuel, just at 10% of today's use.

There also seems to be some confusion about what we would end up with after the implementation of this resolution. Fossil fuel could still be used, but only at 10% of the current rate.

This proposal also does not eliminate the use of fission power in any way, though it does imply that fission should be viewed as an interim power source.

Furthermore, it does not outlaw the use of fission, as it is basically clean and renewable.

By Stealthmunchkania The proposal is hugely biased in favour of developed countries

Well yes, it would affect developed nations more, they use fossil fuel more and create more of the problems with it.

St Edmund: If people REALLY want a replacement for the repealed Solar Panels resolution then I recommend the one which that earlier resolution's own promoter has also been drafting: They've paid a lot more attention to other people's complaints, and it's actually quite reasonable...

I have paid attention to all the comments when drafting this resolution, which started before Promotion of Solar Panels aven passed, and I think I have included almost all of the concerns.

By Crovannia: Have you considerd the possibility that renewable energy sources may not be adequate to replace fossil fuels, effectively halting industry, transportation, electricity output, and so forth.

I have considered this, which is why I included in the preamble that nations may have to face the possibility that no energy source(s) could replace the current level of energy output form fossil fuels and that conservation and increased efficiency programs will be key. And even then there may just be some excesses that people will have to do without, such as streetlights that light empty streets all night, home air conditioning, etc.

But the fact that no combination of current energy sources could entirely replace fossil fuels does not change the fact that peak production is comming within our lifetimes and that current production is greatly damaging our environments.

It seems appropriate here to mention that this resolution is based on things happening in the real world. This means that certain nations with unique realities and in different periods of time might be overlooked by this resolution. This is unfortunate, but I still cannot figuire a reasonable way to include them in the wording.

This also means that certain game mechanics, such as continuous worldwide population explosion, are discounted. Again, the resolution was based more on realworld circumstances than NS mechanics.

By Crovannia: I think decreasing the consumption of fossil fuels to 10% of the present use is radically extreme, unrealistic, and incredibly dangerous to the state of every country's economy and social welfare.

I don't feel that doing so gradually over 45 years is so extreme, not nearly as extreme as Promotion of Solar Panel's timeframe of 10 for all fossil fuel use cesation. Yes, it will harm economies some, but the reward, I feel, is greater.

By Cobdenia: I wonder why someone from such an impoverished nation (with a quarter unemployment and no consumption) would be more interesting in something as abstract as global warming than saving the lives of it's own people?

Hmmm...I'm sure that after being forced to live in super poverty for so long, the people of Atelaay would welcome the Cobdenian Army with open arms; especially considering my defence expenditure alone is 18.69 times larger than there entire economy!


First: please at least give me the respect of getting my name right, Ateelatay, not Atelaay.

Actually, my nation had little to do with my idea behind the proposal, it was mostly a vehicle for it.

But, since we are talking in character, the vast majority of the population of Ateelatay is subsistence or semisubsistence agriculturalists, so economy means little to us.

If you had looked at my political freedoms collumn, you would notice that they are excessive, so no one is being forced to live anyway, it is their won choice. Business, is the the only sector that is heavilty regulated, for we fear the tyranny of large corporations.

The only reasource of any value in Ateelatay, is our vast timber forests, but the best reserves left are hard to access and export because of the formidable mountain ranges that line our coasts. So go ahead, convince your nation to invade mine because I wrote a proposal you didn't agree with.

To All: I will try to get to as many of the serious posts as I can, but time limits my ability to do so. To those of you who posted only to insult me: sorry, you aren't worth my time.

I have considered this, which is why I included in the preamble that nations may have to face the possibility that no energy source(s) could replace the current level of energy output form fossil fuels and that conservation and increased efficiency programs will be key. And even then there may just be some excesses that people will have to do without, such as streetlights that light empty streets all night, home air conditioning, etc.

Do without Street lights? Those lights are there for the protection of the population. You must be working for some criminal underworld organization that plans on attacking people at night and therefore want the lights gone?

Do without Home Air Conditioning? Are you the type who'd leave a child, elderly person or animal in a locked car? You claim to think about real world situations, but obviously aren't. It seems in the real world there are elderly people unable to cool their homes dieing of heat exhaustion. Now in NS you'd have me tell some old person or family that their lives aren't important? That woman walking from her car to her front door from a street parking space far away from her building life and personal safety isn't important?

The People's Republic of Bolshikstan can not support such a heartless proposal.

Well yes, it would affect developed nations more, they use fossil fuel more and create more of the problems with it.


My point is exactly the opposite - it would be disproportionately harmful to developing nations, in much the same way that a flat rate of income tax is disproportionately harmful to poor people.


But the fact that no combination of current energy sources could entirely replace fossil fuels does not change the fact that peak production is comming within our lifetimes and that current production is greatly damaging our environments.


(ooc) Not necessarily in NationStates...



It seems appropriate here to mention that this resolution is based on things happening in the real world. This means that certain nations with unique realities and in different periods of time might be overlooked by this resolution. This is unfortunate, but I still cannot figuire a reasonable way to include them in the wording.

This also means that certain game mechanics, such as continuous worldwide population explosion, are discounted. Again, the resolution was based more on realworld circumstances than NS mechanics.


(ooc)
From the rules:
"Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted."

This would certainly seem to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules...
If your proposal doesn't work in the NationStates world, even if it might in the real world, then it's not a proposal that should be brough forward. If I was playing Monopoly, I wouldn't say "Don't be ridiculous, you can't buy the whole of Old Kent Road for just sixty pounds! That's a major road in London, a city with some of the highest property prices in the world! You're probably talking at least the low tens of millions for a road like that!"

My point is exactly the opposite - it would be disproportionately harmful to developing nations, in much the same way that a flat rate of income tax is disproportionately harmful to poor people.

My appologies, I misunderstood. I believe that it would help devoloping nations in the long-run, because they are not already as dependent on the system and would not run into the probems with fossil fuels that more developed nations are now facing.

From the rules:
"Real World Violations. . . .This would certainly seem to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules...
If your proposal doesn't work in the NationStates world, even if it might in the real world, then it's not a proposal that should be brough forward.

I didn't mean to say that it was completely based off of what I think the real world should do, just that it was inspired by real world issues.

And I think the UN nations will decide whether or not it would work in NS.

While The Allied States of Jey is currently almost completely independant of fossil fuels (when it comes to automotive transportation, that is), we still rely on fossil fuels in other areas. We would not welcome any sort of punishment for not reducing our fossil fuels by a given amount. This is a horrendous resolution for poor nations and others that still rely somewhat on fossil fuels. There should be no "penalty" for not complying, thats just plain ridiculous. Its tough enough for some nations to comply with certain resolutions, why penalize them?

For these reasons, The Allied States of Jey's Representatives voted "AGAINST" this resolution 97-3.

Do without Street lights? Those lights are there for the protection of the population. You must be working for some criminal underworld organization that plans on attacking people at night and therefore want the lights gone?

A couple of points. 1: These examples were only possibilities, nations are free to decide what are necessities and what are not.
2: Streetlights are in plenty of places that people do not walk, like along highways and such. Believe it or not, people survived before streetlights and could do so afterward.

Do without Home Air Conditioning? Are you the type who'd leave a child, elderly person or animal in a locked car? You claim to think about real world situations, but obviously aren't. It seems in the real world there are elderly people unable to cool their homes dieing of heat exhaustion.

Well, it did say home air conditioning, not car. Again this is just a possibility. Maybe you would actually have to take an animal or elderly person inside where you are going, or to a nearby sheltered place. Homes can be cooled without airconditioning, too. Utilizing this new technology called "breezes" will allow the free passage of air in your home, thereby cooling it. There are plenty of other passive heating and cooling systems that can be used at little to no cost. If air conditioning is absolutely needed somewhere to save lives, it could certainly only be used in life threatening heat.

Anyway, even if your nation just can't do without streetlights and airconditioning, there must be something you are willing to give up that would save power, no?

The People's Republic of Bolshikstan can not support such a heartless proposal.

I defend the heartfulness of the proposal, but you are free to vote as you please.

[QUOTE=Ateelatay]
There also seems to be some confusion about what we would end up with after the implementation of this resolution. Fossil fuel could still be used, but only at 10% of the current rate.

You propose the mark of 10% over 45 years. Given, that seems like adequate time for alternative sources of fuels to be developed, but I don't think you have any idea about what you are talking about. You propose the phasing out of petoleum and natural gas, yet what alternatives do you suggest? I am all for a mandatory curtailment in our use of petroleum and gas, but you are going about it the wrong way. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face: you proposal makes just as much sense and is just as extreme. Instead of eliminationg fossil fuel use, why not increasing the efficiency of our use? This is not a solution, instead you are creating numerous larger problems with consequences much more jeopardous than the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels. For example, this proposal won't hinder industry, it will destroy it; modern transportation will no longer be available; nuclear power plants in developing countries not only poses the threat of meltdowns, but also enriched uranium in the hands of dangerous leaders; unemployment will skyrocket resulting in an exponetial rise in poverty, disease, and death. Have you considered any of these possibilities before you devised this proposal? Is there data to support your timeframe or are all your numbers arbitrary? Do you have any knowledge of what you are proposing or talking about for that matter?

Kirisubo votes against!

We oppose this proposal since it is totally unrealistic even given 45 years to achieve it.

in the meantime all the nationstates economys would suffer even if the governments has renewable energy or nuclear fission to help them out. does our proposer even care about the suffering that their idea will cause in developing or poor countries?

our nation is working on hydro elctric power, tidal power and wind power projects. a bright spark has even had the idea to burn processed waste as fuel which is semi renewable rescource but that is another idea we are looking at.

i'm sure that enough of us would agree with me so vote no for to safeguard the future generation!

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

I am leaning toward voting against this resolution due Section C. It should not be a requirement to totally give up nuclear power. I feel my nation of Dooda Dooda Day would support this if this section would be removed.

On behalf of the USSGBJ, we cannot support this resolution. Although it would be a great idea, we have some problems with mandatory enforcement on our nation. Recently, we have taken our own measures to research alternative fuel sources, especially in the field of transportation, to reduce the use of fossil fuels. However, if we were forced to do so for forty-five years, the possibility of returning to fossil fuels at our own pace in the situation where society suffers while waiting for technology to make sufficient advancements deters us from voting yes on this bill.

We do strongly wish to encourage all other nations to take their own measures to use cleaner, sustainable energy sources.

Love,
USSGBJ
Politely Abstaining

Eloina will not support this measure. We feel that the people who drafted it have no clue as to the repercussions of mandating the reduction of the usage of fossil fuels without a replacement source ready and waiting to meet our current energy needs. We have zero interest in being reduced to pre-1900's population and technology.

Have a nice day.

You propose the mark of 10% over 45 years. Given, that seems like adequate time for alternative sources of fuels to be developed, but I don't think you have any idea about what you are talking about. You propose the phasing out of petoleum and natural gas, yet what alternatives do you suggest?

I propose alternatives that fit into the definition for clean, renewable sources, plus conservation and increased efficiency programs, plus 10% of the fossil fuel consumed now, plus non-fossil fuel unsustainable sources until power needs can be met by clean renewable means. If this still cannot produce power at the level to do everything that is done now, then nations must decide what excesses to get rid of.

I am all for a mandatory curtailment in our use of petroleum and gas, but you are going about it the wrong way. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face: you proposal makes just as much sense and is just as extreme. Instead of eliminationg fossil fuel use, why not increasing the efficiency of our use?

My resolution calls for this, too, but I believe this alone is not nearly enough.

. . . .this proposal won't hinder industry, it will destroy it; modern transportation will no longer be available; nuclear power plants in developing countries not only poses the threat of meltdowns, but also enriched uranium in the hands of dangerous leaders; unemployment will skyrocket resulting in an exponetial rise in poverty, disease, and death.

I don't think the reolution's effect would be that extreme, destroy all industry, come on now.

This resolution does not force nuclear proliferation, it is up to nations if they want to give nuclear secrets to countries with dangerous leaders.

Unemployment will not skyrocket, and since more R&D into clean renewables is required, employment may increase. Also, if a nation were to decide that the use of power for some automatic processes is a luxury to be cut, people would need to be hired to perform those processes manually.

Have you considered any of these possibilities before you devised this proposal? Is there data to support your timeframe or are all your numbers arbitrary? Do you have any knowledge of what you are proposing or talking about for that matter?

I have considered these possibilities and I find the long-term benefits of this resolution outweigh the negative consequences, which I think would be much less than you make them out to be.

My timeframe is mostly based on what I think seems a reasonable amount of time for most nations to be able to comply without too much trouble, while still making reasonable progress. It is also based on the time frame that RL enrgy experts are starting to center around for the time in which global oil production will peak, which is around 15 to 20 years. Peak production means that no matter what, the level of oil extracted cannot be sustainaed, because of increased difficulty of extracting it. Please keep in mind that RL peak production was not my main basis for this timeframe, just a bit of RL guidance.

By Kirisubo does our proposer even care about the suffering that their idea will cause in developing or poor countries?

Yes, as I have said, Article II has provisions for depressed economies.

By Dooda Dooda Day It should not be a requirement to totally give up nuclear power.

This is meant to be more of a realization of using other finite sources than an actual requirement, there are no regulations as to exactl when fission must be phased out.

To Garbage Bag Johnny: I can certainly respect your point of view, however, I wanted my proposal to have real teeth, rather than being another empty statement issued by the UN.

Public Voting Convention #2632-A, on behalf of the the Republic of Interstellar Travelers wholeheartedly support this resolution in it's entirety. Not only is the usage of fossil fuels harmful to the precious environmental equilibrium required for non-human and humanoid lif, but it is also economically unhealthy to place such dependence on a single source of energy when there are so many others in existence.

The last few incarnations of the Open Governing Body have done their best to aid in the reduction of fossil fuels internally, at the expense of the economy. Other governments, for the protection and sustainment of the environment of this planet, are encouranged to do the same.

Oorg-blicktick, Joeseph Mortelliti et al.
Public Voting Convention #2632-A (UN Resolution 'Fossil Fuel Reduction Act')

To those of you who posted only to insult me: sorry, you aren't worth my time.This is ridiculous. Who has insulted you? The only person to come close to it is Cobdenia, and you've already responded to his post.

The thing i noticed is that there are several loopholes in the resolution. I have yet to vote on it though. I will think about the resolution at hand and vote on it at a later date.

OOC:

I confess to being very poor at math, but something that was mentioned here triggered a concern. The proposal requires:

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

Now, I'm going to make three assumptions: (1) energy consumption is, to a great degree, a function of population, (2) per capita energy consumption is pretty much a constant, and (3) the populations of nations increase constantly.

The proposal requires that the ceiling consumption rate be calculated by averaging the consumption rates for the current and two prior years. If the populations have grown over that period (as they certainly would have in the NS world), the ceiling consumption rate would be substantially lower than the current consumption rate. (One calculation I tried to make had it at 51% of the current rate [Starting population 100 million, 5 million/day increase].)

Now the proposal mandates a reduction of 2% annually. But 2% of what? The examples clearly show that it means 2% of the ceiling rate, not the current rate, and that the reduction would be from the ceiling rate. After one year, we would be required to be at 98% of the ceiling rate, which, if my calculation above was accurate, would be about 50% of the consumption for the current year. That seems completely unrealistic to me.

If my assumptions, logic or math are off-base here, I'd very much appreciate being corrected. Otherwise, I think the proposal is fatally flawed in this regard.

OOC:
If my assumptions, logic or math are off-base here, I'd very much appreciate being corrected. Otherwise, I think the proposal is fatally flawed in this regard.

Ausserland is exactly right. Your math is flawed, as is your entire proposal. I believe that fossil fuel regulation should be the responsibility of individual countries and not regulated by the UN. If you want to curtail fossil fuel use in your country, pass legislation, but stop trying to impose your flawed agenda on every member of the UN.

Once again, the entire UN hall of delegates immediately hush with awe as the highly decorated PM and UN Delegate from the Capitalist Wing's region, King Hassan the Chop--and entorauge, approach the platform...and the thunderous applause (some even comming from the inoffensive centrists)...

My fellow UN delegates (and lurking non members):

Once again we come to a great delema in our sacred halls. We all stand here debating a proposal that will allow foreigners to enter our own nations and demand us to change the way we live our lives.

Is this what we want? To have aliens telling us how to run our nations :confused: C'mon now, lets take a second and focus:

#1 If some nation has a better and cheaper way to power us, let them profit and sell it to all nations--The City by the Live Sea will be one of the first--and I speak as well for my region.

#2 If fossil fuels are the best source of energy, then if you don't want em, sell em to nations that do!!!

#3 There are many non-member nations that would love to attack us member nations if given the chance--We must stay at the ready.

Soooo, it sounds great for tree huggers, but not realists...Cutting our fossil fuel usage :rolleyes:

Now for the solution that I have been proposing ;)

I suggest that we the UN counsel develop a Think Tank that will try and come up with a better alternative for a fuel source. Once that has been obtained...All intelligent members will come on board without having to pass proposals like what is being presented just now.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

If my assumptions, logic or math are off-base here, I'd very much appreciate being corrected. Otherwise, I think the proposal is fatally flawed in this regard.Your assumptions, logic and math all are spot-on. It is the very point I made with my post (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9744087&postcount=41) from this morning, and Ateelatay has yet to answer it.

I'm just going to mention some of my concerns with the resolution (although for the time being I'm voting FOR the resolution).

1. Someone already mentioned this, but this resolution isn't manditory and contains many loopholes. I agree with the part that mention emissions being a global concern, and environmentally friendly nations like Grantsburg do not want to suffer at the hands of other non-environmentally friendly regions. I think more enforcement is necessary, and Grantsburg already doesn't trade with large polluting countries.

2. Narrowing it down to 10% for countries that produce a lot of emissions, would still be a considerable amount of emissions.

3. 45 years is a very lengthy period of time. Many people who have suffered under the negative effects of fossil fuels won't even get to see the benefits.

4. The 2% per year isn't that large a decrease in emissions. It still gives large polluting countries time to pollute at a rate relative to their norms.

I think those are the bulk of my concerns.

Besides the many well-thought out arguments AGAINST the resolution already mentioned, and please forgive me for being too tired to read all six pages worth, I would just like to add something I have not seen mentioned yet. What benefits would this resolution give us that haven’t already been addressed in Resolutions 18, 39, 71, and 72?

These resolutions already:

(18) Decrease oil usage and promote hydrogen-powered vehicles, therefore lessening air pollution.
(39) Force the automobile manufacturing industries to spend 1% of their profits on alternative fuel research, namely hydrogen.
(71) Promote the use of alternative fuels, especially solar panels, and…
(72) Help prevent climate change caused by greenhouse gases, by lowering the use of fossil fuels by 10% in 10 years.

Gee, sound familiar?

There are no new conservation efforts or technological developments being promoted by this resolution. Then on top of this redundancy, there is a strange formula to follow to calculate a nation’s “ceiling consumption rate”. Now, while I don’t wish to linger on this already discussed area, let me just mention that there is no such thing as a “ceiling consumption rate”. As long as a growing population consumes energy, then there is no set limit. This number could grow indefinitely if allowed to do so.

Our Creative UN Solutions Agency is already recommending that in order to get around this bulwark of foolishness, we increase our national fossil-fuel output this year by 1,000 percent, thus throwing off the three-year average and allowing us to burn fossil fuels at a rate we are comfortable with, even after the effects of this resolution are felt.

I see I am not the only one to have thought of this. Heh, what irony...

(18) Decrease oil usage and promote hydrogen-powered vehicles, therefore lessening air pollution.
Actually all 18 does is require nations to research hydrogen powered vehicles it doesn't require them to be actually built, let alone used.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is ridiculous. Who has insulted you? The only person to come close to it is Cobdenia, and you've already responded to his post.

Yes, in going back, I realize this comment was made in haste. I must have been thinking of the original thread of this discussion, my mistake.

By Shazbotdom: The thing i noticed is that there are several loopholes in the resolution.

Well, yes, there are loopholes in avery resolution, ways of sneaking around practically everything that is said. I tried to close as many as I could while still keeping it understandable.

To Ausserland, Crovannia, Omigodtheykilledkenny: As I have previously stated, I took a more realistic view for the proposal. The fact that NS nations grow by millions every day would make almost any proposal unworkable, so I had the population growth rate of an average Western country more in mind when drafting the proposal (notice I said more in mind, not modeled exactly after). I said an average of the last three years because I figuired that this would account for particularily off average years. But anyway, I really don't think this is the most important part of the proposal.

By The City by the Live S: Is this what we want? To have aliens telling us how to run our nations

Soooo, it sounds great for tree huggers, but not realists...Cutting our fossil fuel usage

I suggest that we the UN counsel develop a Think Tank that will try and come up with a better alternative for a fuel source. Once that has been obtained...All intelligent members will come on board without having to pass proposals like what is being presented just now.


I would say it's more like foreigners telling you they don't want the effects of your pollution and for you to war with them to get more fossil fuel.

Actually, it is great for realists who realize that fossil fuel production will peak globally soon and that it production and burning of it is still producing very real environmental damage.

Great, then draft a better proposal. But remember that you can't have a resolution that just creates a committee.

By Fishyguy: What benefits would this resolution give us that haven’t already been addressed in Resolutions 18, 39, 71, and 72?

Yes these resolutions did do a lot for the environment, this one takes it a step further and addresses more head-on, concerns about fossil fuel use.

To Ausserland, Crovannia, Omigodtheykilledkenny: As I have previously stated, I took a more realistic view for the proposal. The fact that NS nations grow by millions every day would make almost any proposal unworkable, so I had the population growth rate of an average Western country more in mind when drafting the proposal (notice I said more in mind, not modeled exactly after). I said an average of the last three years because I figuired that this would account for particularily off average years. But anyway, I really don't think this is the most important part of the proposal.


(ooc)
The point being, as has been said over and over and over, that this *isn't* the real world. You don't sell streets in Monopoly for their actual cost, and you don't bring in NS proposals that make no sense within the NationStates world.

Nobody seems to have noticed that smaller, underdeveloped nations may not be able to produce fossil fuel alternatives. This nations will suffer greatly if this resolution is passed.

The policy declaration as it stands is flawed. Perhaps if it was ammended to take into account the previous 7 years for ceiling consumption rate (allowing no "fixing" of the figures) and defined clearly the reductions being imposed then it would make more of a difference. Perhaps if these calculations were based off the power produced per tonne of fossil fuel used in the process per capita in ratio with renewable energy sources. This would give a single number that was useful in real terms and not vagaries.

For instance, a country uses a lot of gas, a fossil fuel, as the resolution comes into effect it decides to build a coal fired powerstation and a nuclear power station as a test idea. The coal fired power station produces more pollution per tonne of input than gas and the nuclear station is taking the slack created by the difference in output of the two for any given volume of input.

Thus it would be easy for a nation which wanted cheaper power to pollute more, use less fossil fuels in pure tonnage terms and receive economic benefits.

Hold on, death and layoffs? What are you talking about? Yes, over the course of this resolution's implementation certain jobs will be lost, but there would also be job growth in the R&D sector of clean renewable energy sources.

May I also point out that this resolution calls for a reduction of fossil fuel consumption over a reasonable amount of time, not a complete elimination. You could still, after the reduction is complete, use fossil fuel, just at 10% of today's use.

There also seems to be some confusion about what we would end up with after the implementation of this resolution. Fossil fuel could still be used, but only at 10% of the current rate.

This proposal also does not eliminate the use of fission power in any way, though it does imply that fission should be viewed as an interim power source.

Furthermore, it does not outlaw the use of fission, as it is basically clean and renewable.



Well yes, it would affect developed nations more, they use fossil fuel more and create more of the problems with it.



I have paid attention to all the comments when drafting this resolution, which started before Promotion of Solar Panels aven passed, and I think I have included almost all of the concerns.



I have considered this, which is why I included in the preamble that nations may have to face the possibility that no energy source(s) could replace the current level of energy output form fossil fuels and that conservation and increased efficiency programs will be key. And even then there may just be some excesses that people will have to do without, such as streetlights that light empty streets all night, home air conditioning, etc.

But the fact that no combination of current energy sources could entirely replace fossil fuels does not change the fact that peak production is comming within our lifetimes and that current production is greatly damaging our environments.

It seems appropriate here to mention that this resolution is based on things happening in the real world. This means that certain nations with unique realities and in different periods of time might be overlooked by this resolution. This is unfortunate, but I still cannot figuire a reasonable way to include them in the wording.

This also means that certain game mechanics, such as continuous worldwide population explosion, are discounted. Again, the resolution was based more on realworld circumstances than NS mechanics.



I don't feel that doing so gradually over 45 years is so extreme, not nearly as extreme as Promotion of Solar Panel's timeframe of 10 for all fossil fuel use cesation. Yes, it will harm economies some, but the reward, I feel, is greater.



First: please at least give me the respect of getting my name right, Ateelatay, not Atelaay.

Actually, my nation had little to do with my idea behind the proposal, it was mostly a vehicle for it.

But, since we are talking in character, the vast majority of the population of Ateelatay is subsistence or semisubsistence agriculturalists, so economy means little to us.

If you had looked at my political freedoms collumn, you would notice that they are excessive, so no one is being forced to live anyway, it is their won choice. Business, is the the only sector that is heavilty regulated, for we fear the tyranny of large corporations.

The only reasource of any value in Ateelatay, is our vast timber forests, but the best reserves left are hard to access and export because of the formidable mountain ranges that line our coasts. So go ahead, convince your nation to invade mine because I wrote a proposal you didn't agree with.

To All: I will try to get to as many of the serious posts as I can, but time limits my ability to do so. To those of you who posted only to insult me: sorry, you aren't worth my time.

You want people to use only 10% of the fuel that they currently use which means less heat for those useing gas furnaces in their homes which over the winter in some country's means death. It also effects a lot of the manufacturing jobs that use smelting pots which means the layoffs of metal workers and machinists. not to mention the drop in sales of liquor, and those medications that use dirivitives of fossil fuel. What about a BBQ no propane, or coal would ruin the lives of many people. So any way you look at it this proposal is not a good one.

The maths is certainly flawed in this proposal. For instance, say Anglo-Saxia used 100 tons of fossil fuels per year. Next year the ceiling would become 98% of that figure - 98 tons of fossil fuels. The following year it would be 96% of the ceiling - 94 tons. The next year 88 and a half tons. The proposal is unworkable - in 15 years time the ceiling will be 7.5% of the current level. If the reduction was not compounded, the level after 15 years would be 75% of the current rate. This is more achievable.

The Oppressed Peoples of Anglo-Saxia is unable to vote in favour of this proposal and urges other delegates to reject the proposal.

This resolution clearly disadvantages developing nations who cannot afford the large-scale implamentation of non-fossil fuels. While the need for reducing the fossil-fuel consumption of the world as a whole is an important issue, the ability for developing nations to provide affordable energy to its citizens is paramount.

The resolution, In its current form, cannot be endorsed by The Holy Empire of Lembutonia and I emplore other small nations and all internationally minded nations to block this proposal.

Perhaps a multiplier to the reduction, proportional to a country's population, would solve this complication while retaining most of the resolution's power to reduce overall global fossil fuel consumption.

The good people of Discordinia believe this proposal ... perhaps inadvertenly ... will have the effect of brushing poorer, developing nations under the proverbial carpet.

Fossil fuel reduction - especially along the schedule set forth by this resolution - is generally unrealistic for developing nations and is certainly unrealistic for nations with unhealthy economies. Unfortunately, this resolution only provides for an "extension" from the timetable under very specific circumstances (i.e. economic depression).

There is a more than real probability that a developing nation with a healthy economy would still be unable to afford the demands of this proposal absent a slowing (if not outright halting) of industrial development. The sort of capital investment necessary on the part of industry (private or state-maintained) to keep the timetable is no laughing matter.

Bottom line: If you're a developing nation, you either take a huge risk of ceasing all development in order to comply and being swept under the rug of history like so many other 3rd, 4th and 5th world nations, or you continue developing (and continue SQ rates of fossil fuel consumption) for which you risk losing certain NSUN aid moneys ...

Kind of like corporate welfare on a grander scale. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The good people of Discordinia do not support this resolution and are voting against its passing.

I agree with the above statement, although I see an advantage for Fossil Fuels. Most developed nations are "oil Dependent" countries.

I think that many rich countries would benefit from this reduction on oil use, while the poor third world countries would lose buisness they desperately need.

These small countries, like myself, use chopping down rainforests, to selling shrunken heads [which is illegal now] for buisness. If you take away the oil buisness, then what will they have left?

I vote Nay on this subject

The good people of Discordinia believe this proposal ... perhaps inadvertenly ... will have the effect of brushing poorer, developing nations under the proverbial carpet.

The good people of Discordinia are almost correct in this assessment of the proposal before us. However, it should be noted that poorer, developing nations are already under the proverbial carpet. This proposal will simply ensure that they remain there. Notice that those nations in favor of the proposal are, by and large, well developed and wealthy. This proposal, if passed, will only solidify their places at the top of the economic ladder, while condemning developing nations to poverty by preventing them from using more easily accessible and less expensive sources of energy to spur their growth. For this reason, the people of Cluichstan urge all members to vote against this proposal.

Hello,

Uzakastan is a relatively small nation compared to others, and this resolution could damage our country significantly. If this resolution passes, which we've voted against severely, we will resign from the United Nations. We will not be forced into giving up our sole fuel source. Granted, the reasoning behind it is noble, but at this time we don't have the resources or abilities to make this happen.

Judging by the vote tally.....this is yet another example of the mindless drones supporting a resolution merely to be part of the crowd.....

Are my beliefs on page six grounded? There seems to be more negative support growing on this issue, but for corporate financial reasons.

Are my beliefs on page six grounded? There seems to be more negative support growing on this issue, but for corporate financial reasons.

The people of Cluichstan do, of course, object to the proposal for financial reasons, though we fail to see how corporations have anything to do with said objection. We are a young nation, trying to build a strong economic foundation, but this proposal seeks to deny us the very same tools by which well-developed nations attained their current levels of prosperity. Implying some "corporate greed" motivation behind our objection is not only inaccurate but a deceitful attempt to paint our objection to the proposal in a bad light -- not to mention slandering this representative of the people of Cluichstan as nothing more than a "corporate puppet."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN

I must admit, reading some of the posts here makes me wonder if we might have to point out that this is 10% of you average usage over the past three years. So if you ramp up your usage by 1000% you then still have to replace 90% of your new power usuage based on the average of this year with those two others. 1000% would increase your ceiling, but it's still a reduction of your fossil fuel use.

One would also have to consider though that ramping up usage by 1000% in what will be the span of a few days probably will cost the countries in question a great deal MORE than if they simply were to comply with the proposal. After all the cost of complying will be spaced out over the course of 45 years and not concentrated in a few days or weeks before the resolution comes into effect. Also if you ramp up by 1000% you will now probably have a surplus of power you will not need and a glut in the power market so selling it to other countires will be at reduced rates. You will Then STILL have to replace 90% of your new power sources with renewable resources in the next 45 years.

Add to the fact if you do have just grounds the resolution has means by which you can apply for a extention. This is not as hasty but well thougth out resolution. While there are loop holes they are relativly minor given the time frame form when work started on it. personally I think there is every little you can object to in this resolution compared to the last one.


Sorry for the edits, had to go check things a few times.

this proposal may look good on the paper it's printed on but our proposer still hasn't done the required sums to prove to the esteemed UN members that the plan will work.

Again I say to any undecided nations,especially developing countries vote no to this. Do you really want to be left behind as a third world state while other nations get richer.

to other members i would say consider the future. This may look good now but think of a world where nations have regressed back to the horse drawn cart because of fuel shortages.

Speaking as a emerging country we've had to make hard decisions ourselves but we are going to try and develop renewable energy alongside our fossil fuels. Together with making the most of your oil, gas and coal, energy efficiency and renewable sources we will deal with the problem our way.

this does not need the UN's involvement. as its already been pointed out there are existing resolutions on the statute book which cover parts of this badly thought out resolution.

Vote this down and work with what resolutions are in place. together we can improve our enviroment and reduce fossil fuel usage. It may take a long time to achieve but if we work together this can become a reality without other nations economies suffering and people getting poorer.

Add to the fact if you do have just grounds the resolution has means by which you can apply for a extention.

The relevant portion of the proposal to which my most esteemed colleague refers is as follows:

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

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

The trouble with this, however, is that much of the determinations that must be made here are purely subjective. Who is to say whether a nation "is trying to comply"? Also, what is to be considered "extensive damage" or "severe economic depression" (italics added)? Moreover, the proposal does not specify for what length of time these extensions would be afforded.

Also, no exemptions are made here for nations on the lower end of the population scale. Does it make sense for a developing nation of just, say, nine or ten million to spend a large portion of their limited resources on renewable energy sources, when fossil fuels can be obtained and used more cheaply, especially in light of the fact that use of fossil fuels by such as small population would have a relatively low environmental impact when compared to the sue of such fuels by nations with populations in the hundreds of million or even the billions?

Again, the people of Cluichstan oppose this proposal on the grounds that it subjects smaller, developing nations to an unnecessarily strict regime that will do nothing more than hinder their economic development.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN

to other members i would say consider the future. This may look good now but think of a world where nations have regressed back to the horse drawn cart because of fuel shortages.
Please do not disparage horse-drawn carts. A primary attraction on our southern coast is the fair city of Danza - a city accessible only by boat or mule caravan - that is noteworthy for both the lack of motorized vehicles within the city and the lovely horse-drawn carriage tours which begin at the Danza Sculpture Garden and end at the Giant Pile Of Horse Manure.

Speaking as a emerging country we've had to make hard decisions ourselves but we are going to try and develop renewable energy alongside our fossil fuels. Together with making the most of your oil, gas and coal, energy efficiency and renewable sources we will deal with the problem our way.
Keep at it, Kirisubo!

the honourable delegate from Discordinia seems to think i disparage horses and carts.

We still use them in our countryside for local transport and yes the manure can be dried and burnt as fuel as well as fertilzing the fields.

But lets get back to the point at hand.

We oppose the proposal because the demands it makes are impractical for a lot of nations. even giving 45 years (or more) you'd be dooming a lot of people to a third world economy for two generations or more.

we have to take the long term view and use the existing resolutions that we have rather than force this through and make a rod for everyones back. nations have the right to choose their own destiny. they should have the chance to improve themselves rather than being debtor states.

and yes if you want to know how to use horse dung or even whats left over from sewage as fuel ask and i'll let you know how we are doing it.

The Empire of Killox on behalf of the Mega-Empire of Cool extends a warm (slightly moist) hand of friendship to our new U.N friends and would like to bring three interesting points to the floor:

1. Global warming is a theory! It is only one possible explanation for the changes in our global climate. I would also like to point out that of all the theoretical situtations it is one of the least supported, in the case of evidence atleast. We live on a planet that has been almost completely frozen in a bloke of ice several times, without any help from man kind, I'd like to point out, and we are worried about a slight increase in global temperature. I'd like to stress the "slight" in that sentence if I may. A much more likely explanation is that this is the natural order of the world to heat and then freeze in a perpetual cycle.

2. Many Nations speak of oil-dependant this and coal-requiring that. Well established and wealthy Nations are reliant on fossil fuels true but no more or less so then underdeveloped countries who main and occasionally only export is a fossil fuel are equally dependent on them. As the only means of establishing themselves in the global market and there by, slowly, becoming a developed and wealthy nation, leading as one step closer to global equality and the peace filled eutopia you and I so clearly desire.

3. Third and finally. No fuel is truly renewable all of them will eventually run out! However, mankind will always find an alternative we always have and we always will. That is what seperates us from the animals. Our ability to think outside the box. We already have a hundred perfectly good alternate power sources to replace the ailing fossil fuel supplies. The trouble is that none of them are cost effective or realistic yet. When they become more feasible then they will replace fossil fuels until then big bussiness has to much to lose to switch to "renewable" sources.

I implore you all to vote no and focus on important and attainable goals!

The Grand Duchy of Malonium has but one point to address.

While applauding the sentiment and motiation of this Proposal as admirable,
And further complimenting the good Author States on their resolve and draughtmanship,

His Grace expresses the concern of the Great and United Peoples of The Grand Duchy that Section B is fundamentally flawed, and that it would be a grave error to enter it into binding International Law, especially with the emphasis on extreme sanctions.

Put simply,

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

Assumes that States are already spending on the aforementioned projects, which a large number clearly aren't, necessitating the Resolution.

$0.00 * 101% = $0.00, ad infinitum.

A formula based on economic circumstances and level of pollution might be somewhat more appropriate.

An excellent point from the esteemed Malonium delegate ... providing yet one further reason to vote against this Resolution.

And to the good people of Kirisubo - no offense taken, our Minister of Tourism simply saw a good promotion opportunity. :)

Ok, I'm coming into this debate very late on. I haven't had time to read through all of the discussions. I find the resolution...bewildering...and can assure the representative in question that it is not too late to apply for a place on Science 101 at the University of Flurthwel.

Nonetheless, my query is this. Given that the final clause gives an opt-out, is there a general feeling that given the considerable weight of opposition to this resolution, there would exist a sufficient trading bloc that would not impose sanctions? Certainly, we would be willing to trade with other nations that did not comply.

OOC: Compliance is, I appreciate, a tricky issue. Why the issue of non-compliance is mentioned in this resolution, I really am not sure. But then, I'm really not sure of a lot of things about this resolution. I will, of course, be voting against, but I'd be interested to hear why the final clause doesn't give all us naughty interpretationwankers a massive loophole through which to claw our seedy path.

The Holy Republic of Monostan is pleased to announce that our first act as a new UN Member is to register our most vehement opposition to this resolution. While we understand and appreciate the need to preserve our national resources, even a curosary reading of this "proposal" shows that it is merely an attempt by some nations to restrict the growth and development of others. We are most aggreieved at the resloution's language requiring countries to demonstrate a "need" to others for an extension to abide by its onerous requirements --- as if any soverign nation should have to beg for the right to development and economic growth. We also note forthwith that any attempts at sanctions will be met with an appropriate response. We call on all other UN members seeking to avoid the thumb of imperialism by a select cabal to join us in opposition to this measure. In a sign of support, we would be most happy to share our advances in strip-mining, coal-fired power plants, and nuclear reactor design.

The Monostan Secretariat for Energy and Environment

apart from the many concerns already voiced in countless posts before mine regarding different kinds of nations whom this resolution might not suit because of the nations' special characteristics, may i add that

while this resolution is an improvement to the solar panels one by

- allowing 45 instead of 10 years of time and
-alllowing for a basic consumption of 10% of the current one,

it is still delusional to propose today-age countries to reduce their fossil consumption rate to one-tenth in 45 years.

I have very much hoped for a realistic environment-protceing proposal to come up, and it is with deep regret that i must inform you of my disapproval of this resolution.

The above is in accordance with the SoWiBian Ministry of Health and Environment and agreed to by the SoWiBian Democratic Leadership

(ooc)
The point being, as has been said over and over and over, that this *isn't* the real world. You don't sell streets in Monopoly for their actual cost, and you don't bring in NS proposals that make no sense within the NationStates world.

I realize this and, as I tried to carefully point out, I did not base this entirely on the real world, only used it for inspiration. The game of Monopoly is not based entirely on the real world, but it is inspired by it. I believe this proposal does make sense in the real world and I think the voting reflects that, especially when one looks at delegate voting. I saw no possible way to take into account the millions of people that are added to a nation each day, unless maybe you consider 1 RL day to equal 1 or 2 NS years.

The trouble with this, however, is that much of the determinations that must be made here are purely subjective. Who is to say whether a nation "is trying to comply"? Also, what is to be considered "extensive damage" or "severe economic depression" (italics added)? Moreover, the proposal does not specify for what length of time these extensions would be afforded.

By Cluichstan: Also, no exemptions are made here for nations on the lower end of the population scale.

Does it make sense for a developing nation of just, say, nine or ten million to spend a large portion of their limited resources on renewable energy sources, when fossil fuels can be obtained and used more cheaply, especially in light of the fact that use of fossil fuels by such as small population would have a relatively low environmental impact when compared to the sue of such fuels by nations with populations in the hundreds of million or even the billions?

It should not be as hard for nations with lower populations to comply, as they will not have nearly the infrustructure built up around fossil fuel. Think of it this way: you invest time and money into building a small, 1 strory, single family house with few ammenities, only to find that it is not up to code and will collapse in a few years and must either be reworked or torn down so a safer house can be built. Yes, this would be hard for you to afford, but you could make it. Then let's say that you decied to tear some of it down and the structure you replace it with lasts 1000 years and is very profitable for you.

Now consider this: You are part of a large construction company which has been building a huge apaertment complex with all kinds of ammenities. Then, you are told that this structure is unsafe and will collapse within a few years and it must be totally reworked or torn down. This will cost the company a lot of money and set you back on your construction schedule, but, since you are large construction company you survive and the structure you replace it with lasts 1000 years and makes your company more money than you ever could have with the original structure ever could have.

This is how I think it would be. Smaller, devoloping countries do not have as much invested in the system yet, so, well it will set them back some, it will not ruin them and will help them in the long-run because they skip the step that developed nations have gone through of becomming entirely reliant on a system that will collapse soon. For lareger, more developed naitons, it will be financially harder to adapt, but they have far greater resources at their disposal to do so. In both cases, I believe, all UN nations will be greatly benefitted by this in the long run.

By Cluichstan: The trouble with this, however, is that much of the determinations that must be made here are purely subjective. Who is to say whether a nation "is trying to comply"? Also, what is to be considered "extensive damage" or "severe economic depression" (italics added)? Moreover, the proposal does not specify for what length of time these extensions would be afforded.

The answer to your first 2 questions is that it is up to the infinite wisdom of the UN to determine what nations qualify for this. How else could I have done this part?

To your third question: Yes it does specify. It says, "an appropriate time extension relative to need." Again, this is for the UN to determine.

By The Empire of Killox: 1. Global warming is a theory!

2. Many Nations speak of oil-dependant this and coal-requiring that. Well established and wealthy Nations are reliant on fossil fuels true but no more or less so then underdeveloped countries who main and occasionally only export is a fossil fuel are equally dependent on them.

3. Third and finally. No fuel is truly renewable all of them will eventually run out!

1. My resolution does not mantion global warming anywhere, so I will not even get into this argument with you or anyone.

2. This is wrong. By definition, less developed nations have not yet developed the infrastructure to be as dependant fossil fuel as more developed nations.

3. The sun will not run out, at least not in a timeframe conceivable by mankind, so wrong again. Because the sun will not run out, neither will the wind or the water cycle. And, as long as forests are not damaged beyend their capacity to regenerate, they will not run out, too. Because plants will keep growing, we will still be able to get fuel from ethanol, biodeisel, methane gas form decompositoin, and so on.

Since I know I will be dealing with this as a result of my last sentence, ethanol may be a net enrgy looser when harvested and processed by machine, it would not be so when done with animal and human power. Yes, this will net less total production, but it will contribute none the less and be sustainable. Biodeisel is a net energy contributer, even when harvested and processed by machine, and methane can be collected form any site where decomposition is taking place.

By Malonium: His Grace expresses the concern of the Great and United Peoples of The Grand Duchy that Section B is fundamentally flawed, and that it would be a grave error to enter it into binding International Law, especially with the emphasis on extreme sanctions.

Assumes that States are already spending on the aforementioned projects, which a large number clearly aren't, necessitating the Resolution.$0.00 * 101% = $0.00, ad infinitum.


The sanctions are only as extreme as the nations that decide to employ them. Note that the UN only grants the right to UN nations to empose sanctions, it does not mandate them.

You are correct, but it would be foolhearty for a nation to try and reduce fossil fuel use and not put any research into alternatives. Even if they are not currently, once they do they will fall under the guidelines of the resolution.

The sanctions are only as extreme as the nations that decide to employ them. Note that the UN only grants the right to UN nations to empose sanctions, it does not mandate them.

Right. So, do you not think that this would allow a subtantial bloc of non-compliant nations to grow up, and that there would be no major economic incentive for compliant nations to stop trading with them?

I have bigger problems with this resolution, but it's better I leave them to people who've been following this debate in its entirety. But this small thing worries me, and I'd appreciate an answer at some stage. I do admit though that it is unlikely to change my vote.

it is still delusional to propose today-age countries to reduce their fossil consumption rate to one-tenth in 45 years.

I have very much hoped for a realistic environment-protceing proposal to come up, and it is with deep regret that i must inform you of my disapproval of this resolution.

How long do you propose then? 100 years? 500? I think 45 years is reasonable, it is not so long that nations can drag their feet forever and it is not so short that nations will have to scramble to change things all at once. It is a push, but it is not a shove.

That's unfortunate that you feel your hopes were not realized. But where were you when I was drafting this? The draft thread for this resolution has been up since about September 17th, strange how most of the opposition comes out of the woodwork only after changes can be made.

Fossil Fuel reduction is a direct interfearence in internal afairs of a certina country, and is an eonomic interfearence...
nations should decide what they want to do with their resources..
ex: Monaco shouldnt interfear in American wheat business, and other wayround, USA doesnt have the right to order monaco to shut down monte carlo...
its simply none of their business

How long do you propose then? 100 years? 500? I think 45 years is reasonable, it is not so long that nations can drag their feet forever and it is not so short that nations will have to scramble to change things all at once. It is a push, but it is not a shove.
The infrastructure that supports the extraction, manufacture, distribution and usage of fossil fuels is huge. Even if you have a solution ready-made to replace fossil fuels today, you would not be able to convert the infrastructure to meet our existing energy needs within 45 years. If our energy usage grows, as it's certain to do, the problem becomes worse.

How long do I propose? One century after a suitable replacement for fossil fuels is found. I suspect that if we work at it, we could replace them in that time period. Until a suitable replacement is found, no time limit whatsoever.

Fossil Fuel reduction is a direct interfearence in internal afairs of a certina country, and is an eonomic interfearence...nations should decide what they want to do with their resources.. ex: Monaco shouldnt interfear in American wheat business, and other wayround, USA doesnt have the right to order monaco to shut down monte carlo...
its simply none of their business

In many cases this is true, but wheat production doesn't really affect other countries much, especially when compared to the pollution from production and burning of fossil fuels and the wars started over control of this resource. So, when a practice greatly affects many countries outside the practicing one, it becomes an issue of global concern that I feel needs to be dealt with by the UN.

Yes these resolutions did do a lot for the environment, this one takes it a step further and addresses more head-on, concerns about fossil fuel use. It mandates a limit to the use of fossil fuels, while not addressing any replacements. You compared the effects of this resolution to reworking a house. Please allow me to do the same.

A family has just completed their first house. They are happy with their accomplishment and very satisfied with the results. They are finally starting to be settled after months of hard work. Now, the government steps in and informs them that the house does not meet the recently passed re-zoning regulations. The family will have to tear down 90% of their house and rebuild, but on top of this, they cannot use any of the old plans, tools, or materials. They are in a very precarious situation. What is this family to do? They do not have any other plans, tools, or materials to utilize. The government has also closed the hardware store downtown. The family must create their own house by hand using whatever they can find lying around, and assemble some assorted scrap materials into a shoddy, unstable structure. What will happen to this family the next time a storm hits, or during the dead of winter, when the harsh winds seep through every crevice? The once grand house is likely to crumble to bits anyway, or the family left exposed to the elements. Despite the government’s intentions to prevent this, they end up only postponing it, costing the family even more time and resources.

Now consider this, instead of tearing down 90% of the house, and replacing it with unstable materials and unreliable plans, why not augment the house with this added material? Instead of replacing one poor structure with an even more dangerous one, we should combine the two, to form a sturdy, stable one. We can do the same with alternative and fossil fuels. Instead of relying on another damaging energy*, let us put the two together to form something better, and do these things ourselves, without government interference. (*damaging to economies, not environments)

Given that the final clause gives an opt-out, is there a general feeling that given the considerable weight of opposition to this resolution, there would exist a sufficient trading bloc that would not impose sanctions? Certainly, we would be willing to trade with other nations that did not comply.

The good people of Discordinia, much like the good people of Gruenberg, would be more than happy to trade with non-compliant nations ... though hopefully it will not come to that.

All Hail Eris!


Benwa Balzac
Secretary of Commerce

It mandates a limit to the use of fossil fuels, while not addressing any replacements. You compared the effects of this resolution to reworking a house. Please allow me to do the same.

A family has just completed their first house. They are happy with their accomplishment and very satisfied with the results. They are finally starting to be settled after months of hard work. Now, the government steps in and informs them that the house does not meet the recently passed re-zoning regulations. The family will have to tear down 90% of their house and rebuild, but on top of this, they cannot use any of the old plans, tools, or materials. They are in a very precarious situation. What is this family to do? They do not have any other plans, tools, or materials to utilize. The government has also closed the hardware store downtown. The family must create their own house by hand using whatever they can find lying around, and assemble some assorted scrap materials into a shoddy, unstable structure. What will happen to this family the next time a storm hits, or during the dead of winter, when the harsh winds seep through every crevice? The once grand house is likely to crumble to bits anyway, or the family left exposed to the elements. Despite the government’s intentions to prevent this, they end up only postponing it, costing the family even more time and resources.

Now consider this, instead of tearing down 90% of the house, and replacing it with unstable materials and unreliable plans, why not augment the house with this added material? Instead of replacing one poor structure with an even more dangerous one, we should combine the two, to form a sturdy, stable one. We can do the same with alternative and fossil fuels. Instead of relying on another damaging energy*, let us put the two together to form something better, and do these things ourselves, without government interference. (*damaging to economies, not environments)

The resolution does address replacement, it calls for 1% increase in R&D of clean, renewables per year, increased efficiency and conservation, and interim use of non-fossil unsustainable energy.

In your house comparisson, relating to the resolution, the family would not have to tear down and replace the entire house all at once, but could first replace non-essential parts and work their way up to more essential parts and leave the most essential parts standing. Also, though the current hardware store, which would be more like a megastore, would be mostly closed over the course of this same time, it would be at the same time gradually replaced with a store better able to meet the peoples' needs in the long-run.

It seems to me and my government that the problem that most people are having with this resolution is the phasing out of dependancy on fossil fuels. While renewable energy sources such as eletric, solar and wind have shown remarkable success, especially in the case of wind turbines replacing power sources for small cities and towns. These energy sources, however, are a long way from perfect, and we do not yet have the technology to shift dependancy from fossil fuels. I think rather the larger countries that have already run into resource management issues should start a collaborative effort with other UN nations to develope the necessary technologies, but until then, allow the continued use of fossil fuels, given the dependant nature of the relation that exists with certain nations.

I have a big problem with section C. My biggest exports business is of fissile Uranium. If in 45 years the UN nations complies with this act i.e. the nations use "clean fuel?". How I am going to legitimately sell my uranium. for example in use for power generation.

The only other use of uranuim that I can see is in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. :mad:

I have a small nation and don't have a diverse economy. The closing down of the uranium business would be ruinous to my nation.

I cannot support this act unless I can get concrete support for my nation for the transition to this clean economy.

When i mean support i mean financial support ;). none of this silly notions of tech transfers :confused:

I have to agree with Mighty Able. I am in the exact same boat as him, my biggest manufacturing is uranium. I have no problem making nukes for the rest of the world as long as you can pay for it, but can only go so far.

With section C maybe it will be benificial if you rewrite it, because nuclear fission and fusion is harmless to the enviroment and creates steam as a byproduct. Yes there is nuclear waste, but it is not that hard to invest in nuclear waste storage or a system of space flights that every year send up an unmanned rocket filled with nuclear waste from each country. From there you can either blow up the rocket or let it keep sailing.

It is just a little investing in which we can help all of us.

The free land of Dathir supports this act to the fullest. We have already banned the use of cars in all of Dathir to strengthen our environment and also to make life a little better in the cities - we are currently focusing much work on public transport so that our people can still stay as effective as always without having the need for cars, development of alternative transport methods and thus alternate sources of energy is then ofcourse on the agenda. We are glad to see that more nations realize the need to preserve our natural resources better and want to help in doing this.

Dathir ofcourse realizes the concern that many nations have about among other things their income from fossil fuel. That some nations will loose some money on this is to us, obvious, but try to look ahead at what we may gain. Green forrests where there now are dead trees, living and breathing creatures. We also understand fully that there are some nations that just are not willing to give up this (fossile fuel) resource, but hope that most nations will look ahead at what we, and our planet, can gain from this.
If money becomes an issue then be certain that many countries will come to your aid if this act reduces your income dramatically, Dathir will ofcourse be one of those. Please also realize that even this is a reduction act, so there are still years left until the entire use of fossil fuel (in most UN countries) have stopped.

This resolution has many problems, and Southern Unagae does not support it.

Firstly, the clause that allows for nations complying early to recieve extra funding favors rich nations that can afford to restructure their economies. But these are precisely the nations that don't need UN aid.

Secondly, the problem of limitted supply will resolve itself naturally as prices rise because of gradually declining supply.

Lastly, how shall this resolution be enforced? Fossil fuels are mined, transported, and sold by private businesses. They are used by consumers. The UN regulates governments, not businesses.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/omigodtheykilledkenny.jpg
Department of State

The Federal Republic is dismayed by the fact that many nations having cast their votes in favor of this proposal have not yet been able to benefit from the insight conveyed by their fellow member states in this forum. We have therefore undertaken a telegram campaign targeting delegate nations who have voted yes on this proposal -- and our efforts in this regard have already met with modest success. We also intend to work on convincing the Feeder Regions to reject this proposal starting tomorrow.

My biggest exports business is of fissile Uranium. If in 45 years the UN nations complies with this act i.e. the nations use "clean fuel?". How I am going to legitimately sell my uranium. for example in use for power generation.
The only other use of uranuim that I can see is in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. :mad:

I think you and Spartan Alliance are missing something here. My resolution says that nations can continue to use fission until they are able to use clean, renewable sources and the 10% of fossil fuel energy they are left with. This means that your nations have a gaurenteed market for uranium until countries can make the switch, because many nations will want to use this to suppliment fossil fuel power until they can switch over. I want to make it clear though that my resolution neither supports nor condemns the use of fission, it will be up to each nation to decide this.

By Southern Unagae: Firstly, the clause that allows for nations complying early to recieve extra funding favors rich nations that can afford to restructure their economies. But these are precisely the nations that don't need UN aid.

Secondly, the problem of limitted supply will resolve itself naturally as prices rise because of gradually declining supply.

Lastly, how shall this resolution be enforced?

1: I disagree somewhat, the wealthiest nations are also the biggest fossil fuel users and therefore the ones that need to be off fossil fuel the fastest, an incentive will help with this and help them recoupe expenses after they have reorganized their infrastructure.

2: I don't think this will happen in time and it will be too late to have to switch over all at once.

3: Article II, Section B has the enforcement method.

Several studies have proved time and time again that we have enough fossile fuel for quite some time. There are more than a few nations around the world that do no have the money to commit to this UN resolution.

Something does need to be done to reduce the amount of emissions being produced around the world. This is not they way to go about it. The last resolution of this sort was repealed for the exact same reason this resolution should not be enacted.

Renewable resources CANNOT provide the amount of energy that is being consumed around the world. More research needs to be done to increase the efficiency of renewable resources. A first step to take is that each nation should be required to commit to funding renewable energy research.

Once the technology is ready, we can begin to require the cut down on emissions in UN nations.

Spazania
Pacific Region

I am new both to this forum and to the U.N. here in general so please bear with me... It seems to be well established here that global warming is generally considered scientific fact, and to be sure if we debated the issue i think source material would prove that contrary to the common beleif of this thread there is no clear threat of warming on a global scale, and no evidence for human involvement with climate control. With this leader's oppinion aside, the Golden Olive Land is a country established on a beleif that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the power that this resolution gives the establishment is completely contrary to this body's purpose. The U.N. is a peace keeping force and a forum for negotiation, it is not a forum for scientific prophecy and certainly shouldn't mandate reverence to a fringe theory as proven fact. This body can pass bills of rights and lead forums to settle differences when needed, we think these noble causes and worthy of pursuit, but this body cannot be allowed to mandate the role of government to every nation. Our people would be given the laws needed to comply to this proposal in a public vote, where they would certainly vote it down. Not because of defiance of it's idea's but because they don't beleive their own government should determine the goods they buy or sell, the clothes they wear, the songs they sing, or even the state of their air. It is society's role to invent new technology, but it is not government's role to legislate what they invent and by when. We are not a command economy, and will not become one for this legislation... my govenment will vote no and cannot comply to this ridiculous criticism of our society... we propose a clause that allows governments amnesty from sanction if the population of the country is ideologically opposed to grant the powers of economy and choice to the U.N., this may defeat the intent of the U.N. to make all nations accountable, but there are more nations like ours who can't accept the U.N. as a serogate power to the natural government of those people.

Several studies have proved time and time again that we have enough fossile fuel for quite some time. There are more than a few nations around the world that do no have the money to commit to this UN resolution.

The last resolution of this sort was repealed for the exact same reason this resolution should not be enacted.

Renewable resources CANNOT provide the amount of energy that is being consumed around the world. More research needs to be done to increase the efficiency of renewable resources. A first step to take is that each nation should be required to commit to funding renewable energy research.


The issue is not so much how much total fossil fuel we have left, its the amount that is in easily extractable areas. Once those are tapped, production will necessarily go down and prices way up. The danger in this is that it could be 5, 10 or even 15 years before people will realize and admit that peak production has happened, and thus that much more behind in instituting alternatives.

To your second point, no, the last resolution was repealed moslty because of an extremely short timescale, no leeway for using fossil fuel for other things that as an energy source, to heavily of a reliance on solar panels as opposed to any other method, and complete elimination of fossil fuel use. This resolution makes none of those mistakes.

Third point: The resolution aknoledges the fact that renwables cannot completely replace the energy derived form fossil fuel and has several provisions to account for this shortfall, including using fission as a temporary energy source and employing increased efficiency and conservation programs, among others. One of the steps in this resolution is to make countries invest more in renewables.

By Golden Olive Land: It seems to be well established here that global warming is generally considered scientific fact, and to be sure if we debated the issue i think source material would prove that contrary to the common beleif of this thread. . . .

As far as I can remember, global warming has only come up in this thread once and the resolution makes no mention of it. It relies on more agreed upon facts, that of fossil fuels' finite nature and that of its environmental damage from extraction, transport, burning, etc.

By Golden Olive Land: The U.N. is a peace keeping force and a forum for negotiation, it is not a forum for scientific prophecy and certainly shouldn't mandate reverence to a fringe theory as proven fact.

This is your view of the UN's role. I feel that the NSUN should have jurisdiction in matters of global concern, like that heavy dependancy on fossil fuel hurts not only the nations consuming the fossil fuel, but the ones affected by their use through pollution and wars necessary to secure sources.

By Golden Olive Land: my govenment will vote no and cannot comply to this ridiculous criticism of our society...

You may vote as you please but this resolution makes no criticism of anyone's society, it simply makes us plan and start working towards energy sustainable societies.

You have made many other points but I don't really see most of them as relevant, if you think otherwise you should bring them up again and I will give them more consideration.

Although protecting the environment is an honorable cause, The Han Federated States will not be able to withstand the resulting hit in production if this bill is passed. We have a fledging economy and is heavily reliant on fossil fuels to remain competitive. If we have to limit our consumption our emerging auto industry cannot survive. We beseech the international community to vote aganist this proposed bill.

I am against this plan- by no means does it provide flexability to developing nations or underdeveloped nations.
Going green is always better but at what price of the people's economy? Is it worth a big dent in the budget? Time extensions or generally softer policies shjould be adpoted for the lower tier nations.

The Treehuggers' Forestland of Zazarstan, as a well known environmentalist nation, rejects this proposition, mainly because of Section C :


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

The Treehuggers' Forestland of Zazarstan reject with force the idea of replacing the fossil fuel problem with something worse, even for a limited period in time. The Treehuggers' Forestland of Zazarstan will not extend it's explanation on the disadvantages of nuclear powered installations, retreatment of radioactive materials and such issues. Those have already been discussed several times. Please refer to any relative documentation to inform yourself of the problem.

The Treehuggers' Forestland of Zazarstan agrees that the resolution may pass, should this particular section be removed.

Yes section C is what disturbes me the most. While most things that use fossil fuels have ways to controll exaust emissions. the evil dictator of Ateelatay would allow nuclear reactors which do relitively more damage to the planet. As of 0525 hours the nation of Caer Dunnottar has entered the arms race and has started mineing uranium. I see a internal war about to happen due to the ignorance of this bill, and as the Delegate for the United Earth Oceans region I recomend that all my fellow nations from U.E.O. start produceing weapons of mass destruction. While Caer and Spartan are able to be forced to comply with UN resolutions our fellow nations are not. :mp5:

I have found something very interesting after doing a little research. This proposal says you can temporarly use nuclear power til you can find a clean source and that is incorrect as the material used in nuclear fission is not a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels consist of 1) Coal, 2) oil/patrolium and 3) natural gases. Also this proposal is in violation of U.N. rules which states this proposal can not go in effect unless the other proposals that are simular have been repealed. Read the rule about contadiction. Uranium is a metal therefore it is not a fossil fuel, plutonium are radioactive isatopes, and berylium is a mineral that is not a derivative of fossil fuels. so reguardless of the passing of this poorly thought out and researched proposal all nuclear powers will continue. :D

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:
down with the idiotic idea of fuel reduction! forget that! Build Bombs!!![/U]

For proof of my research please check the following links:

URANIUM:
http://www.uic.com.au/uran.htm
http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/u.html

PLUTONIUM:
http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/pu.html

BERYLLIUM:
http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/be.html

FOSSIL FUELS:
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/fossil.htm

The fossil fuel link also gives info about alternat power sources.
sorry for the edits i had to fix the links.

The Treehuggers' Forestland of Zazarstan, as a well known environmentalist nation, rejects this proposition, mainly because of Section C
While I agree tha Section C is not great in respect of the environment, I think it was a necessary move to compromise between the liberals and conservatives.

SqR

As per the research done by Caer Dunnottar Section C of the proposal is invalid. Once again I state nuclear materials are not fossil fuels.

As per the research done by Caer Dunnottar Section C of the proposal is invalid. Once again I state nuclear materials are not fossil fuels.
Nowhere does the proposal say that nuclear materials are fossil fuels. In fact it says you can *carry on* using nuclear energy while *phasing out* fossil fuels.
The proposal is utterly ludicrous and unworkable given population growth rates, but not for that reason.

The Federal Republic is dismayed by the fact that many nations having cast their votes in favor of this proposal have not yet been able to benefit from the insight conveyed by their fellow member states in this forum. We have therefore undertaken a telegram campaign targeting delegate nations who have voted yes on this proposal -- and our efforts in this regard have already met with modest success. We also intend to work on convincing the Feeder Regions to reject this proposal starting tomorrow.

The people of Cluichstan share the dismay of our friends in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny and wish them success in their telegram campaign. Cluichstan also offers its assistance to the Federal Republic in its active opposition to this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Likewise, the good people of Discordinia offer their assistance in your campaign.

It is well met that such august considerations should be before such a hallowed body.

The people of Cluichstan do, of course, object to the proposal for financial reasons, though we fail to see how corporations have anything to do with said objection. We are a young nation, trying to build a strong economic foundation, but this proposal seeks to deny us the very same tools by which well-developed nations attained their current levels of prosperity. Implying some "corporate greed" motivation behind our objection is not only inaccurate but a deceitful attempt to paint our objection to the proposal in a bad light -- not to mention slandering this representative of the people of Cluichstan as nothing more than a "corporate puppet."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN

Did I mention corporate greed no...But destroying the environment, and ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE from smog, for a profit...You make the implications.

I'm just going to mention some of my concerns with the resolution (although for the time being I'm voting FOR the resolution).

1. Someone already mentioned this, but this resolution isn't manditory and contains many loopholes. I agree with the part that mention emissions being a global concern, and environmentally friendly nations like Grantsburg do not want to suffer at the hands of other non-environmentally friendly regions. I think more enforcement is necessary, and Grantsburg already doesn't trade with large polluting countries.

2. Narrowing it down to 10% for countries that produce a lot of emissions, would still be a considerable amount of emissions.

3. 45 years is a very lengthy period of time. Many people who have suffered under the negative effects of fossil fuels won't even get to see the benefits.

4. The 2% per year isn't that large a decrease in emissions. It still gives large polluting countries time to pollute at a rate relative to their norms.

I think those are the bulk of my concerns.

I would like someone to address these...where are such the strong opinions from the solar panel resolution?

Did I mention corporate greed no...But destroying the environment, and ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE from smog, for a profit...You make the implications.

Would my esteemed colleague from Grantsburg be so kind, please, as to provide even a single death certificate or coroner's report that lists smog as a cause of death?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Well, I was hoping for some intelligent debate this morning, but, aside from the comments of Stealthmunchkania, Grantsburg, and Square Rootedness, none of you makes any sense. The fission part does not let countries do anything they couldn't already do, so it is not a legitimate concern. Neither were nuclear materials ever listed as fossil fuel, what is the basis of this idea that they were?

NeoAmerika: I have discussed your issue many times already and while I don't expect you to read the entirety of this thread, I'd like to move on to other issues. However, I can rehash this if you like.

NeoAmerika: I have discussed your issue many times already and while I don't expect you to read the entirety of this thread, I'd like to move on to other issues. However, I can rehash this if you like.

This is a public service announcement, sponsored by the Sultanate of Cluichstan:

One should be expected to read the entire thread before posting. That way, there is no need for rehashing, which is waste of time for those of us who are actively following and engaged in this discussion (or any discussion here for that matter).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Would my esteemed colleague from Grantsburg be so kind, please, as to provide even a single death certificate or coroner's report that lists smog as a cause of death?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Gladly, I heard about this on the news as well:

Smog related deaths in Ontario (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/14/smog-oma050714.html)

That's local to me, so it hits home.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/omigodtheykilledkenny.jpg
Office of the UN Ambassador

I would like someone to address these...where are such the strong opinions from the solar panel resolution?Well, Your Excellency, your shameful performance in the last fossil-fuels debate certainly doesn't give anyone incentive to tangle with you further (and it would certainly make us think twice before establishing any sort of diplomatic relations with you), but against our better judgment we have elected to throw you a bone here and pay your comments the respect they have not earned. Never let it be said that the people of the Federal Republic are not charitable.

1. Someone already mentioned this, but this resolution isn't manditory [sic] and contains many loopholes.All UN resolutions are mandatory, this one included, should it pass. I can see no clause in this legislation that would deem it optional, though the time-extension provision certainly does come close. However, if you feel that this proposition violates the rules against optional proposals, lodge a complaint with the mods and ask them to delete it. Go ahead. We won't stop you.

Nearly all UN legislation contains loopholes, and rest assured our Creative UN Solutions Agency works diligently around the clock to find ways to exploit them.

I agree with the part that mention emissions being a global concern, and environmentally friendly nations like Grantsburg do not want to suffer at the hands of other non-environmentally friendly regions.Well, you're gonna have to. UN legislation applies only to UN nations, leaving 72 percent of the NS world totally exempt from this mandate.

I think more enforcement is necessary, ...More enforcement, beyond changing the stats of all member states, whether they like it or not?

... and Grantsburg already doesn't trade with large polluting countries.Great. Then you're already in compliance on this point. We salute you. Although it certainly does explain the sorry state of your economy (nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=grantsburg).

2. Narrowing it down to 10% for countries that produce a lot of emissions, would still be a considerable amount of emissions.Especially for nations like ours that plan to manipulate the calculation of the "ceiling consumption rate" in order to continue to burn fossil fuels at normal rates even after this monstrosity of a proposal becomes law. :cool:

3. 45 years is a very lengthy period of time.I wouldn't say that to a 45-year-old.

Many people who have suffered under the negative effects of fossil fuels won't even get to see the benefits.Right, especially when you consider that 72 percent of the world is exempt.

4. The 2% per year isn't that large a decrease in emissions. It still gives large polluting countries time to pollute at a rate relative to their norms.Erm, not when you do the math. Nations will grow dramatically in size over the next 45 years, yet they will still be required to burn at rates calculated using rates recorded at the start of this mandate, meaning this law actually requires a lot more than a simple 2-percent annual reduction.

I think those are the bulk of my concerns.Well, if you have so many concerns about this legislation, why don't you vote against it, and encourage as many nations as you can to follow suit? Go on; we won't stop you.

Gladly, I heard about this on the news as well:

Smog related deaths in Ontario (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/14/smog-oma050714.html)

That's local to me, so it hits home.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cluichstan.jpg

Since you cite this report, allow the people of Cluichstan to point out a few things...

Human costs of smog tallied in Ontario
Last Updated Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:47:13 EDT
CBC News

The damaging effects of breathing smog could contribute to 5,800 premature deaths in Ontario this year, the Ontario Medical Association said Tuesday.

As Toronto deals with its 21st smog day of the year, people in Ontario's cottage country are also coping with what was once the choking rigours of city life.

So far this year, smog has travelled further, lasted longer and come sooner than before, even though the peak summer season has yet to start.

A new report by the Ontario Medical Association suggests 17,000 hospital admissions in the province per year can be attributed to the brown haze of mostly ground-level ozone and fine-particulate matter from dust and burning material.

...

Note the bold italics there. There is no definitive link, nor, one might wager, will you ever see a death certificate list a COD as "Smog."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The Holy Empire of Sol Giuldor is 100% behind the reduction of fossil fuels. Nuclear power, if handeled correctly is the only way to maintain clean and effective energy without trashing our enviroments. However, nuclear waste is a problem, thus I propose a radical solution.

SHOOT IT INTO SPACE!!!

We spend billions of dollars on space programs, why not turn Mars into a waste dump? There isnt anything there anyway...
:gundge:

i'm sorry, i was absent from the debate and didn't read all the posts, so, as this point had maybe already been answered, i will not be upset if nobody answer to me:

_____________________________________
ARTICLE II: Special Cases

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

How should we interpret II.A?

i'm pretty in agreement with the good intentions of this proposition
but i'm very worried about economic developpment in developping Nations
(even if Love and esterel is a "strong" economy, as defined by the UN)

Is the special case for Severe economic depression allowed only when the severe depression has already began or when a wordwide panel of established economists emit a warning?

OK, I think i have been on the defensive long enough, time to move forward.

First, let's look at the supposed loopholes of the resolution. The four that come to mind are
1: Manipulating ceiling consumption rate by increasing fossil fuel production 1000% this year, thereby making you compliant at the consuption rate of the last two years, please correct me if I misinterpereted this.

2: Making sure your R&D and implementation budget for clean, renewable energy is 0, so that you don't have to increase funding to it.

3: The time extention clause that allows for a wide variety of interpretation for what significant need is.

4: That trade sanctions are not mandated against non-comliant nations, just allowed, meaning a possibility of no sanctions imposed if no one wants to.

Let's examine these "loopholes" more realistically.

1: Let's just nip this one right in the bud. Does anyone seriously think that it would be less expansive, time consuming and resource consuming to expand any nation's fossil fuel produciton operation by 1000% in one year, than to devote all of that to actually trying to reduce fossil fuel production to 10% of today's consumption rate in 45 years?

2: Yes, technically if your budget is 0 for clean, renewable energy sources, you will not have to up research, development, and implementation of them. But is this logical? If you do not increase this budget you are left with two options, reduce fossil fuel consumption with no energy replacement or suppliment all of the fossil fuel energy with fission and other non sustainable sources. Good luck with the first option. The second is much more feasible, but you are ultimately left in the same situation you are in now; dependant on a polluting (in terms of waste) and finite source of power.

3: The extention clause is left open to interpritation for a reason: so that it can be up to the UN to decide the merit of any applicant's claim on a case by case basis. Without interpretation, the UN's hands would be tied on rulings, with interpretation they can allow the applicant to present its nation's case for consideration and it can rule accordingly. Also, though the definition of what consititutes demonstrating significant need is open, there are still guidlines for the UN to follow.

4: This too is open to the discretion of the UN. This way if a nation is just being defiant and unwilling to co-operate, nations have the freedom to penalize them without fear of retribution from the UN. If, however, the nation is just being a bit sluggish and nations are relatively indifferent to its infraction, they need not impose sanctions.

Now that that's out of the way, let's move on to how this resolution could be implemented in different types of nations.

Keep in mind these are only possibilities, not how it would have to be.

For industrialized, fossil fuel dependant nations: The first year or so could probably be covered simply by eliminating the grossest excesses in power use. Large buildings could be required to turn off all lights when no one is in them, streetlights in remote areas with little traffic and no pedestrians could be turned off, not quite so many superfluous cosumer goods (such as disposable cups) could be produced, etc. The next few years could probably be taken care of with widescale fuel efficiency programs, especially in cars, and programs of energy conservaton. For example, people who keep their electricity usage under a certain amount each month could be given a tax break. By this time, assuming the nation has any forethought, R&D of clean alternatives will have been progressing steadily and many new advances and steamlining practices will surely have been developed. A combination of these programs can be used until the goal is achieved. If the nation still feels that its energy needs are not being met at any point in the reduciton, the temporary use of energy sources such as fission can be used to suppliment power.

For developing nations: Developing nations, by definition, do not have the infrastructure that developed ones do for extracting and using fossil fuel. This means that they are not completely reliant on them yet and are supplimenting part of their enrgy supply with other means. This means that it should not be nearly as hard for them to comply since it will be less of an economic reorganization and it won't have been as long since they didn't use fossil fuel at all. They can benifit form the technology that will be developed by industrialized nations and will not have to repeat their mistakes by building their enrgy infrastructure around finite, greatly polluting sources.

For impoverished nations. It is likely that these nations will be in the same boat as developing nations; not likely being as reliant on fossil fuel as industrialized nations. If not, they can apply for extentsions laid out in the special cases section.

For nations that are already mostly dependent on clean, renewable sources. Good job, you are much more fossil fuel independent and have developed the technology to meet energy needs without fossil fuel. Since your alternatives infrastructure is already there it should not be hard to eliminate more of what fossil fuel dependency you have left. You are also in a great position to market your clean, renewable energy knowledge and systems to other, more fossil fuel dependent nations. As a bonus, your neighbors will dump less pollution on you and try to invade you less for control of the last fossil fuel reserves.

Let's now consider the alternative to my resolution.

For large, fossil fuel dependent nations: These nations can continue to become more and more reliant while contunially approaching the peak of iol produciton. They may not and propbably won't realize when global oil production peaks (meaning all the easiest sources have been used, thereby forcing produciton down) and when they do they will be that much further form doing anything about it other than panicing, going to war to secure the last remaining sources, and so on.

For developing nations: These nations can continue down the same shortsighted path that their more developed counterparts have taken and wind up with the same problems they have.

For impoverished nations: These nations will be left no better off because building and maintaining any type of energy infrastructure is expensive. They will have the added threat of being conquored for what resources they have and will have no economic incentive, like the one the resolution offers, to help them get out of debt and/or poverty.

For nations mostly independant if fossil fuel use: It's nice that these naitons have taken the initiative to solve the fossil fuel problem before it's too late, but since many other nations will have not, it may be in vain because they will still feel the effects of neighbor's pollution and will face the prospect of being invaded for resources by panicy fossil fuel dependent nations.

More to come later, but I'll let you all mull over that for a bit.

This proposal is economic suicide. The free market must reign in this situation. If my country is forced to reduce oil consumption by imposing limits on the ammount of oil we are allowed to consume as a nation it will create dead weight loss and inefficiency in my country's market. At what benefit? When the price of oil climbs high enough that substitute goods are more appealing the market will adjust and oil will be phased out naturally, and in a way that creates a healthy market for the new energy source - not one held up by UN sanction. My country, and all of the countries in my region are not willing to suffer the loss of this crippling of an industry that we rely very heavily on. The damage to the environment by burning fossil fuels has been going on for over 200 years. The damage done will heal just as fast in 20-30 years as it will now. All this proposal does is jumps the gun on something that is going to happen naturally, and without damaging the largest industries in the world, on its own.

The Kingdom of Listeneisse supports this resolution with reservations.

We would have preferred the words per capita to be included in the resolution, as the way it presently is worded it is an absolute maximum, which does not take into account population growth. As well, nations may change borders and alignments over the next century, thus changing absolute consumption of a nation; this must be taken into account.

We would probably also liked to have had 33% be the "floor" consumption rate. Presently the transportation sector consumes 35% of fossil fuels in most advanced economies. Fossil fuels account for 99% of fuel consumption in transportation.

There is research going into alternative fuels for aircraft, but so far no one has come up with a biomass-based replacement for Jet-A (commercial jet fuel) or JP-8 (fighter jet fuel).

Meanwhile, engine efficiency in aircraft is increasing on an annualized basis about 1%. But there are limitations to aerodynamics and physical sciences.

Greetings.

Again we are gathered to discuss a resolution which has a noble goal, but seems to have serious negative consequences which gives us pause.

Our main objection towards this proposal is rooted in Article I, Section B, which we feel would put to much strain on our budget and would hurt our economy. The Supremely Utopian Empire of Gravlen has already a well-funded R&D-program directed towards clean and renewable forms of energy. An increase of 1% per year might force our Holy Govenment to cut spending on healthcare, law enforcement and/or defence, or force an increase in the level of taxation placed upon our citizens, to be able to get the funds needed for such a large increase. Both of these options are unacceptable at the present time.

As such, and due to the many persuasive arguements against this resolution presented in the debate, the Supremely Utopian Empire of Gravlen has decided to vote against this proposal.

All hail!
Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

this is all very well but untill we have a valid alternative we as yet have no choice dur to that fact that much of our technology need fossil fules. and at the moment reducing to below 10% would mean going back to the dark ages, i am all for saving the environment but we also need to be realistic.

there for the people of the broken rose must voyte agaist this resolution untill such time as a more realistic solution can come to light.

Cluichstan, I guess you missed the part of the article:

When the OMA last released such a study five years ago, it estimated 1,900 deaths were due to smog-related illness.

Maybe you didn't read down far enough to get past PREDICTIONS!

Well, Your Excellency, your shameful performance in the last fossil-fuels debate certainly doesn't give anyone incentive to tangle with you further (and it would certainly make us think twice before establishing any sort of diplomatic relations with you), but against our better judgment we have elected to throw you a bone here and pay your comments the respect they have not earned. Never let it be said that the people of the Federal Republic are not charitable.

Well I don't even recall your arguments in the last debate, so they must not have been worth considering.

All UN resolutions are mandatory, this one included, should it pass. I can see no clause in this legislation that would deem it optional, though the time-extension provision certainly does come close. However, if you feel that this proposition violates the rules against optional proposals, lodge a complaint with the mods and ask them to delete it. Go ahead. We won't stop you.

Nearly all UN legislation contains loopholes, and rest assured our Creative UN Solutions Agency works diligently around the clock to find ways to exploit them.

Umm...if a warmongering nation always remained at war, they could get away with never adopting this appeal. And the only means of enforcement (which is what I was getting at) is trade sanctions. Those are the same trade sanctions used for countries that commit genocide. Big deal. Also I already don't trade with environmentally unfriendly nations. So that is no means of enforcement.

Well, you're gonna have to. UN legislation applies only to UN nations, leaving 72 percent of the NS world totally exempt from this mandate.

That's too bad we don't live in a more global community oriented world.

Great. Then you're already in compliance on this point. We salute you. Although it certainly does explain the sorry state of your economy.

Too bad it's judged in monetary terms. Grantsburg is self-sufficient enough to support over 1 billion people.

Especially for nations like ours that plan to manipulate the calculation of the "ceiling consumption rate" in order to continue to burn fossil fuels at normal rates even after this monstrosity of a proposal becomes law.

I wouldn't doubt it if you would manipulate something like that considering you claim my arguments are weak, but yours are just bunk and off-topic.

But 10% of 10 million is still 1 million. That is still a very large number. But that's a relatively low example, I would think many consumeristic societies would produce a lot more waste in the realm of burning fossil fuels.

Erm, not when you do the math. Nations will grow dramatically in size over the next 45 years, yet they will still be required to burn at rates calculated using rates recorded at the start of this mandate, meaning this law actually requires a lot more than a simple 2-percent annual reduction.

I just did some math for you. And for the sake of providing a conservative estimate, we'll use the 10 million example again. So they're at 10 million. After/if this gets passed, year one that would produce 9.8 million tons. Year two, 9.6 tons, and so on. After 10 years they've only gone down 2 million tons leaving them to produce 8 million. But as I said, I suspect that is a VERY low estimate.

And as I already said, most of your arguments are bunk and aren't worth replying to.

Good for you. You did the simple math. And it would apply -- if nations stayed the same size year by year. What happens when the nations grow and require more energy? For instance, a small nation having a population of 45 million when this act passes, over ten NS years, could balloon to 200 million people, yet it would still be required to consume fossil fuels at rates 20 percent below the mark recorded back when it was under a quarter of its present size.

If this hypothetical nation's energy system relied 100 percent on fossil fuels at the outset of this legislation's mandate, ten years on, fossil-fuel consumption would account for only about 18 percent of the nation's energy, meaning that inside a decade this nation would have to replace not 20 percent of its energy regime, but over 80 percent. Like I said, this is much more than a 2-percent annual reduction.

This proposal does little more than hamper the growth of small nations, who will have to overhaul their energy systems completely in order to assure that their rapidly growing populations don't find themselves in the dark. Such abrupt, extreme overhauls and disruptions in energy supply would cause massive recessions as national economies try to adjust, and millions upon millions of people could lose their jobs. But seeing as how you have driven your own nation's unemployment rate over 26 percent (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=grantsburg), and you dismiss any economic concerns about this proposal as "corporate financial reasons," joblessness probably doesn't worry you: You only care whether or not all the newly impoverished workers this act creates will have slightly cleaner air to breathe.

Right?

What happens when the nations grow and require more energy?
I believe that's why this resolution will push for renewable energy sources, so that nations will have constant and everincreasing amount of power.

I also think it worth revisiting an opinion I made to a collegue. Nothing truly great has ever happened without drastic change and suffering of a group of people. And many times the people who suffer are the people who will gain. I am not permitted to bring in real world instances, but I believe that it is easy enough to think of many on your own. (cough, cough Civil War cough, cough). :D

SqR

I believe that's why this resolution will push for renewable energy sources, so that nations will have constant and everincreasing amount of power.

I also think it worth revisiting an opinion I made to a collegue. Nothing truly great has ever happened without drastic change and suffering of a group of people. And many times the people who suffer are the people who will gain. I am not permitted to bring in real world instances, but I believe that it is easy enough to think of many on your own. (cough, cough Civil War cough, cough). :D

SqR

That is true for some things, but with this resolution, it's the little guy who suffers. Rich nations probably would be able to adapt. Poor ones would be utterly crippled.

I would hardly equate the liberation of entire races of people (in either the Civil War or WWII) with the mitigation of fossil-fuel consumption. My own problem with this bill is not so much the massive upheaval it would engender -- because my economy is powerful enough to withstand it -- but that so many nations are voting yes in a knee-jerk fashion (just as in the case of Promotion of Solar Panels) without thinking through the actual effects or ramifications. I highly doubt that most of the nations now in favor would approve of the effects described above.

The Dominion of Canada6 will be voting against this resolution.

We agrere to a certain extent, with the goals of this resolution, but totally disagree with the technocratic, and bureaucratic, babble, that is presented.

The capitalist in me is screaming: stop wasting energy and time. Both in debate, as well as in our actual economies.

An economy consuming a high rate of energy is not necessarily an efficient or even high GDP market.

The fossil fuel industry itself is one of the greatest users of energy per capita. Weaning ourselves away from fossil fuels and petrochemical products will have profound impacts -- that is certain. Yet to not move away from them is a form of forced obsolescence for your entire nation.

To make an economy more efficient requires doing a top-down analysis of energy consumption by sector, and then see if that sector can be modified, improved or replaced using more energy-efficient means.

This is again why we would like to see rates of energy consumption, and target reductions thereof, based on a per-capita analysis of overall economies.

Energy Consumption in the Production of Energy

The average energy consumption for a single employee in a rather developed nation in the world (ooc: US) is about 1 Billion Btus of energy per annum.

Energy production itself is one of the most energy-intense activities of any economy, presently.

Energy consumption per capita for a typical employee in a petrochemical refinery or working with petrochemicals is about 50 billion Btus of energy.

Ethyl Alchohol takes about 27 Billion Btus per employee.

It is to be noted coal only takes about 11 Billion Btus per employee. It remains one of the most cost-efficient forms of energy to manufacture, no matter what we might try to do.

Once you have installed solar and wind power plants, the cost for them is significantly lower, since they do not require constant supplies of human-labor-supplied fuel for operation. There is a cost of manufacturing, installing, and caretaking of these facilities, but there is no raw material to feed the beast, as it were.

Fertilizer Choices

Nitrogenous fertilizers, made using a tremendous consumption of petrochemicals, take about 47 Billion Btus per employee.

Nitrogenous fertilizers also account for about 36% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some industrial nations. N2O is a greenhouse gas about 300 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Meanwhile, phosphatic fertilizers (made from phosporus compounds) take only 4 Billion Btus. This substitutes one form of raw material consumption for another -- mined phosphate instead of coal, gas or oil. World production capacities would likewise need to be considered, because not every nation is sitting on a lump of natural phosphates. Nor is phosphatic fertilizer appropriate for all soils.

Interestingly enough, sulfuric acid is used during the production of phosphatic fertilizers. The heat energy produced is so intense that the excess heat can be converted and sold back to the electric grid. (I believe the same may be true of nitrogenous fertilizer production, but have not been able to confirm.)

Still, organic fertilizers are typically less cost-intensive to produce, since they tend to be a byproduct of human, plant or animal wastes. Biomass-produced fertilizers (such as from cattle manure or processed sewage) are still quite popular and practiced throughout the world. While they are generally less intense in their release of nutrients also, they tend to release their energy over a longer period of time (a few years), thus produce less chemical wastage by runoff, and less emission of greenhouse gases.

Lastly, by simple education and better soil sampling prior to planting, many nations can reduce unnecessary fertilizer consumption and resultant overfertilizing runoffs by up to 40%. This benefits the farmer economically, and improves riverine, lake and coastal habitats, thus improving fisheries. Thus, while not so good for the fertilizer business, it is net better for the economy.

Other Industries

An employee in paper, newsprint or paperboard mills might require 10-20 Billion Btus of energy per annum to sustain their operations. Pulp mills require 15 Million. Thus, it is important to reduce waste paper. Though it is producing GDP, it is not the most cost-efficient use of energy to produce GDP.

Iron and steel mills also require about 11 Billion. Iron foundries about 1 Billion Btus per employee. General metalworking industries will run between those two extremes.

Textile mills take about 800 Million Btus per employee.

Beverages take about 650 Billion Btus per employee.

Semiconductors and related devices take 400 Million Btus.

Computer and electronic products take 141 Million Btus.

Apparel manufacturing takes about 100 Million Btus.

Energy Consumption to Economic Output

Obviously there are relations. Apparel cannot manufacture goods without a textile mill. There are always linkages between more energy-intense raw material production and processed good production. The question is: how can you get your best economic bang for your expended energy unit?

Each element in an economy may have some level of inefficiency at some point -- usually up-front in the obtainment of raw materials -- then turning raw materials into processed materials, then distribution and sale of end user goods, but one thing is clear: the more made from and dependent on petrochemical products, the more energy intensive the entire economy versus renewable sources.

In terms of use of economic output, the nitrogenous fertilizer industry has the highest energy consumption per value-added dollar output.

It is followed by lime, alkalies and chlorine manufacturing, pulp mills, and -- again -- petroleum products.

Food and beverage production is an order of magnitude more efficient in terms of dollars of GDP produced per unit of energy consumed.

Strangely enough, so are plastic products. They sell for a tremendously profitable rate (in terms of energy consumption) compared to the actual production of the oil itself.

Of course, sectors of computing devices and apparel manufacturing will be affected based on the raw materials used. If they use more synthetic materials, the higher the price, presuming the price of the raw material (petrochemicals) goes up.

While we can argue about the specific nature of the proposal before us, one thing is certain: those economies that refuse to shift from wasteful consumption of petrochemicals and fossil fuels will be left in the dust of history.

It's time to consider how to keep a high GDP without blindly throwing money and fossil fuels at the situation. Consider brainpower instead. It can be far more efficient.

Umm...if a warmongering nation always remained at war, they could get away with never adopting this appeal. And the only means of enforcement (which is what I was getting at) is trade sanctions. So that is no means of enforcement.

Oh, an actual new argument, well done. You are correct, it is up to the UN to interperet what significant need is and war is a guidline, so, conceivably your scenario could allow a warmongering nation to get unlimited extensions. However, like the other "loopholes" which I have dealt with previously, I feel that, in practice, this would not happen, unless the UN is much more twisted and warlike than I could have imagined. I would like to thing that the UN would only grant extgensions on the basis of war to naitons that are fighting involuntary and defensive wars, not aggressors.

Now, some points about population growth. I think that the only logical way to interperet NS time is to interperit one or more RL days as one NS year. There is no way any nation could provide enough food for 5 million extra people every day, let alone energy.

This brings up another point: one of the few things less sustainable than continual, never ending energy growth, is continual, never ending population growth. This is something, as far as I know, that the mechanics just do not address. As far as I can tell, there is no way of limiting or even slowing population growth in any nation.

This means that for any resource, eventually a nation could not keep up with population, unless of course, you veiw each nation as having infinite land, which could be a valid way of interpreting things, though it leads to all kinds of other concerns. One of which is that, if your view is that land is infinite, than the means to produce any resource, including clean, renewable energy, is also infinite, in which case your nation should have no trouble with this resolution. Yes this also would mean that fossil fuel is infinite, but would it really hurt in the long run to switch to clean, renewables?

If you interpret land as finite, than this might explain why so many nations, and their millions or billions of inhabitants, cease to exist each RL day. A finite interpritation would make it harder to comply, bu the issue is not the resolution itself, but your nation's uncontrolllably climbing population.

Food for thought

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

who detrimines if a nation is able to support itself with only clean energy? :confused:

Is there power consumption requirements; this act doesn't seem to address them?

what if the technology, 100% clean energy, is not feasable what then?

is this an attempt to convert fossil fuel users into nuclear power users?

this may drive up the price of uranium,tritium,and other nuclear power fuels due to supply and demand.

This act doesn't force nations to use clean power if they in fact develop it. What if a nation instead converts to nuclear instead?

Since my major #1 industry is fissile uranium I think I will support this act.
This act is perhaps an excellent chance to make a killing in the nuclear fuels market. $$ ;) $$

I also have a question about ultimately not sustainable?

what makes an energy source sustainable?

Does that mean energy source that can be renewed infinitely.

That is in fact impossible. The reason why it is impossible is because of entropy. Entropy is the tendacy of energy to disperse. That makes it impossible to recover 100% of the energy that is lost. So to create a renewable source of energy that is infinitely renewable; one would have to defeat the natural process of entropy.

I can guarantee no one is going to solve the entropy problem in 45 years.

The UD will support the Fossil Fuel Reduction act. We as a nation think that a reduction in the amount of fossil fuel burning should be cut down, it's true that the way we live our lives, burning fuels here and there is having a damaging effect to our planet. If we don't at least cut down on the fuel burning, our children and our children's children will be living in a poluted world and we always say that the children are the future so if we keep those fuels burning there will be no future for them to live in.

I can guarantee no one is going to solve the entropy problem in 45 years.
We in Stealthmunchkania have a Thermodynamical Reverser in development. It runs on oil.

A ridiculous amendment obviously concieved by the powerful established nations of the world to cement their hegenomy over the developing.

This Amendment is a plan to bring fastly growing Captialist/Socialist nations to their Knees many nations require fossil fuels for their growing industries and the Holy Empire of Razhbad requests that this should be ignored due to the fact it could deal a heavy blow to our Economy and Industry

Yes in my eye's the power mad nation of Ateelatay is a disgracefor submiting such an evil proposal. They use their power to keep the smaller nations down. what is even worse is some of the nations agree with this before reading the arguements so they dont know what they are agreeing to.

Love and esterel is more and more concerned with the consequences on economic development of this proposition for developping Nation.

We think every Nation, every goup of people have the right to embark on the way of economic development

The Federal Republic is dismayed by the fact that many nations having cast their votes in favor of this proposal have not yet been able to benefit from the insight conveyed by their fellow member states in this forum. We have therefore undertaken a telegram campaign targeting delegate nations who have voted yes on this proposal -- and our efforts in this regard have already met with modest success. We also intend to work on convincing the Feeder Regions to reject this proposal starting tomorrow.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cluichstan.jpg

Following the wise lead of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the people of Cluichstan are proud to report some -- albeit admittedly limited -- success in changing the votes of some delegates through a telegram campaign. Those of us who correctly oppose this proposal, however, do not have much time before the voting is final. Thus, the people of Cluichstan urge all who oppose this proposal to follow, as we are, the wise lead of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny and telegram immediately as many delegate nations currently voting in favor in an attempt to convince them to change their stances.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Fossiel energy is currently the only way to make enough energy for the next 40 years without using nuclear energy that isn't ready in some states, I think that before this proposal, we should have voted to build alternate energy sources, this proposal isn't timed well.
Vote agianst it and vote for it when every nation in the UN will be able to use nuclear energy and such. I say to vote Agianst it!

The Prime Minister of Magriver
The UN Delegate of The Democratic League Region

After much deliberation between Our Conclave of Beauty and Conclave of Friendship, We have decided to cast Our vote against this proposed legislation. We do so out of regret, since We recognize the legitimate concern of the NSUN for the global environment. However, the resolution as written imposes serious mandates upon individual NationStates to alter their economies, which is yet again an example of the NSUN imposing its will upon the internal affairs of its members.

A far more reasonable resolution, instead of mandating compliance from on high, would work with individual NationStates' industries. As a possible example, We draw the esteemed members' attention to the various "carbon tax credit" schemes used by some governments to encourage reductions in emissions. Working with the profit motive instead of against it is a far more effective way of safeguarding the environment.

Originally posted by Stealthmunchkania: We in Stealthmunchkania have a Thermodynamical Reverser in development. It runs on oil.

That sounds most excellent! As you may have read, our Ministry of Know-How is still hard at work on their own Cold Fusion research, though they are running into a number of problems. What was initially believed to be a recent major breakthrough was ultimately discovered to be simply leftovers from last years' Pan-Departmental Equinox Festival ... simultaneously an intellectual defeat and the genesis of severe gastronomic distress for our National Science Advisor.

The good people of Discordinia would be very interested in learning more about your Thermodynamical Reverser! :)

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/omigodtheykilledkenny.jpg
Department of StateFollowing the wise lead of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the people of Cluichstan are proud to report some -- albeit admittedly limited -- success in changing the votes of some delegates through a telegram campaign. Those of us who correctly oppose this proposal, however, do not have much time before the voting is final. Thus, the people of Cluichstan urge all who oppose this proposal to follow, as we are, the wise lead of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny and telegram immediately as many delegate nations currently voting in favor in an attempt to convince them to change their stances.We are most grateful to the people of Cluichstan for joining us helping to defeat this legislation. However, it seems our efforts, while not fruitless, have not produced the necessary results to turn the tide. Already we have fielded responses from delegates with a combined 202 votes who have informed us of their intention to change their votes, and we have seen from the delegate voting list at least a dozen more who have likewise switched since we telegrammed them. However, of all the responses we have been able to field, 49 percent were sticking with their votes and only 41 percent were changing them. Many have noted that this bill is "not as bad" as Promotion of Solar Panels, yet we see one respect in which this legislation is worse: its own author is not willing to acknowledge the serious flaws of his own proposal.

We regret that very much.

Maybe it would work if you changed fossil fuels to scarce natural fuel resources? That way it would work for past tech nations like myself, who have lots of oil but are slowly running out of coal, and for future tech nations that have lots of oild and coal but are running out of uranium and mangenese nodules or whatever?

Hi.
Maybe I didn't read the FAQ properly or something but how do I declare in what time and on which planet my nation/region is located?

I couldn't find any options when setting up my nation or region.

It seems impossible to propose any form of regulation when everyones nation is just some imaginations construct. How should people who intend to bring up a proposal know what nations will be affected? This counts especially for nations which exist in the future.

Kind regards
Ralf
Grand Duke of Natural Nerds
living in the "here and now" region of PHP

Hi,

I figure, all that everyone of you sees in oil and coal is "fossil fuel".

Did you ever consider that these two are also very important raw material for lots of important goods?

If we continue to burn those fossil fuels for use as energy source, very soon it'll be quite difficult to produce most pharmaceutical products. Oil is the largest raw material for the production of medicine.
As soon as all the oil has been used people will not die of cold or because they couldn't switch their light on.
Darwinism will return to the human beings :rolleyes: and only those who are fit enough without medication will survive.

Think about it.

Regards
Ralf ;)

Originally posted by Ohmigodtheykilledkenny: However, it seems our efforts, while not fruitless, have not produced the necessary results to turn the tide.

The good people have not given up! Stay the course!

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

Hi.
Maybe I didn't read the FAQ properly or something but how do I declare in what time and on which planet my nation/region is located?

I couldn't find any options when setting up my nation or region.


(ooc)You don't do it in the game itself, you do it with your roleplaying on the forums and in your article at NSWiki (at http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page )


It seems impossible to propose any form of regulation when everyones nation is just some imaginations construct. How should people who intend to bring up a proposal know what nations will be affected? This counts especially for nations which exist in the future.


There are plenty of proposals that would affect all nations equally. A proposal that all citizens get a vote for their leaders, for example, would be possible (though it would never pass). A proposal like this could work if, for example, it was worded without precise numbers (and taking into account population growth).
Stealthmunchkania's tech combination of the Solar-Powered Oil Producer, the Pollution Desmogifier and the Oil Powered Thermodynamical Reverser, however, can be role-played quite easily, and would be affected devastatingly by these proposals.

Many have noted that this bill is "not as bad" as Promotion of Solar Panels...

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cluichstan.jpg

The people of Cluichstan are dismayed that some delegates are willing to vote for a proposal simply because it is "not as bad" as a previous proposal. We should be striving for the best resolutions possible to be issued by this austere body, not simply settling for a proposal that is "not as bad."

Given this seemingly pervasive attitude, perhaps the people of Cluichstan should put forth a proposal that "not as bad" as the Emergency Midget (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9714174&highlight=midget#post9714174) proposal...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Hi,

I figure, all that everyone of you sees in oil and coal is "fossil fuel".

Did you ever consider that these two are also very important raw material for lots of important goods?

If we continue to burn those fossil fuels for use as energy source, very soon it'll be quite difficult to produce most pharmaceutical products. Oil is the largest raw material for the production of medicine.
As soon as all the oil has been used people will not die of cold or because they couldn't switch their light on.
Darwinism will return to the human beings :rolleyes: and only those who are fit enough without medication will survive.

Think about it.

Regards
Ralf ;)

FF(Fossiel Fuel) is important for other things, and I think that we should use other energy sources, such as nuclear energy and such, but not all states has a nuclear factory and they use almost only FF. And about the medicine stuff: We use woods for medicine and fire making and papers, and even for air, so why won't we just propose to not cut woods?
You should think about that.

The UN Delegate of The Democratic League.
Magriver.

St Edmund actaully obtains most of its electricity from 'ocean thermal' & hydroelectric plants, and runs most of its land transportation on ethanol: Our main use of fossil fuels, other than as industrial raw materials, is in aircraft... If this resolution passes then we will consequently have to develop nuclear-powered planes instead...

How many people here are happy about the idea of [quite large numbers of] airborne fission reactors?

* rises to the stand again *

I have stated my opposition to this proposal and now I will do it again at this 11th hour.

I appeal to all nations to reconsider their vote if they have voted yes. If this passes you will be dooming your country for the next few generations to mass unemployment, a lack of fuel and probally a lot more nuclear reactors in the world as well which lead to another problem. how to dispose of the spent uranium!

I've said it before and i'll say it again. our proposers ideal are grand but impractical. there is no way that alternative energy sources can replace 90% of fossil fuel usage even over 45 years. the technology doesn't exist in the quantity required to manage this feat.

To people who haven't decided yet i urge you to vote no. Even if you don't normally vote do so on this occasion otherwise by inaction you will be condemming your nation.

the 8th October 2005 will be a black day in UN history if this resolution is passed.

If anyone is thinking of voting in favor, or has voted in favor perhaps if we look at it on a basic level we can weigh the two options.

To artificially lower and limit to oil market if fundamentally innefficient. There is no arguing that. It is economic fact. You cannot make this proposal economically sound anymore than you can reverse gravity. That being said one clear-cut disadvantage that has many quantitative measurements that are based on sound factual information is the economic impact.

One advantage to this proposal is the effect on the environment. The argument is that by burning less fossil fuels global warming will be curbed and then our future is saved.

My answer to that is that we look at osme of our alternative fuel choices impact on the envrionment. Granted, nucelar energy is, in a stable environment, safe. However, we are talking about making the many of thousands of small countries follow this resolution and turn to new resources. Many countries will use this opportunity to develop their nuclear programs. I see two problems with this. First, this will inevitably lead to more rogue nations being able to develop nuclear weapons under the premise of a nuclear energy program in accordance with this proposal. Secondly, many small countries simply do not have the means to safely develop a nuclear program. If you want to look at the environmental impact of this proposal imagine a thousand Chernobyls all over the world from underfunded and poorly monitored nuclear programs that will be forced into action due to the restrictions imposed by this proposal.

In summary, this proposal is economically unsound, and opens many new dangers to the environment and international security.

Berkastan urges all nations to vote against this proposal, and in favor of a safe world - both for our lives and economies.

-Berkastan Department of State.-

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

who detrimines if a nation is able to support itself with only clean energy? :confused:

Well, each nation will determine this themselves. It means that when they have developed enough clean, renewable energy sources to replace fission, that is what they should do. If they never reach the point where they think they can suppliment all their fission power, they don't have to. This resolution was only meant to cut back the use of fossil fuel, not necessarily fission, though it imlies that it is desirable to do so.

Is there power consumption requirements; this act doesn't seem to address them?

Only power, or energy as the resolution refurres to it, derived from fossil fuel.

what if the technology, 100% clean energy, is not feasable what then?

I don't really get what you are asking, what technology do you speak of?

is this an attempt to convert fossil fuel users into nuclear power users?

No, but it may be an unintended side effect. If it is, that is unfortunate because nations will only be giving up one unsustainable source of energy for another.

this may drive up the price of uranium,tritium,and other nuclear power fuels due to supply and demand.

Yes, it may. This is not the intention of the resolution, but it may be a side effect.

This act doesn't force nations to use clean power if they in fact develop it. What if a nation instead converts to nuclear instead?

Actually, the 1% annual increse for, among other things, funding to clean renewable energy includes research, development, and implementation. Anyway, why would you spend all kinds of money developing something that you never implemented.

I also have a question about ultimately not sustainable? what makes an energy source sustainable? That is in fact impossible. The reason why it is impossible is because of entropy. Entropy is the tendacy of energy to disperse. That makes it impossible to recover 100% of the energy that is lost. So to create a renewable source of energy that is infinitely renewable; one would have to defeat the natural process of entropy.

Technically you are correct, even the sun will burn out eventually. It's the timescale that makes all the difference. For all intents and porposes, the sun will not run out of energy because it will happen likely long after humans have gone extinct and, when it does finally fail, that's the endo of all life on earth anyway. So, as basically all clean, renewable energy is derived directly or indirectly from the sun, it is a sustainable source.

By this same token, technically fossil fuel will always be made as long as there is life on earth. However, because the rate at wich it is consumed is much faster than the rate it is produced, it is ultimately unsustainable.

Love and esterel is more and more concerned with the consequences on economic development of this proposition for developping Nation.

Strange how I keep dealing with this issue and yet people just keep restating the same arguement, like repetition equals rightness. If you are still concerned, fine, but at least address my responses to those concerns.

By Magriver: I think that before this proposal, we should have voted to build alternate energy sources.

Um, we did, check the resolution record.

By Omigodtheykilledkenny: Many have noted that this bill is "not as bad" as Promotion of Solar Panels, yet we see one respect in which this legislation is worse: its own author is not willing to acknowledge the serious flaws of his own proposal.

I have readily admitted that there are potential loopholes in the resolution, but I have carefully responded to each and shown how each would likely not come out in a way to make it a true loophole. I have avoided none of your questions or anyone else's that had any legitimate concern about the solidity of my resoution.

But, you want flaws, here you go:
1. this resolution may have the unitended and unfortunate consequence of increasing nations' use of fission. However, the author felt it best to not promote nor condemn fission in a proposal primarily concerned with reducing fossil fuels and secondarily concerned with increasing the use of clean, renewable energy.

2. The author readily admits that, if a nation is planning to expand greatly and quickly through using more fossil fuel, the resolution will not be benificial to them in this goal. However, the author would rather see some economic stagnation on the part of these nations than stand by as they go down the same faulty path that has lead industrialized nations to become so dependant on a finite, greatly polluting source that requires vast armies and economic might to keep secure.

3. The author readily admits that this proposal is not good for nations whose economy is chiefly dependant on producing large quantities of fossil fuel. However, it is unfortunate that said countries decided to build their economies entirely around a finite, greatly polluting source of energy. But the needs of nations to live in a world with much less pollution, war, and with much more far-sighted energy sources, far outweigh the immediate economic needs of a nation that chose to build its entire economy around poor choices.

4. The author readily admits that this resolution will set nearly every nation's economy back, to varying degrees, but this is kind of implicit in a resolution ot improve the world's environment at the expense of industry, as stated by the resolution's type.

Now, the author is greatly dissmayed that, though regular critics are great at finding possible loopholes in the resolution and at repeating the same crituques over and over; these same critics seem unable to address responses to their critiques or even face criticism of thier own assumptions.

Did you ever consider that these two are also very important raw material for lots of important goods?

By Natural Nerds: If we continue to burn those fossil fuels for use as energy source, very soon it'll be quite difficult to produce most pharmaceutical products. Oil is the largest raw material for the production of medicine.
As soon as all the oil has been used people will not die of cold or because they couldn't switch their light on.
Darwinism will return to the human beings and only those who are fit enough without medication will survive.
Think about it.

This proposal is very careful to only include the use of fossil fuel as an energy source. Re-examine your assumption an think about that.

By Kirisubo: I've said it before and i'll say it again. our proposers ideal are grand but impractical. there is no way that alternative energy sources can replace 90% of fossil fuel usage even over 45 years. the technology doesn't exist in the quantity required to manage this feat.

The preamble to this resolution readily admits that clean, renewable energy cannot replace that which fossil fuel currently produces. However, I submit to you that there is no energy source, including fossil fuel, that can sustain this level of energy generation, let alone meet a much higher need. So what is your solution? To ride this runaway train that is fossil fuel until it crashes and along with it global population? Or should we do all we can now to make sure that doesn't happen?

By Berkastan: Many countries will use this opportunity to develop their nuclear programs. I see two problems with this. First, this will inevitably lead to more rogue nations being able to develop nuclear weapons under the premise of a nuclear energy program in accordance with this proposal. Secondly, many small countries simply do not have the means to safely develop a nuclear program.

This proposal makes it neither easier nor harder to obtain nuclear material. If indeed smaller countries are unable to develop safe fission power plants, it sounds like a resolution about nuclear facility safety standards is in order. Regardless, it is beyond the scope of this resolution to regulate, promote, or condemn, fission.

Yes in my eye's the power mad nation of Ateelatay is a disgracefor submiting such an evil proposal. They use their power to keep the smaller nations down. what is even worse is some of the nations agree with this before reading the arguements so they dont know what they are agreeing to.

The "power mad nation of Ateelatay"? "disgraceful for submitting such an evil proposal"?

What power am I looking for? For what conceivable reason would I want to "keep the smaller nations down"? This proposal is meant to bennefit all nations in the long run and stop the need for the larger ones to invade and keep down smaller ones in a mad desire to keep power over fossil fuel reserves.

Did you have any valid criticisms to submit, or did you just post to make a feeble attemt to hurt my feelings?

As reported by the Discordinian Associated Press:

According to a DAP source speaking on condition of anonymity, our esteemed leader El Jefe Cookie I was seen earlier today exiting from the rear of the Brickhouse, from the screened-in porch area of the Papal Estate, in an obvious state of physical exhaustion. Crawling on all fours and emitting a particularly pungent body odor, Cookie I traveled approximately 12 yards past the Papal Barbeque Pit before collapsing at the feet of Brickhouse Counsel Jonas Backwash. According to our source, the two engaged in lengthy conversation regarding a NSUN Telegram Campgain. Our beloved leader, after spending the last of his strength shaking his fist towards the heavens, then curled up into a fetal position and fell asleep sucking his thumb.

Concerned devotees have begun a candlelight vigil around the Brickhouse, many of whom have also thrown a great many Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts onto the Brickhouse lawn. Special Physician to the Pope Amy Brigante refused to comment on the Pope's condition, but Assistant Brickhouse Custodian Burt Jesperson stated that "He'll be fine. You should see him when the cable goes out. Now that's f***in scary, man. Hey, are you gonna eat that?"

Just thought I'd mention that I am in support of the resolution and encourage all others to do the same. Limiting our fossil fuel use will enable fuel-dependent industries to have time to utlitize alternative resources. Furthermore, it will help preserve limited natural resources and clean up the environment. It's a win-win.

The "power mad nation of Ateelatay"? "disgraceful for submitting such an evil proposal"?

What power am I looking for? For what conceivable reason would I want to "keep the smaller nations down"? This proposal is meant to bennefit all nations in the long run and stop the need for the larger ones to invade and keep down smaller ones in a mad desire to keep power over fossil fuel reserves.

Did you have any valid criticisms to submit, or did you just post to make a feeble attemt to hurt my feelings?

Your proposal only effects a small amount of the nations. It only effects those in the UN, so in the long run it is useless rubbish as the other nations would still be useing fossil fuels at a high rate. In the end no matter how you slice it you still lose. Do the math and you will see that the little amount you have sugjested makes no differance. In the end it just turns out to be an evil proposal with bad intentions of ruining other nations.

The Totally Blissed Out State of Ateelatay
Power to the peaceful

Domestic Statistics Government Category: Left-wing Utopia
Government Priority: the Environment
Economic Rating: Struggling
Civil Rights Rating: Superb
Political Freedoms: Excessive
Income Tax Rate: 100%
Major Industry: Book Publishing
National Animal: Spanish Whaling Mouse
National Currency: karma
Total Population: 1,697,000,000
Government Budget Details Administration: $73,174,221,350.10 8%
Social Welfare: $192,082,331,044.01 21%
Healthcare: $54,880,666,012.58 6%
Education: $192,082,331,044.01 21%
Religion & Spirituality: $0.00 0%
Defence: $0.00 0%
Law & Order: $0.00 0%
Commerce: $0.00 0%
Public Transport: $73,174,221,350.10 8%
The Environment: $228,669,441,719.06 25%
Social Equality: $100,614,554,356.39 11%
Ateelatay Economic Statistics Exchange Rate: 33.9368 karmas = $1
Gross Domestic Product: $915,813,379,433.60
GDP Per Capita: $539.67
Unemployment Rate: 14.53%
Consumption: $0.00
Government Budget: $962,818,701,975.00
Government Expenditures: $914,677,766,876.25
Goverment Waste: $48,140,935,098.75
Exports: $115,470,333,416.88
Imports: $114,334,720,859.53
Trade Surplus: $1,135,612,557.35
A More Peaceful World Economic Statistics Gross Regional Product: $1,394,104,161,126,693.00
GRP Per Capita: $21,239.28
Regional Population: 65,638,000,000
Regional Average GDP: $34,002,540,515,285.20
Largest GDP: Sozy ($221 trillion)
Smallest GDP: Oigh ($5.98 billion)
Largest GDP Per Capita: Corporate Infidels ($45,911)
Smallest GDP Per Capita: New Ushuaia ($497.50)
Largest Trade Surplus: Sozy ($602 billion)
Largest Trade Deficit: Corporate Infidels ($466 billion)
Powered by NSEconomy 0.7.0 © 2004‒2005 Commerce Heights
Page generated in 18.77s • 1511847 hits since 24 Apr 2004

Ateelatay this is a report on your ecconomy which as you can see is failing. You speak of saveing the planet yet it states you have over $48 billion in government wastes. I recomend fixing things in your own nation before forceing other nations to do what you have done to your own.

Oh, the ironing! :p

They want us to cut our gas, without a sure substitution fuel! If we do that, we'll send our economies down the drain! :mad: VOTE NO ON THE RESOLUTION AND STOP THE ENVIROMENTALISTS!

The region "parallel pacific" for which Love and esterel is the UN Delegate voted AGAINST (internal region vote: 1/2 FOR/AGAINST)

Our region is very worried by the consequences of this proposition on the economy of developping Nations (even if Love and esterel is a "Powerhouse" as defined by the UN)

We don't know yet, we are thinking about introducing a repeal, as we did for "promotion of solar panels"

To UN Delegates and Representatives:

The Federation of Grand Mortland is a militaristic nation and it requires the burning of fossil fuels to run the thousands of factories across our island. They cannot easily adjust to new resources without spending billions of dollars and more money from government aid. I ask you, why propose an act to strain nations in reforming the thousands of fossil fuel dependent machinery?

We, of the Federation of Grand Mortland, fully oppose this act. This act fully undermines our ability to run a stable nation and promote the well-being of our people. As long as there is earth under us, it is good enough.

Kopav Bovansky,
UN Representative
of the
Federation of Grand Mortland

3-eyed Fish Island is also against the proposal. Sure, fossil fuels will eventually run out, but the free market economy can take care of shortages by itself. By the time fuel starts to run out, people will not stand around and keep useing the fossil fuels. THEY CAN AND WILL SWITCH BY THEMSELVES! Secondly, if passed, this resolution will send fossil fuel prices straight up. With less fuel to sell, in order to compensate, the bussiness will have to raise prices BEFORE they have to, due to the lack of investor confidence in the fuels. Is it not better for the consumer for prices to be raised when they have to rather than by speculators? Thirdly, the speed of fossil fuel depletion cannot be calculated so that -2% per year will fir the amount of fuel left in the world. If the free market is given the rule over fossil fuels, prices will dictate consunption exactly according to the supply of fuel left. Fourthly, as you can tell by the name of my proud nation, we do not care about the environment. Even with the UN's help, there are many non-UN nations that will spoil it eventually, if possible. Perhaps the environmentalists get around on their private jets so much and so quickly that they fail to see how large the world is. It certainly is not a couple hours across the ocean, as one might think.

Vote "NO" for this proposition.

-Ruler of the Capitalistic Paradise (as of now) 3-eyed fish island.

Your proposal only effects a small amount of the nations. It only effects those in the UN, so in the long run it is useless rubbish as the other nations would still be useing fossil fuels at a high rate. In the end no matter how you slice it you still lose. Do the math and you will see that the little amount you have sugjested makes no differance. In the end it just turns out to be an evil proposal with bad intentions of ruining other nations.

Ateelatay this is a report on your ecconomy which as you can see is failing. You speak of saveing the planet yet it states you have over $48 billion in government wastes. I recomend fixing things in your own nation before forceing other nations to do what you have done to your own.

This is just a bad argument. Yes, UN nations are in the minority, but they still represent billions of people and vast spaces of land. By your logic why vote on anything if it only affects the UN nations while the greater proportion of nations are unaffected? The UN makes up fully 27 pecent of the world's nations, that's 30,902 nations, you think that the gradual reduction of 90% of these nations' use of fossil fuel energy will have no difference? Also take into account that puppet nations controlled by UN nations greatly trump up the number of truley soveriegn nations. Pesumably, if a UN nation adopts this policy it will also affect the nations it has control over.

This proposal has no evil intentions, it has the long term health and wellbeing of all naitons in mind.

As to your second post, as I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of Ateelatay's population is subsistence or semisubsistence argriculturalists, so economy means little to us.

And I have never claimed to be "saving the planet," as you say, all I am advocating for is to divert the course towards economic collapse that will come when cheap, easily accesable sources of fossil fuel are no longer available.

Many of you talk about how the free market will save us from this doom and cause us to convert to clean renewable sources anyway. Pardon me for not having such unwaivering faith in the free market, but I feel that the unregulated free market has no conscious and leads to practices such as slavery, the exploitation of impoverished nations who use child labor and pay inhumne worker wages, and wanton destruction of the environment because it is the cheapest thing to do. The unregulated free market also has little foresight and is mostly reactionary. Because of these tendencies, the free market would only react to the peak in global oil production, meaning it would only do something after it was a major problem and would be that much further behind in developing a solution.

This resolution is calling for nations to be proactive about the situation. Few would dissagree that fossil fuel based energy cannot continue indefinitely and that at some point the problems of fossil fuel use will have to be dealt with. We all see the problem, let's do something about it while it is still relatively easier to do something about it. The free market will indeed switch us off of fossil fuel when it begins to react to sharp price increases, but I submit that it will be a violent reaction, especially compared to the gradual reaction the free market would experience in relation to this resolution.

When the economy went through a dramatic reallignment as fossil fuel transportation took over from animal based transportation, but it was not from lack of animal power, it was because the technology had advanced enough to be realtivly more benificial to customers. The switch off of fossil fuels, if leaft to happen by free market forces alone, will be nothing like the previous energy revolution. The mechanism will be a lack of resources contributing to the current system, not necessarlily from superior technology taking over. It will therefore be a devastating reaction. How will you maintain your precious militaries if you can't even afford to pay their transportation bills? How will you power all your precious luxary devices when the local fossil fuel burning power plant cannot afford to keep opperating? How will you drive your precious luxary vehicles if you have to wait hours in gas lines for fuel priced higher than precious metals?

One tired cliche free marketeers seem to stand by is that "necessity is the mother of invention." They envoke this and say we don't need to invent new technology to adapt, so why do it? This proposal will create that necessity. If a nation really feels that it will be so adversely affected by this proposal, they will have all the necessity they need to invent technologies to compensate. The difference here is that nations will know it's coming and it will not happen all at once by gradually and steadily. So we can wait for the free market to create that necessity all at once in some unknown time in the future, or we can make it happen while there is still time to manuever.

The claim that fuel prices will go up seems erronious to me. This resolution would make demand drop, and prices with it. The market does best when it can predict trends and this resolution pretty much lays out the trend for the next 45 years.

By Caer Dunnottar: I recomend fixing things in your own nation before forceing other nations to do what you have done to your own.

Ateelatay does not deny that it has its share of problems, but I would like to remind you that the only vote I have cast is from my nation, I have forced no one's hand. I have launched no tellegram campaign to convince any nation to switch their vote, though I know that TG campaigns against this resolution. I do not condemn any campaigns agaisnt this resolution, nations are certainly within their rights to do so, but I wanted to make it clear that the only way I am trying to influence this issue is by being an active participant in this forum, as I believe it is my duty to do so as the author of the resolution.

this resolution may have the unitended and unfortunate consequence of increasing nations' use of fission. However, the author felt it best to not promote nor condemn fission in a proposal primarily concerned with reducing fossil fuels and secondarily concerned with increasing the use of clean, renewable energy.

The preamble to this resolution readily admits that clean, renewable energy cannot replace that which fossil fuel currently produces. However, I submit to you that there is no energy source, including fossil fuel, that can sustain this level of energy generation, let alone meet a much higher need. So what is your solution? To ride this runaway train that is fossil fuel until it crashes and along with it global population? Or should we do all we can now to make sure that doesn't happen?

This proposal makes it neither easier nor harder to obtain nuclear material.

Unintended, he's sayin'. Then he goes and straight-up admits that clean energy can't replace all o' fossil fuel, and you hav'ta get rid o' that too... so what'zat leave? How many non-fossil fuels are unsustainable, non-clean ones you can use t' prop up your energy needs?

Uranium.

Sounds like t' me someone's either just discovered a buncha uranium that no one wants to go a-minin' just yet, and bought it up on th' cheap, or's got a friend that did.

"Neither easier nor harder to obtain nuclear material"?! Yer jokin', right? Virtually ev'ry nation that isn't all-green already is goin' t' be scramblin' for uranium to keep th' lights on. Supply 'n demand, well gee, will ya lookit that. Uranium just got a lot more valuable.

Might as well go retitle this th' "Uranium Subsidy Act," complete with big penalties for them as can't afford the new radioactive fuel o' the future and can't power their whole nation off'n sunbeams and goss'mer spring breezes.

Whaddawe expect offa deliberatin' body that's made it an internation'l crime t' blow your nose when ya got the flu?

I don't really get what you are asking, what technology do you speak of?



A form of technology which is sustainable, and enviromentally friendly.

The Unholy Empire of Austro-Awestralia pledges wholeheartedly its support towards this resolution, as does the region of PBF.

OK, I think everyone understand that Uranium is not an alternate energy resource because it will run dry fast so we can't use nuclear energy.
The only solution is to use the sun, the rivers and such as our energy resources.
These energy resources can't replace the enegy that fossiel fuel gives.

Let's invastigate more solutions and more energy resources we can use:
1. We can use volcanoes as an energy resource, becuasethey won't run dry in the next 500 years.
2. We can use the gas our plant "spits" as a an energy resource.
3. We can use public transportation only.
4. We can stop sending satelites and spaceships to space.
5. We can use animals to create energy.

But all of the above have their downsides:

1. It will risk people's life like nuclear planets does.
2. It will destroy the environment's underground becuase of the gas transportation.
3. It will take the people's right to tour the globe everywhere.
4. It will descrease technological advancements and will lower our fast communication systems.
5. It will hurt the people who care about animals rights.

in case of this will pass, the black market will grow a lot and will still use fossiel fuel, who can stop them from doing that without hurting all of the population's rights?

This proposal would be great in maybe 100-300 years later from now.
Vote AGIANST this proposal if you want what's good for all of the UN members and their population.
If it will pass, I encourage repealing this.(did you notice that almost everytime a proposal comes it passes? maybe UN members doesn't read the proposal well and vote for without a reason? and if we will send a proposal to repeal this proposal, I'm 80% sure that it will pass too.)

I think all countrys acroos the world need to come together and sort out pollution in the world. Im not saying ban all fossil fuels but cut down there is alternative soultions for powering things.

I think all countrys acroos the world need to come together and sort out pollution in the world. Im not saying ban all fossil fuels but cut down there is alternative soultions for powering things.

Cut down there after you built and researched alternative energy solutions power plants in all countries. First build the floor, not the roof!

this may be an incredibly simple thing to say, but this is my view:

global warming has reached a point that cannot be reversed, there is no point in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use as the damage has already been done. since there is hardly any oil left we may as well just use what we have left, while of course putting as much money into finding an alternative; not simply reducing the amount of fuel we use, because it is going to run out; get used to it.

I agree with Centris, fossil fuels do not continue to be made as the nation of Ateelatay stated a couple of pages ago. Once it is depleted it will not be able to be use again. Fossil fuels are from the plant life and animals that millions of years ago and once they are depleted we would have to find a new source anways. I recomend the following power source all nations go to ateelatay chop down all their tree's and burn them useing the fire for heat, cooking, and smelting pots. As you can see Ateelatay is totaly defenceless to stop us from doing so.

Oh, an actual new argument, well done. You are correct, it is up to the UN to interperet what significant need is and war is a guidline, so, conceivably your scenario could allow a warmongering nation to get unlimited extensions. However, like the other "loopholes" which I have dealt with previously, I feel that, in practice, this would not happen, unless the UN is much more twisted and warlike than I could have imagined. I would like to thing that the UN would only grant extgensions on the basis of war to naitons that are fighting involuntary and defensive wars, not aggressors.


I don't know if you're trying to be condescending with your first sentence. I don't know where you get the nerve to try that.

And just for a real life example, look at the US. Crippled by two of the loopholes created in this resolution. Some people aren't able to provide examples. Try it sometime, makes your argument more effective...if people were actually open enough to look at a new argument logically.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.


These are three rules you might be in violation of, if as stated torward the begining of the thread if there are proposals that have been accepted that follow along the lines of this one it can not be passed until the others have been repealed. So can someone please check this out.

Further to our previous remark, if this resolution is passed then the government of St Edmund will indeed be setting up a project to research & develop nuclear-powered aircraft... and is willing to consider cooperation in that project with any other nation that's interested.
(Send a telegram if you want to join in on this.)

Good for you. You did the simple math. And it would apply -- if nations stayed the same size year by year. What happens when the nations grow and require more energy? For instance, a small nation having a population of 45 million when this act passes, over ten NS years, could balloon to 200 million people, yet it would still be required to consume fossil fuels at rates 20 percent below the mark recorded back when it was under a quarter of its present size.

Renewable energy that can expand as the growing population expands? :rolleyes:

If this hypothetical nation's energy system relied 100 percent on fossil fuels at the outset of this legislation's mandate, ten years on, fossil-fuel consumption would account for only about 18 percent of the nation's energy, meaning that inside a decade this nation would have to replace not 20 percent of its energy regime, but over 80 percent. Like I said, this is much more than a 2-percent annual reduction.

I'm pretty sure it's 2% of natural gas consumption. That is what the mandtate is targetting.

This proposal does little more than hamper the growth of small nations, who will have to overhaul their energy systems completely in order to assure that their rapidly growing populations don't find themselves in the dark. Such abrupt, extreme overhauls and disruptions in energy supply would cause massive recessions as national economies try to adjust, and millions upon millions of people could lose their jobs. But seeing as how you have driven your own nation's unemployment rate over 26 percent, and you dismiss any economic concerns about this proposal as "corporate financial reasons," joblessness probably doesn't worry you: You only care whether or not all the newly impoverished workers this act creates will have slightly cleaner air to breathe.

Right?

Firstly, they probably include students, which I spend large sums of money on education. Secondly, I have another site that places my unemployment rate at 10% lower than that on your site:Grantsburg (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Grantsburg) . I hope that answers your response which, once again, is off-topic.

I have done the check-up myself and acording to the rules this proposal is in violation.

Here are three proposals that cover the items you propose.

1) Alternative Fuels
2) Sustainable Energy Sources
3) Reduction of greenhouse gases

Unless each of these resolutions are repealed this proposal can not legaly be accepted.

You can find a link for each of the stated proposals in the Passed N.S.U.N. Resolutions thread directly below this one. :mp5:

The good people of the Commonwealth of Libearty votes no to this proposal. While we agree with the writers of this proposal, that problems affecting the environment do indeed need to have a global solution through the U.N., particularly given that Libearty’s primary political party is Libertarian. As such we believe that anyone has the right to do whatever they want up to the point that they start to impact on someone else’s right to do what they want, or to put it more concisely “your rights end where mine begin”. That being said, after careful consideration and listening to both sides of this debate, we always come back to the fact that this legislation would do irreparable harm to growing nations, who invariably actually produce far less pollution than the larger more established nations. The people of Libearty would support a proposal that would achieve the same aims, but through different means. For example, if the ceiling cap was based on pollution produced rather than the amount of fossil fuel used, and if that cap was based on a per capita formula, then and only then would Libearty rise in support of a proposal of this kind.

Unfortunately it does look as though this proposal will pass into law today, that being the case Libearty would most like to see a resolution introduced that would repeal this resolution and put in it’s place a similar one with the changes noted above. Until that happens however, we are forced to look for loopholes in this resolution. To that end we would like to thank the good people of Discordinia for providing a possible solution to this dilemma, that being to simply consume much more in the 3 year period where the ceiling cap is determined. We would also like to thank those that pointed out that this is in effect a highly impractical solution, as this led us to the same conclusion and ultimately to a workable solution. This led to a brainstorming session among our committee for complying with U.N. resolutions, which ultimately led to our rereading of the proposal, where we discovered much to our pleasure that while “fossil fuels” and “clean, renewable energy sources” were defined, both “consumption” and “consumed” were not defined. Which of course made us question what is the actual definition of consumption and consuming. Now the definition of consumption is primarily the act or process of consuming, which doesn’t really provide any workaround, however one of the definitions of consumed is simply: to purchase goods and services.

With that discovery the committee was able to announce to the concerned citizens of Libearty that we would comply with this resolution by forming a committee of scientists whose task would be to determine exactly how much fossil fuels are left in the world and then to build a platform whereby we could establish two corporations whose only purpose will be to buy and sell to each other fossil fuels at a set price, so that at the end of the 3 years that the ceiling cap is formulated, 10,000 times the actual amount of fossil fuels in existence would have been consumed.

It is regrettable that we had to take such a step but it was the only conceivable way of complying with this resolution without going back to the dark ages. The good people of Libearty would also like to say that in actuality most of our energy use actually consists of things such as biodiesel, and in truth our laws require that things such as vehicles and power plants must have various means to reduce or eliminate air pollutants. This program has been very successful with air pollution having been reduced already by 98% in the first five years of the program. So the Commonwealth of Libearty would like to assure the U.N. that we take environmental pollution matters very seriously and in effect currently are where most nations will be after the 45 year time period, as far as the release of air pollutants are concerned.

The good people of the Commonwealth of Libearty votes no to this proposal. While we agree with the writers of this proposal, that problems affecting the environment do indeed need to have a global solution through the U.N., particularly given that Libearty’s primary political party is Libertarian. As such we believe that anyone has the right to do whatever they want up to the point that they start to impact on someone else’s right to do what they want, or to put it more concisely “your rights end where mine begin”.

Exactly. And your right to burn fossil fuels end where my right for clean air begins.

After carefull reconsiderating and discussion in my home region, I have decided to support this proposal and give it my FOR vote.

I have done the check-up myself and acording to the rules this proposal is in violation.

Here are three proposals that cover the items you propose.

1) Alternative Fuels
2) Sustainable Energy Sources
3) Reduction of greenhouse gases

Unless each of these resolutions are repealed this proposal can not legaly be accepted.

You can find a link for each of the stated proposals in the Passed N.S.U.N. Resolutions thread directly below this one. :mp5:
No. There is no need for repeal of said resolutions.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I have made a motion to remove this resolution from the floor as it is in direct violation of N.S.U.N. rules. It can not legaly be passed with out repealing the other three resolutions that cover these same items. Read the Rules for proposals you will see I am correct as Ateelatays resolutions is atempting to amend other resolutions that have been approved and are currently active and have not been repealed.

After reviewing the Promotion of Solar Panels, Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels", and finally the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act resolutions and discussions, the Mikitivity Council of Mayors has authorized me to cast our vote in favour of this resolution.

In short, many of the legitimate complaints with the original Promotion of Solar Panels resolution, in particular its lack of flexibility, were sufficient to warrant its repeal, and this particular resolution addresses the key points of the repeal and the direct problem that was the motivation for the previous resolution. We hope that nations will realize that this resolution was not drafted in a vacuum, and that the Promotion of Solar Panels and later repeal of that resolution indicate that nations are concerned about international air pollution and climate change and that there is in fact large agreement that the use of fossil fuels need to be dealt with at an international level.

To be blunt. The glaciers in our Thuvian and Solace Mountain ranges are starting to melt, and climate change is a true international problem.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Ecopoeia please read the rules for resolutions.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

As the items that Ateelatay has requested were already active before the resolution could be even made active each of the other resolutions would need to be repealed first as the items covered in this resolution already exists. I dont make the rules I just follow them.

Exactly. And your right to burn fossil fuels end where my right for clean air begins.


Overall you're correct at least in the sentiment expressed here, however your assumption that burning fossil fuels will impact your right to clean air is incorrect.

Ecopoeia please read the rules for resolutions.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

As the items that Ateelatay has requested were already active before the resolution could be even made active each of the other resolutions would need to be repealed first as the items covered in this resolution already exists. I dont make the rules I just follow them.
OOC: I disagree with your interpretation. And so, it would appear, do the mods.

The Moderators have yet to reply so you can not speak for them.

The Moderators have yet to reply so you can not speak for them.
OOC: Is or is not this resolution up for vote?

Anyway, this isn't getting us anywhere. Your bid to have the resolution removed for rules violation cannot succeed, I'm afraid. End of story.

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 AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

I see one problem with this new resolution, although the operative clauses are more promising. I still disagree with Article 1. When it says that every nation must increase their funding for research and development, I don't like how it says, every nation. I think that only the nation's with the best of the best research facilties should spend time doing it, and then every nation not doing it, sends a specified amount to the closest research facilties closest to them. That would solve a lot of problems with other nations money standards.

Now, I am not just saying all this to get my nation out of doing it.

Why is this resolution not yet in the "past resolutions" page?

Why is this resolution not yet in the "past resolutions" page?

it is:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125

it's just the links in the other resolutions page missing (i suppose the links are to be created manually by mods or admin)

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/oasis84/blackline.jpg

Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Antarctic_Oasis) Department of Shameless Self-Promotion

As the current Secretary of Shameless Self-Promotion for the region of Antarctic Oasis, it is my duty to inform you that our regional delegate Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=omigodtheykilledkenny)’s UN ambassador – having to be rushed in for emergency oral surgery after having an unfortunate run-in with sadistic “dentists” employed by vengeful dolphin-mafia dons – was forced to send his deputy, a rather ill-tempered brute, who had just suffered the misfortune of paying $50 to fill up the tank of his Pinto and having to negotiate 20 blocks of horrendous traffic in ... whichever city it is that the UN headquarters are located ... when he arrived to cast his nation’s votes. By then the oaf was so enraged he was prepared to defy his government, and its corporate sponsors, and vote for the current anti-fossil-fuel legislation. It took five State Department staffers to wrestle him to the ground and seize his voting card, and as security began to escort him from the voting chamber, he could be heard screaming: “$3.50 a gallon for gas?! Who are these greedy-ass oil tycoons fooling?! They can’t silence me! I’m going to take this voting card and shove it down their throats!! – <grmph!>” – it was at this point that a quick-thinking State Department staffer stuffed the deputy's mouth full of Fine Yeldan Cheese™, a sizeable gift basket of which was apparently the Omigodtheykilledkenny government’s allowance for supporting legislation sponsored by Yelda’s puppet government*. The ambassador was left to scan a list of rather incompetent State Department officials to cast a proxy vote, but none were available: one had to wait in his home from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to wait for a telephone repairman; another had to watch five screaming kids; still another had gone dolphin hunting, threatening to incite a reprise of the dolphin mafia’s wrath. In the end, the ambassador had to send his dear aunt, a Jewish retiree going by the name of Bertie, to vote in his stead. But the poor old woman, upon viewing the UN ballot, became confused and accidentally cast her nation’s 20 votes for Pat Buchanan.

Omigodtheykilledkenny’s UN staff is working presently to correct the monumental error; in the coming weeks it will introduce and solicit delegate approvals for the Moronic Voting Reduction Act, the harsh and punitive measures of which will effectively bar Omigodtheykilledkenny, as well as all those who voted in favor of this resolution, from casting any future votes on UN business items. Thank you.

VICTORY IS MINE!!

* “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Democracy simply doesn’t work.” –Kent Brockman.

After reviewing the Promotion of Solar Panels, Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels", and finally the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act resolutions and discussions, the Mikitivity Council of Mayors has authorized me to cast our vote in favour of this resolution.

In short, many of the legitimate complaints with the original Promotion of Solar Panels resolution, in particular its lack of flexibility, were sufficient to warrant its repeal, and this particular resolution addresses the key points of the repeal and the direct problem that was the motivation for the previous resolution. We hope that nations will realize that this resolution was not drafted in a vacuum, and that the Promotion of Solar Panels and later repeal of that resolution indicate that nations are concerned about international air pollution and climate change and that there is in fact large agreement that the use of fossil fuels need to be dealt with at an international level.

To be blunt. The glaciers in our Thuvian and Solace Mountain ranges are starting to melt, and climate change is a true international problem.Oh, please. Why should the small nations of the UN suffer disproportionately under this act because the beauty of your snowy peaks is eroding, Amb. Katzman? The rapid rate of nations' growth will surely mean that small nations especially will have to cut back by much more than 2 percent each year, even to the point of abrupt upheavals of national energy regimes and economies. And in case you haven't noticed, a third of your region (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=international_democratic_union) is exempt from the terms of this article, not to metion a full 72 percent of my own (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis), and, indeed, 72 percent of the NS world is exempt. Which means that this bill's passage will create but a tiny dent in the overall damage to the Earth's atmosphere, but more than a dent in member states' economies.

The repeal of this law is inevitable, once the fanatical anti-fossil-fuel craze currently infecting the UN has ended.

* “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Democracy simply doesn’t work.” –Kent Brockman.
Now, Now. We don't need that sort of inflammatory language here. And in the future, please don't use the term "puppet" when referring to our UN Mission. We prefer "client state". Thank you.

I don't know if you're trying to be condescending with your first sentence. I don't know where you get the nerve to try that.

On the contrary, my good sir or madame, it was meant to be a compliment. I had seen no other new concerns since my last posting, just recycled ones and I was happy that someone had brought up something new.

Anyway, I would like to thank all the nations that supported me in this debate, those that helped me craft the resolution in the draft phase, and all those that voted for this important resolution, it would have just been talk without you. I would also like to give great thanks to Starcra II for getting me involved in this whole UN resolution writing thing, maybe next time we can collaborate more.

I would also like to thank all the critics of the resolution, you made me work for my points and kept the debate civil, I salute you. I hope this is the begining of a prosperous working relationship and hope to hear form all of you during my next resolution draft, should that time come. Know that I admire your tenacity in critiquing my resolution and hope you will do the same for my upcomming resolution, "The Resolution to Eradicate Economic Hope Unless Gerbils Get Enough Rights," the TREEHUGGER Act, for short (just kidding ;) )

Seriously though, thank you all, it's been quite an experience,
Peace, I'm out!

now everyone has to cut 3% each year due to this ilegal resolution cause the moderators fail to uphold their own rules. That is the 1% from the reduction of greenhouse gases resolution plus the 2% from this idiotic one.

Now, Now. We don't need that sort of inflammatory language here. And in the future, please don't use the term "puppet" when referring to our UN Mission. We prefer "client state". Thank you.Our profound apologies. Rest assured, we have naught but respect for Yelda, Fine Yeldan Cheeses™, Fine Yeldan Client States™ and the many other Fine Yeldan Products™ you can find on the international market. As for aptly quoting Kent Brockman to point out the innate corruption of the UN having deteriorated to the point of trading cheese for votes, I will not apologize. ;)