NationStates Jolt Archive


SUBMITTED: Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act"

Omigodtheykilledkenny
24-10-2005, 15:33
LINK FOR APPROVALS (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=fossil%20fuel)

Description: UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=-1/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 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 Resolution #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.

Approvals: 1 (Omigodtheykilledkenny)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 27 2005
The Black New World
24-10-2005, 17:07
Although The Black New World does not feel strongly either for or against this resolution we are aware that you have the support of some of our region mates.

You have our approval. Good luck with your campaign.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States
Love and esterel
24-10-2005, 18:02
Love and esterel is very concerned about environment, but we will always support developing nation wanting to take off their economy.

The "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" is well intentioned, but doesn’t care about developing Nations and may start significant economic recession in some of them , Love and esterel fully support the repeal.
Texan Hotrodders
24-10-2005, 21:21
I also support this repeal. Congratulations on a fine repeal text.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
Pallatium
24-10-2005, 21:41
EMPHASIZING that such legislation should be sensitive to economic factors and circumstances, especially where small and developing nations are concerned;


It does. This is not 2% based on a global value - it is 2% based on the nation in question. So my 2% will be different than your 2%.

Further more if developing nations now take the time to move to new sources, they will not be in the same mess developed nations are in now.


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


Debatable.


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;


This is not true, mathematically speaking. If I start with a rate of 100, I am required to cut 2 the first year, 4 the second year and 6 the third year (so that it drops by 2% each year). It makes no mention of the rate being increased or recalculating the rate if anything changes (this is your own claim). This means if by the third year, my rate is 2500, I am still only cutting 6, not 25.


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;


And the more developed nations just stand by and let this happen? This is addressing a global issue, and does not preclude the possiblity of global assistance. It is only if the more developed nations sit around on their collective asses that a disaster will occur.

Plus it's not true (see above)


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


From the way you have phrased everything above, severe depression would appear to be an almost unavoidable outcome. So the resolution will permit extensions based on what will happen.


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 UN grants the right" - it does NOT force sanctions, not require, demand or mandate them.


This is a good step to making sure the whole world moves forward at the same time, and making sure that larger, developed nations can not skip out on their responsibility to the planet(s). The developed nations are (statistically speaking) more likely to be in violation of this than the less developed ones, and repealing it would give them an excuse to go back to polluting and destroying the environment.


If the people who want this repealed are truly, soley concerned about the effects on developing nation, set up a UN committee/organization to assist them and help them through the troubling times. But if the excuse of developing nations is just a cover to let the bigger nations forgoe their responsibilities to the planet, and to the people of the world, then they should be ashamed of themselves.
Poly-Synthetics
24-10-2005, 22:05
I support this repeal. The massive support by those "more well off" nations makes it obvious that they are hiding something. Why do they want to shift from one energy source to another? Because they don't like other nations having an ace in thier hand. They want to be able to hold all the cards. If they had it thier way everyone would have to come to them for their energy needs or technological know-how.

So we allow this injustice to continue... soon they will control all the means of energy production and/or technology meanwhile small developing conutries are forced to fall in line for a small hand out from these "super powers" or face the brunt end of thier stick in the form of economic sanctions, trade embargos, or anything other hair-brained idea they wish to enforce on others because they don't do as they say.

I say if thier so called scientists are so correct about the fossil fuel supply being so limited and dwindling, then let it run out. The gradual reduction of the supply with raise the cost thus take care of itself - pressing each nation to develop alternative when they see feel fit!

Grand Poohbah of Poly-Synthetics,

Mayo Theetus
Pallatium
24-10-2005, 22:08
I support this repeal. The massive support by those "more well off" nations makes it obvious that they are hiding something. Why do they want to shift from one energy source to another? Because they don't like other nations having an ace in thier hand. They want to be able to hold all the cards. If they had it thier way everyone would have to come to them for their energy needs or technological know-how.

So we allow this injustice to continue... soon they will control all the means of energy production and/or technology meanwhile small developing conutries are forced to fall in line for a small hand out from these "super powers" or face the brunt end of thier stick in the form of economic sanctions, trade embargos, or anything other hair-brained idea they wish to enforce on others because they don't do as they say.

I say if thier so called scientists are so correct about the fossil fuel supply being so limited and dwindling, then let it run out. The gradual reduction of the supply with raise the cost thus take care of itself - pressing each nation to develop alternative when they see feel fit!

Grand Poohbah of Poly-Synthetics,

Mayo Theetus


Wow. I thought I had the monopoly on paranoia about resolutions and repeals, but this beats me hands down.

Have you ever considered that if the resolution is permitted to stand, everyone gets to develop new sources of energy, and the world does not die in a huge choke of smog and pollution?
Texan Hotrodders
24-10-2005, 22:24
Wow. I thought I had the monopoly on paranoia about resolutions and repeals, but this beats me hands down.

Have you ever considered that if the resolution is permitted to stand, everyone gets to develop new sources of energy, and the world does not die in a huge choke of smog and pollution?

Have you ever considered that it's been quite a while since concerns about catastrophic damage to the environment were voiced, but the world still ain't dead from pollution and looks to keep on going for a long time?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
Pallatium
24-10-2005, 22:27
Have you ever considered that it's been quite a while since concerns about catastrophic damage to the environment were voiced, but the world still ain't dead from pollution and looks to keep on going for a long time?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I had considered that, but by the same token that the fact it has been quite a while means, almost certainly, we are a lot closer to disaster than we were when the concerns were first voiced?
Ausserland
25-10-2005, 02:27
We have a question for Her Majesty, the First Triarch of Pallatium. We think that, if we can come to agreement on this point -- or perhaps agree to disagree -- it might help clarify debate on this proposal.

Would Her Majesty agree that, all else being equal, total power demands in a given nation (regardless of source) would vary to a significant degree with the nation's population? In other words, would a nation with 500 million citizens have a greater need for energy than one with 50 million citizens? We would include here energy needed for household use, industrial and commercial activity, transportation, etc.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Pallatium
25-10-2005, 09:45
We have a question for Her Majesty, the First Triarch of Pallatium. We think that, if we can come to agreement on this point -- or perhaps agree to disagree -- it might help clarify debate on this proposal.

Would Her Majesty agree that, all else being equal, total power demands in a given nation (regardless of source) would vary to a significant degree with the nation's population? In other words, would a nation with 500 million citizens have a greater need for energy than one with 50 million citizens? We would include here energy needed for household use, industrial and commercial activity, transportation, etc.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I am not convinced it would vary with population. A small, technically advanced nation (with 50m people) might use a lot more energy than a large, mostly arable nation (with 500m) people.

I would argue it is more related to the "level of advancement" of the technology of a nation - the more tech stuff people (tv, internet, large office buildings, huge railway systems etc), the more power they need, regardless of how many of them there are.

But - if you have to nations of comparable technology level, then yes - the larger nations will need more power. And almost certainly they will produce more energy to get this power, and more pollution in the process. (Keep in mind, I am not an expert at this - I am sure there are experts out there who are pointing and laughing, but this is the way I see it from life in Pallatium)
St Edmund
25-10-2005, 15:12
The government of St Edmund cannot actually endorse this resolution, as we don't hold a UN Delegacy, but do express our support for it. In our opinion the fact that the earlier resolution which this one is intended to repeal ignored the rate at which NS populations grow was a serious mistake, as we said when that measure was itself being debated...

(This applies even though we found a way in which to mitigate that earlier resolution's effects on our nation: As we actually obtain most of our electricity from 'ocean thermal' & hydroelectric sources, and run most of our land vehicles on ethanol, its primary effect locally would have been to cripple our aviation industry... So we set that industry up as a separate & fully independent nation in its own right (under the name of 'St Edmund Air'), with extraterritorial rights over our airfields, and as it's not a member of the UN it's unaffected by that resolution... ;-)
Omigodtheykilledkenny
25-10-2005, 16:09
I am not convinced it would vary with population. A small, technically advanced nation (with 50m people) might use a lot more energy than a large, mostly arable nation (with 500m) people.

I would argue it is more related to the "level of advancement" of the technology of a nation - the more tech stuff people (tv, internet, large office buildings, huge railway systems etc), the more power they need, regardless of how many of them there are.That was sort of the whole point of asserting that small and developing nations are hurt more by this. But as a general rule, larger nations require more power than smaller ones.

But - if you have to nations of comparable technology level, then yes - the larger nations will need more power. And almost certainly they will produce more energy to get this power, and more pollution in the process.Now, suppose these two nations were actually the same nation, at different points in time? One is Thessadoria in its infant stage, when it first joined the UN and had a population of just 10 million people; the other is Thessadoria 15 years later, in a more advanced stage, with many, many more people (and as you know NS nations grow very fast). The second nation would still be required to consume fossil fuels at a rate calculated when it had just 10 million people (and, possibly, when it was of a lower "level of advancement").

Now does this system make a lick of sense? Wouldn't it require that Thessadoria cut its consumption (at a relative rate) by much more than 2 percent, and wouldn't it severely damage her economy?

So we set that industry up as a separate & fully independent nation in its own right (under the name of 'St Edmund Air'), with extraterritorial rights over our airfields, and as it's not a member of the UN it's unaffected by that resolution.Heh-heh, the kid don't lie (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=st_edmund_air)! :p
Texan Hotrodders
25-10-2005, 16:19
I had considered that, but by the same token that the fact it has been quite a while means, almost certainly, we are a lot closer to disaster than we were when the concerns were first voiced?

There are no indications of this that I am aware of. Perhaps you could provide evidence of the increasing threat of disaster.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
Pallatium
25-10-2005, 17:50
That was sort of the whole point of asserting that small and developing nations are hurt more by this. But as a general rule, larger nations require more power than smaller ones.


Well - no. Cause developing nations are less likely to be using a lot of energy, and so are not required to cut as muchi in absolute terms.


Now, suppose these two nations were actually the same nation, at different points in time? One is Thessadoria in its infant stage, when it first joined the UN and had a population of just 10 million people; the other is Thessadoria 15 years later, in a more advanced stage, with many, many more people (and as you know NS nations grow very fast). The second nation would still be required to consume fossil fuels at a rate calculated when it had just 10 million people (and, possibly, when it was of a lower "level of advancement").

Now does this system make a lick of sense? Wouldn't it require that Thessadoria cut its consumption (at a relative rate) by much more than 2 percent, and wouldn't it severely damage her economy?


No. Because (for a dumb but obvious example) if each person uses 1 unit of energy, when the nation has 100 people (I know - I am scaling down) then it is using 100 units, and must cut 2 units (2%)
If - 15 years later - it has 10,000 people (using 1 unit) then it is using 10,000 units, but still only has to cut 2 units (which is now 0.02%). This is less. A lot less in fact.

Unless the three years are calculated yearly (so to speak), and then it never grows above 2% of the current value, so even if the nation is growing, the amount is not growing relatively, only absolutely. And to suggest that a nation that uses 100,000,000 units of energy should cut the same ABSOLUTE amount as a nation that uses 100 units is insane.
_Myopia_
25-10-2005, 18:00
I fully support this repeal. The resolution in question fails miserably to take into account the fact that many nations have already reduced their fossil fuel usage to the bare minimum, or are at least approaching it. Why should we be forced to slash our usage to 10% of current levels, when our current levels are fine for the time being (obviously, over the long term, we will need to cut use further once the stuff runs out entirely - but the technology doesn't yet exist to replace some uses, and if every nation got their consumption down to sensible levels like ours soon, the fossil fuel reserves would last a lot longer than current estimates suggest, giving us time to do proper R&D)? And why should some heavily polluting nations get to reduce to 10% of current levels when their current levels are well over 10 times too high?
_Myopia_
25-10-2005, 18:15
No. Because (for a dumb but obvious example) if each person uses 1 unit of energy, when the nation has 100 people (I know - I am scaling down) then it is using 100 units, and must cut 2 units (2%)
If - 15 years later - it has 10,000 people (using 1 unit) then it is using 10,000 units, but still only has to cut 2 units (which is now 0.02%). This is less. A lot less in fact.

The point is, even though population will rise to 10000 people, energy use will not be allowed to rise to 10000 units in the first place.

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.

So, we take our nation of 100 people using 100 units of energy when the resolution passes. In year 2, they might have 120 people, but they'd have to be using just 98 units. In year 3, 150 people have to live on 96 units, in year 4, 190 people live on 94 units, etc etc. And if they should happen to reduce use by 3% one year, they don't get a reprieve next year and only have to reduce by 1 % - the regulations don't take it into account, so they still have to reduce by another 2% next year.

The other problem I have with this resolution can be illustrated with this example I used when the resolution was up for vote.

There are certain purposes for which burning fossil fuels is unavoidable. For instance, we can't extract iron from its ores without burning coke from coal to reduce the ores. It's impractical, in the short to medium term, to attempt the total elimination of fossil fuel burning (remember, if usage is massively decreased soon, then it won't run out nearly as soon as current predictions say) so it's fairest to say that, in total, the world can get away (in terms of climate change and dwindling supplies) with using x amount each year, and then dividing this up between nations proportionally to population. Thus, if a nation is already using only the bare minimum of fossil fuels for certain essentials such as iron extraction, and is using less than the calculated acceptable amount according to its population, why should it have to slash usage by a further 90%?

It's not so much a matter of punishing polluting nations. My problem with the current proposal is that, if applied to reality, it would mean that people in countries which currently have high per capita consumption rates would be given the right to burn far more fossil fuels than people in nations which already (or still) have low per capita consumtion rates.

Let me illustrate what I mean with some real data (taken from the CIA world factbook). Let's say that in reality, we decided we needed to reduce oil consumption by 90% in 45 years (I don't have figures for burning specifically, but consumption figures will do as similar trends will most likely hold).

The world consumes 77,040,000 barrels of oil daily. With a population of 6,446,131,400, that's about 0.0120 barrels per person per day, or 4.37 barrels annually (I'm rounding these calculations to 3 significant figures before pasting them). If we were to be equitable, we should then say that the same target rate of 0.437 barrels per year per capita (90% reduction) should apply everywhere, in America, France, China and Ethiopia.

Instead what this proposal suggests is that we do it nation by nation. Canada, with daily national consumption of 2,200,000 barrels and a population of 32,805,041, would have a target rate of 2.45 barrels per capita per annum, while Afghanistan, with national consumption 3,500 barrels/day and population 29,928,987, would have a target rate of 0.00427 barrels per capita per annum.

Each Canadian is thus using 5.61 times as much as s/he would under a globally equitable system, and the Afghanistani ration is more than 100 times smaller than it would be under a globally equitable system.

And I've just noticed that that doesn't even take into account the fact that populations will grow, and so it's even harsher (but, since population growth doesn't vary between NationStates as far as I know, the proportions and inequalities are the same).
Yelda
25-10-2005, 18:32
We fully support this repeal effort and find the arguments against it perplexing.
Well - no. Cause developing nations are less likely to be using a lot of energy, and so are not required to cut as muchi in absolute terms.
To clarify the debate, how do you define "developing" in NS? Population? UN Category? Roleplay? I would tend to accept all of those. Small, newborn nations are "developing" unless the owner chooses to roleplay them otherwise. By the same token, an old, large nation can be roleplayed as "developing". Ecopoeia does this. Also, a large nation with a backwards economy which is beginning to industrialise could be "developing". Think RL China and India who use lots of energy. The Fossil Fuel Reduction Act would be harmful to the continued development of all those nation types. Thus, we support it's repeal.
Pallatium
25-10-2005, 19:51
Ok - I will accept the arguement about the static calculation (2% based on a set three year value), but the resolution does not preclude setting a rolling value.

So for years x,x,1,2,3,4,5 you use 100,100,100,120,140,160,180 you would get to increase the amount you use each year, just cutting it back further.

(slightly ooc - I can work out the exact values, but not right now cause my head hurts)

And in NS terms I don't know - I would define developing nations as those that chose to be so. But generally on the basis of technology and reliance on electricity and fossil fuels being at the medium, with no real need of that on the lower end and those who have passed it on the higher.
_Myopia_
26-10-2005, 11:29
Sorry, but I really don't understand how on Earth you can derive that interpretation from the resolution text. Have a look at it, especially what I've bolded:

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.

It is a ceiling consumption rate, i.e. one which you may not rise above, and the resolution requires a year on year decrease. I really don't get what system you think it implements. As far as i can see, your interpretation implies that, having started with a celing rate of 100 units, I can say "for year 5 I would have needed 4 billion units, so under the resolution I'll make a reduction and just use 3,999,999,998 units".
Pallatium
26-10-2005, 11:58
Sorry, but I really don't understand how on Earth you can derive that interpretation from the resolution text. Have a look at it, especially what I've bolded:



It is a ceiling consumption rate, i.e. one which you may not rise above, and the resolution requires a year on year decrease. I really don't get what system you think it implements. As far as i can see, your interpretation implies that, having started with a celing rate of 100 units, I can say "for year 5 I would have needed 4 billion units, so under the resolution I'll make a reduction and just use 3,999,999,998 units".

I figured the rate was recalcuated every year, so that by (say) year 50, you could only be using 90% of what you would have been using that year.

If that's not the case then yeah, I might have misunderstood the basis of the original resolution :}
Kapellen
26-10-2005, 23:56
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act intended to be some kind of replacement for the 'Solar Panels'-resolution? If so, we first had a resolution, which was repealed and replaced by another resolution, and now we want to repeal the replacement resolution?
I agree it's a good thing that bad resolutions can be repealed, but I'm afraid the UN is making a fool of itself if this continues for ever. It seems now we are doing a lot of work, but are getting nowhere...
There are no perfect resolutions, and we have to live with that. If you only want to vote for a perfect resolution, you will never vote for any resolution at all (except repeals) and it would be much easier to abandon the whole idea of a UN.
Kirisubo
27-10-2005, 00:12
the FFRA may have been intended as a replacement but the main reason that support built for a repeal was the short time scale to reduce 90% of a nations fossil fuels usage in just one generation. the maths expressed in the act don't match up with the available alternative energy production methods capacity and the lack of such technology available now.

also given that nations still need to reduce green house gases (another UNR) by 1% every year burning something else isn't an real option. This only leaves nuclear power as the main option for nations since solar, tidal, water and wind power are still developing technologies and at this point in time cannot pick up the slack.

i agree we need a replacement that is practical, reasonable and won't stall all the worlds economies.

assuming the repeal is sucessful i await with baited breath the ideas that nations come up with.
_Myopia_
27-10-2005, 00:19
I figured the rate was recalcuated every year, so that by (say) year 50, you could only be using 90% of what you would have been using that year.

If that's not the case then yeah, I might have misunderstood the basis of the original resolution :}

Yeah there that's it. It actually calls for you to be using in year 45 only 10% of what you had been using in yrs -2, -1 and 0 (i.e. the 3 yrs up until the res passed).

Kapellen, I'd rather the UN looked a little silly than allowed a resolution such as this to stand, which is grossly unjust, and disproportionately penalises nations which have already made great achievements in cutting fossil fuel use. Of course no resolution is perfect, but we can do better than this.