NationStates Jolt Archive

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want to introduce a 1st draft to repeal the probable "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" resolution.
As we are already working on other projects, we hope some nations will use this draft, improve it on this forum and submit it with success.


______________________________________________
Description: UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

The United Nations

-A- RECOGNIZING that "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" is a well intentioned resolution

-B- DEEPLY AFRAID that this resolution allow “a time extension”, about decrease of consumption of Fossil Fuel by a minimum of 2% every year, for economic reason only in case of “Severe economic depression” but that "significant but not severe" economic depression will not qualify for “time extension”

-C- FULLY AWARE that some developping Nations will not be able to comply to this objective without "significant but not severe" economic depression

-D- AFFIRMING that every Nation has the right to embark on the way of economic development

-E- DESIRING a future balanced and reasonable proposition about Fossil Fuel Reduction and new/clean/renewable sources of energy

-1- REPEALS "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act ".

The people of Cluichstan think it might be just a bit early for this, considering that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act has not even been passed as a resolution.

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

I agree with both Love and esterel resolution, and Cluichstan belief in waiting. Can I make a couple of suggestions concerning wording, plus another couple of clauses? Because we have to admit that FFR will very likely pass


-A- RECOGNIZING the good intentions of the "Fossil Fuel Reduction" resolution

-B- AFRAID that this resolution allowance of a time extension, concerning the decrease of consumption by a minimum of 2% of fossil fuel per annum, does not allow for nations in lower stages of economic and technological developement, nor nations suffering significant economic depression, to qualify for said time extension

-C- NOTING the lack of allowances for increase in consumption due to natural population growth

-D- FURTHER NOTING there is neither reference to allowances for the possibility for the discovery of new fossil fuel reserves, nor the possibility of industrial manufacturing of fossil fuels

-E- AFFIRMING that every Nation has the right to develop economically

-F- DESIRING that new, balanced and reasonable proposition concerning more efficient use of fossil fuels and/or investigation into clean or renewable sources of energy

-1- REPEALS "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act ".

All right, I'll admit it. L&E posted this for my benefit. The repeal was my idea. I just didn't intend to go public with it so quickly. But now that the secret is out, input would be very much appreciated -- although this is not the text I planned on using. if you want to help with a repeal proposal, please telegram me.

I will definitely be revisiting this issue in the coming weeks. Thank you.

Caersws, as a nation, recognises that although it has voted in favour of the motion at hand it would be better redesigned with greater draftsmanship at a later date.

Caersws would vote in favour of any repeal based on a secondary tabling of a new Fossil Fuels resolution to be enacted in the aftermath providing the following were adhered to:


All "ceiling" levels would be set taking into account past activities of the country at resolution (allowing no "fixing" of the level by less honest nations)
Levels to be defined in terms of an index formula (Tonnes of fossil fuel used per unit of energy produced in the form of a ration with current renewable energy capacity over the designated time period). Again this allows for a single figure to represent a country's progress.
Countries should have a sliding scale for controls. Those with strong economies should be forced to comply faster than developing economies who may require time to implement the directive.
Extensions on time frame to be issued by a UN select committee free of bias on constrain and then only to a maximum of 2 years per extension.
Nations with below a certain level of emissions (To be determined from the index figures by the same UN select committee) to be excluded based on their low-pollution economies until or unless they breach the "Maximum Safe Level" set forth by committee.
Breaches of the protocols to be punished with UN sanctions on fossil fuels imports and exports until within acceptable limits.


Should a new policy come fairly close to these guidelines, Caersws restates, it would vote in favour of repeal and be in favour of the new proposal.

Caersws, as a nation, recognises that although it has voted in favour of the motion at hand it would be better redesigned with greater draftsmanship at a later date.

It would be easier to change your vote now.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to thanks the Nation of Omigodtheykilledkenny, Cluichstan and others who where active in the campaign against "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" and hope they will continue their action by a repeal

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

The people of Cluichstan wish that their friends in the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would read their telegrams.

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

The Community of Stealthmunchkania will endorse any and all attempts to repeal the mess currently going through, and also wonders what on Earth Caersws is thinking voting for a measure they agree needs reworking...

we are voting through this motion because as it stands the motion is one that we believe will have a positive effect and, as stated, would only vote for repeal based on the existence of a secondary proposal which has not yet materialised.

The nation of Caer Dunnottar will continue to speak against such evils as those that were proposed by Ateelatay. I will accept this repeal when it comes to the floor. You will also receive my acceptance in getting it there as well as those from the United Earth Oceans region.

For added support you may want to add that the resolution you are repealing is in direct violation of the N.S.U.N. rules.

Here is my idea for a replacement. When the original passes, the repeal passes, I ask someone else to submit it, as Cobdenia isn't famous for it's environmental beliefs!

Feel free to critise constructively

The Finite Resources Act

RECOGNISING that many of the fuel resources used by member nations (including but not limited to oil, coal and uranium) are finite

FURTHER RECOGNISING that the use of such fuels, especially fossil fuels, is damaging to the environmental status of nations

NOTING the gulf between economical and technological developement between member nations

EMPHASISING that no nation should be forced to curtail it's economical, technological, and population growth

DESIRING that the use of such fuels decline through the use of renewable or infinite fuel sources or the through increased efficiency of the use of finite fuel sources

FOUNDS the UNFFUC (United Nations Finite Fuel Use Commitee), whose role will be to classify nations economical and technological status for the purposes of this resolution, and to grant temporary compliance deferment for as long as they deem necessary for nations the effects of natural disasters, and other possibilities at their own discretion on a case by case basis or in the case of a nation having significantly poor economic and/or technological developement

MANDATES that nations of average economically and technologically development reduce finite resource use per annum using the formula Population Growth (in percentage) X y; where y is the percentage of minimum reduction in finite fuel use. For nations of advanced economic and technological developement y is to be at least 10%; for nations of average technological and average or high economic developement, y is to be set at 5%; for nations of low technological or economic developement, y is to be set 2%. The UNFFUC retains the to set different percentage levels for any individual nation where it is deemed necessary

URGES nations to excede these targets

URGES nations to investigate renewable energy sources

The nation of Gennosa agrees, and would be interested in lending support and/or providing advice on clauses and editing for a more legalistic tone. our nation was severely hurt by the resolution, and we wish for its repeal.

We believe that the repeal proposal should wait for a couple weeks, so that it can refined as much as possible and so it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction.

Please telegram Gennosa when the inititive is starting so that we can start a campaign talking one on one with other countries about the proposal.

The Incoporated States of WallCorp's pizza delivery industry has been badly hurt by this Resolution, so we proudly support your repeal.

:p :D

LAE, you are a bloody miracle worker

(Unfortunately, I didn't even have time to analyze 126....)

:p :D

LAE, you are a bloody miracle worker

(Unfortunately, I didn't even have time to analyze 126....)

We concur. This resolution is/will be a devastating blow to Jey's economy. We will undoubtedly support this repeal.

I will support a repeal readilly and even a new resolution if it was a sensible one unlike the one thats just passed.

Kirisubo's opositon was based on the totally impractical timescale and the amount of the total cut. We believe that fossil fuels need to be reduced but as alternitive energy technologies come to pass and produce greater outputs than they do at present.

we believe that technology will catch up without the UN needing to interfer. steady increases of alternative energy output will enable us to reduce fossil fuel usage gradually and before they run out.

this is a long term aim and will take a lot longer than 45 years to achieve.

I suggest a proposal should be based on a 10% cut over 20 years so that all countries will have a chance to comply with it and their current technology levels.

When solar,tidal and wind power were first developed they didn't generate much power and were prohibitably expensive. As the technology has improved and will continue to improve its now a reality for many nation states.

The Holy Empire of Southern Unagae would support a repeal of the original resolution, but would not support a replacement resolution aimed at the problem of finite fuel sources. The Empire is of the firm opinion that private business can handle the problem of declining supplies of oil, etc. Southern Unagae would consider supporting a resolution concerning the environmental effects of certain fuels.

----
Something else I am concerned about: Can the UN even regulate businesses? I think it can do so through nations' governments, by, for example, mandating a minimum wage in all member nations, but I fail to see how mandating a reduction in fossil fuel use is enforceable by the UN.

This repeals business is getting tiresome, the first resolution was repealed as it was scientifically flawed and over-optimistic. In addition, the writer agreed that he had made errors whilst writing it and felt it ought to be appealed. This is just a cynical attempt to micro-manage a solution. If you don't like the resolutions, then opt out of the U.N.

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

Long live green-energy Compadria!

I don't get it. You haven't explained why the one repeal is more justified than the other.

This repeal is based upon the fact that most nations blindly voted for this resolution without realizing that small nations would suffer disproportionately under its terms. This isn't a 2-percent annual reduction relative to a nation's size and population, but a flat 2-percent annual reduction, not taking population growth into account at all, and effectively forcing economically disasterous energy upheavals in growing and developing nations. I would consider this act every bit the folly that Promotion of Solar Panels was.

I do not see how attempting to repeal legislation is an "attempt to micro-manage a solution," let alone a "cyncial" one. An international organization forcing its members to cut back fossil-fuel emissions based on an arbitrary scale is what I would term "micromanagement."

And don't taunt UN members and tell them to leave simply because they oppose a resolution you favor. You know better than that. Such an argument might work on n00bs, but not on a growing coalition of thoughtful nations who recognize the true effects of errant legislation that the majority clearly did not.

The Community of Stealthmunchkania would be delighted to vote for this repeal at the earliest opportunity, and also for any resolution with the same aims as the recently-pased one, but which doesn't discriminate against smaller, poorer nations and which takes NS, rather than so-called 'real world', facts into account.

I've started a new topic called Fossil Fuel Replacement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448762), which has the above resolution (the one what I wrote) on it.
It's not concerned with the environmental implications of finite fuel use (e.g. global warming) but with the economic concerns (e.g. running out of oil), as I feel this way it is relevent to all nations in some form, as many nation/planets do not suffer from the problem of the environmental side

While the people of Cluichstan would support practically any repeal of the Fossile Fuel Reduction Act, we believe the proposal from our Cobdenian friends to be the best one we've seen thus far.

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

The UN has gone too far in order to regulate its nations. The UN is still a vital institution far curbing gross evils such as genocide or slavery, but regulation bussiness so thouroughly as to dictate how companys can run bussiness is absurd. In adddition to harming the power industry, the resolution will injure the plastics and medicine industry. As soon as the formalities of being inducted to the UN are finished, I will vote "Yes" for this repeal.

I agree but as i am no longer the UEO delegate I can not vote to pass this resolution. I will still speakout against FFRA as well as the fact that the moderators let it go through even thogh they knew it was in violation of numerous rules set by said moderators. I beleive no country should have to cut fossil fuel by 30%. I beleive the moderator who let FFRA even come to vote is a simple minded idiot that doesn't want to follow the rules that they set.

Kirisubo will support the Cobdenian delegates proposal if the repeal against the FFRA is successful if one point is cleared up.

what timescale are we talking about? a general one of X years or Y years set by this new committee?

There is no timescale as such. Each country will have to reduce their levels by a small amount every year, forever (basically), unless the UNFFUC deems a country to not be elligible for said reductions.

There is no timescale as such. Each country will have to reduce their levels by a small amount every year, forever (basically), unless the UNFFUC deems a country to not be elligible for said reductions.

in that case you have our support since it allows for countries to cut fossil fuel usage at their own pace but first we need a successful appeal.

well I guess a few of us are takeing our jobs at the UN seriously.