NationStates Jolt Archive

We need to provide a longer time allowance for countries to convert to clean fuels. Yes, we of Sheeland are all for further environmental protection, and fossil fuels are an excellent place to start, however, we must take into consideration that some countries may be unable to make the conversion in that small amount of time. It is unrealistic. In the mean time, we should simply amend the resolution to make the goal of a cleaner industrial world a more reasonable possibility. Thank you!
-The Queen of Sheeland

I wish it could be ammended, but it can't. Still, just keep on extending your deadline claiming to be a develpoing nation (which isn't defined)!

Better yet - vote against Act and encourage your fellow delegates from your Region to do so as well.

In the unfortunate event the Act passes - you may always seek to Repeal it after the fact.

In the worst case, the Cobdenians have offered what we believe to be sage advice.

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

Another key is to not spend anything on renewable energy sources.

I respectfully refer my esteemed colleagues to Article I, 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.

If a government never spends anything in this area anyway, they will never have to do so even if this proposal is passed, because 1% of zero is still zero.

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

Another key is to not spend anything on renewable energy sources.

If a government never spends anything in this area anyway, they will never have to do so even if this proposal is passed, because 1% of zero is still zero.


If you spend nothing on clean, renewables, it will just hurt your ability to comply with the resolution. It doesn't say if you don't increase funding to clean, renewable enrgy that you don't have to reduce you fossil fuel consumption. This may be a loophole, but it seems like it would be a pretty stupid one to follow. I mean, would it hurt you to research and implement alternatives?

Anyway, to the topic at hand, if you wanted a longer time period you should have spoken up while the proposal could still have been changed. I stand by my 45 year mark as being plenty of time to gradually scale back fossil fuel. There are provisions for struggling nations to get time extensions, too.

I wish it could be ammended, but it can't. Still, just keep on extending your deadline claiming to be a develpoing nation (which isn't defined)!

You cannot claim exemption for just being a developing nation, just for having severe economic depression, war, or being hit by a large natural disaster. I left the definitions of this vague on purpose so that the UN can decide on the merit of each claim on a case by case basis, while still having some guidelines.

I left the definitions of this vague on purpose so that the UN can decide on the merit of each claim on a case by case basis, while still having some guidelines.

The UN can't decide on that issue, all commitees must be staffed by mythical entities. If I say that Cobdenia is a clear cut case for exemption, there's nothing you can do about it

The UN can't decide on that issue, all commitees must be staffed by mythical entities. If I say that Cobdenia is a clear cut case for exemption, there's nothing you can do about it

The good people of Cluichstan concur with our Cobdenian friends and will also be taking what we will henceforth refer to as the "Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo Exemption," should this proposal pass.

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