NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, thanks go to: Ausserland, Berkastan, Cluichstan, Gruenberg, Love and esterel, The Palentine and Texan Hotrodders.

Show no mercy:

UNDERSTANDING the need for effective legislation to promote clean and renewable energy alternatives and accelerate their development;

EMPHASIZING that such legislation should be sensitive to economic factors and circumstances, especially where small and developing nations are concerned;

ACKNOWLEDGING that #126 Fossil Fuel Reduction Act fails on this point;

RECOGNIZING that a mandate for a 2-percent annual reduction in fossil-fuel emissions based on a flat “ceiling consumption rate” does not take into account the rapid growth of nations over time, and thus requires nations to cut emissions by much more than 2 percent each year;

REGRETTING that small and developing nations will be forced to bear the brunt of this mandate and withstand the most damage to their national economies, as their populations grow at a relatively faster rate, and they may not yet be equipped with the resources necessary for such a dramatic shift in energy supply;

CONCERNED that the “time extensions” authorized under this act cover only catastrophic circumstances (specifically natural disasters, war and “severe economic depression”) and may not allow nations to apply for extensions based on less severe economic or political conditions, such as domestic political turmoil, recessions or significant economic strain; and

TROUBLED by this act’s authorization of trade sanctions on noncompliant nations, which would force some governments to take drastic measures -- including imposing hefty new taxes on businesses and private citizens, placing severe new restrictions on private enterprise, and even seizing businesses and shutting down their factories if nationwide emission rates are not decelerating fast enough -- in order to come into compliance on schedule and avoid punitive sanctions,

The United Nations hereby REPEALS Resolution #126 Fossil Fuel Reduction Act.Don't make me bump this. :mad:

the delegate from Kirisubo gives their support to this repeal.

we like what we see and i'll recommend this to my region.

The people of Cluichstan voted against the FFRA originally and now fully support its repeal.

We wholeheartedly support this repeal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As a delegate, Love and esterel will approve this repeal

Of course you have our support.

We will approve this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Do you have a copy of the original resolution? Because I can't find it either on the UN or in the list at the top of the forum of Passed resolutions.

Thanks :}


Description: 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.

Votes For: 9,136
Votes Against: 4,965


(I opened the UN page directly and messed around until it came up. Sorry)

(I will save any comments for the next post)

Do you have a copy of the original resolution? Because I can't find it either on the UN or in the list at the top of the forum of Passed resolutions.

Thanks :}



http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125

it's only the links on the previous "UN Resolutions Throughout History" pages which are not yet present

I was going to say something about "doing your homework so these things don't get passed in the first instance", but, aware that hindsight is 20/20, will refrain.

While it is somewhat disconcerting to see a raft of repeals of late, it at minimum shows a willingness to admit past mistakes and that is commendable. Bravo Omigodtheykilledkenny for assembling this coalition, and here's hoping that the resolution that will be submitted in the event of this successful repeal will take these points into mind.

OOC: On a side note, I had a great deal of fun working on the repeal of the Sex Education Act, which, although unsuccessful, nevertheless was an instructive trial run that will build bridges to the future. Yes, I know that's a cliche, but I'm a world leader.

While I nary have the stomach to work on repealing the Sex Ed Act again anytime soon, I will work with all like-minded UN members who still value national sovereignty over quasi-world government.

What do you mean, I'm getting off topic?

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

I voted for the FFRA.
after the act passed my economy was boosted somewhat
my nation's main export is uranium
it seems after the act was passed there was a increase of demand for uranium for some reason.

I doubt i will vote for the repeal unless economics conditions worldwide necessitate a change in my position

I voted for the FFRA.
after the act passed my economy was boosted somewhat
my nation's main export is uranium
it seems after the act was passed there was a increase of demand for uranium for some reason.


Can't imagine why...

The people of Demantlieu, also, have an energy source that is non-fossile. We have embraced nuclear energy, and rely on fossile fuels only for personal transport. Public transportation is powered by our many nuclear reactors. While this upsets some, it pleases others; neither of which we care about.

Demantlieu, then, will not approve such a repeal on the grounds that developing nations will need fossil fuels. If the world is to sustain life, we must choose new fuel sources, and if a small nation cannot support itself, then larger nations may be obligated to lend a helping hand, for the future of our species.

Demantlieu says NAY.

*snip*

Demantlieu, then, will not approve such a repeal on the grounds that developing nations will need fossil fuels.

*snip*

This is a perfect reason to support the repeal.

Demantlieu, then, will not approve such a repeal on the grounds that developing nations will need fossil fuels.Although we respect your opinion, and hope that you would change your position when and if this ever reaches the floor, we would note that you are not a delegate and cannot approve proposals.

This is a perfect reason to support the repeal.
Although we respect your opinion, and hope that you would change your position when and if this ever reaches the floor, we would note that you are not a delegate and cannot approve proposals.

I apologize, my day has already been made long in the "Diplomatic Immunity" debate.

My word choice was very poor, I confess. Demantlieu will not vote for a repeal on the grounds that developing nations need fossil fuels because Demantlieu, ourselves a developing nation, have shown no dependance on them for our everyday power demands. In other, larger nations, I am given to understand that much of their main-grid power production comes from a fossil source, an energy production method that yeilds at best 5% M-E effeciency. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is available to many nations who will allow weapons-prevention inspections, and has a 22% M-E effency. And granted that our citizens still require gasoline produced from crude oil, we feel confidant that we can reduce our emissions output and fossil fuel usage by a modest 2% annually, in accordance with NSUN Res. #126.

Additionally, we apologize for our relative naiveity in discussing a proposal not yet ready for general consumption.

And granted that our citizens still require gasoline produced from crude oil, we feel confidant that we can reduce our emissions output and fossil fuel usage by a modest 2% annually, in accordance with NSUN Res. #126.We're not so confident, because, as a small nation, your population will grow dramatically over the next 45 years, yet you will still be required to consume fossil fuels at a rate calculated when you were just 6 million people. So in, say, 10 years, when your population may have ballooned to 200 million, you will still be required to use fossil fuels at a rate fit for just 6 million people (reduced, of course, by 20 percent, in accordance with the FFRA). So in just ten years, your nation will have to replace your fossil-fuel energy market not by 2 percent annually, as the act seems to mandate, but by nearly 100 percent. In just a decade. This is the one serious flaw inherent in this resolution we feel merits its immediate repeal.

Additionally, we apologize for our relative naiveity in discussing a proposal not yet ready for general consumption.OOC: I thought by "approve" you meant you would not approve this resolution for vote, which you cannot do. But you are free to discuss whatever the hell you want on this forum.

If only real-world misunderstandings could be cleared up so quickly and easily!

Some concerns:

NSUN Res. 71, "Sustainable Energy Sources" lists a target INCREASE in world fossil fuel usage by 2% over the next five years. We can only assume that they meant a target Decrease, but that wording alone merits a repeal.

On another note, this may be our naivity blooming strong again, but our staff were unable to find any NSUN Res. #126. Indeed, the most recent NSUN Resolution, excepting the motion currently at vote, is 125. Our research staff assumed then that you were referencing NSUN Res #71, whose poor wording mandates a thorough evaluation.

However, for the purpose of academic debate, our economists have suggested that it would be possible, both economically and technologically, to reduce Demantlien fossil fuel usage by 2% per annum. Our understanding of the wording, however, was that each year a benchmark would be taken of worldwide fossil fuel usage. When next years benchmark was taken, it should ideally be 2% less than the previous years benchmark, not that each year a nation would be required to use 2% less than it's initial evaluation usage. Such a plan would be insane, and no reasoning economist not fearing for his life would approve such a measure.

On another note, this may be our naivity blooming strong again, but our staff were unable to find any NSUN Res. #126.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125

Indeed - our staff will be having a performance review this week to determine how much time they spend on this ... AIM of theirs instead of working.

My browser has been having a lot of difficulty with the NS pages and the NS forum site, so this is only slightly unexpected

I will be retiring for the evening, but will peruse the original resolution, and will recomend a new decision to my government. Any concerns about the repeal after that will be voiced tomorrow, after Morning Recess.

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, NSUN

... not that each year a nation would be required to use 2% less than it's initial evaluation usage. Such a plan would be insane, and no reasoning economist not fearing for his life would approve such a measure.Unfortunately, this act does precisely that: not an annual benchmark, but a single benchmark, calculated in each nation at the start of this mandate, and requiring nations to cut 2 percent off the top annually till they are consuming only 10 percent of the original total. So, assuming that the thousands of governments that did approve this had their economists review it, this was approved by thousands of economists. Whether they were also "reasoning" or "fearing for their lives" is another matter entirely.

Good morning, everyone, good morning.

I have read the full text of NSUN Res. #126, and can only say that it is insane. Such a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel usage, worldwide, over such a relatively short period of time is not possible. While we applaud such gusto and determination to wean the world off of dangerous and limited fossil fuels, Demantlieu cannot see any good from crashing the world economy in the process. Should this repeal come to the attention of the general assembly, rest assured that the Senate has given me instruction to vote against lofty idealism and for this repeal.

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, NSUN

As Ambassador to the small island nation of New Poitiers, having only recently joined the UN, and still developing as a nation, I feel that the repeal is necessary, as we currently have no renewable energy sources that we can depend on, and so in the future, until our nation is fully developed, require the usage of fossil fuels, until other sources can be fully relied upon.

The people of Cluichstan warmly welcome our friends from New Poitiers to the UN and note that the reason they have cited for supporting the repeal of this resolution was the primary reason that the people of Cluichstan voted against the enactment of the resolution in the first place.

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

Don't make me bump this. :mad:You were warned.

The people of Cluichstan would like to see this repeal proposal submitted as is and will fully support it coming to the floor for a vote.

We're not so confident, because, as a small nation, your population will grow dramatically over the next 45 years, yet you will still be required to consume fossil fuels at a rate calculated when you were just 6 million people.
Are other nations not able to control their population growth for some reason? Ecopoeia has managed over the past two decades to bring the rate of growth under control and at a level that is sustainable and ecologically sound. It's one of our finer achievements, achieved under extremely adverse conditions.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We congratulate our colleagues from Ecopoeia on their admirable achievement. We note, however, that control of ones population to the point of stasis, while beneficial for the world at large, does not imply zero fossil fuel usage. A population of 10 million will deplete world fossil fuel usage just as thoroughly and permanently as a population of 10 billion - the only difference is the time scale.
Additionally, while Ecopoeia may have it's population under control, many other nations do not - and it is the policy of the UN to represent the interests of _all_ nations, not just a select few. I believe I mentioned earlier that we of Demantlieu have almost no fossil fuel usage beyond automobiles - yet, we still support the repeal of this resolution because of it's stringent terms and totalitarian schedule of punishment. Non-renewable energy use needs to be reduced in the world at large, and the only way to do that with any measure of fairness to the many diverse nations represented here is with a slow, relatively linear redution - not a plunge of exponential proportions.

Perhaps a redrafting of the FFRA is in order, citing something more rapid, like a five percent per annum decrease, but using a more linear base - a benchmark taken every year, as discussed earlier. But such a redrafting would mandate it's repeal - and I think any careful reading of the FFRA will alarm most economists and terrify the rest.

Bump Out Of Nowhere!!

The people of Cluichstan would like to see this proposal submitted.

The people of Cluichstan would like to see this proposal submitted.

same for the People of Love and esterel

Oh for goodness sake!

We just approved this resolution by a majority of 65% to 35%. It was widely endorsed as being sensible, applicable, concise and realistic. Now we're trying to repeal. Honestly, I despair sometimes.

Maybe we should repeal it (again), yet can't we wait a few months before doing so. It makes us look less schizophrenic and a little more pensive in our judgments. Please.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to inflict serious damage to an inanimate object.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Maybe we should repeal it (again), yet can't we wait a few months before doing so. It makes us look less schizophrenic and a little more pensive in our judgments. Please.

Yes, let's wait for a while and let this resolution inflict its damage on our economies in the meantime.

Erm, did you bother reading the argument for repeal before sounding off? Because if you continue to regard Resolution #126 as "sensible, applicable, concise and realistic," you clearly did not.

Maybe we should repeal it (again), yet can't we wait a few months before doing so. It makes us look less schizophrenic and a little more pensive in our judgments.So, in essence, you favor the repeal, even though you oppose it? Thanks for your input, Sen. Kerry. :D

Erm, did you bother reading the argument for repeal before sounding off? Because if you continue to regard Resolution #126 as "sensible, applicable, concise and realistic," you clearly did not.

So, in essence, you favor the repeal, even though you oppose it? Thanks for your input, Sen. Kerry. :D

"I did not flip flop on that issue. Okay, so maybe I did."

I voted against the Resolution before I voted for it!:D