NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #126 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125)
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_nation/nation=omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-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.This act will hit the floor in a matter of hours. There’s no stopping it. Our scientists are diligently working ’round the clock in an attempt to mitigate the impending disaster that several telegrammers have dutifully informed me this repeal will surely breed. But I have some good news ....

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. (You could see that one coming from a mile away, couldn't you?)

Several newbish members have told me they are confused about what exactly a “yes” or “no” vote on a repeal means. For example, does “no” mean “no” on the original resolution, or “no” on repealing it? The answer’s very simple: a “no” vote means that you don’t not to not want to not retain the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act.

Commit that one to memory. I myself use a mnemonic device: Dilbert’s Nose Nabbed Wayne Newman Right in Front of the Frankfurter Resistance Alliance.

Also keep in mind that this is intended to be the official thread for the repeal vote. Anyone caught posting in any of the estimated 1,153 old threads for this resolution and its repeal will be taken out and shot.

All righty, then ... do your worst. :p

I can dig it.

We fully support this repeal, and are willing to aid in any way. The Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs categorically denies reports that we burn dolphins for fuels.

The people of Cluichstan also support this repeal.

And we have pictures of Gruenbergers shovelling dolphins into furnaces.

I fully support this repeal.

Having said that, I refuse to vote in the poll here on the forum until I get assurances from the mods that they won't go changing the poll options after I vote and eliminate the option I chose like Euroslavia did that one time.and yes I do realize that my request will probably not be heeded.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Now that it is a proper repeal for debate in the UN, Tzorsland will vote against the repeal. Our reasons for voting against the repeal is simple. We feel that once a resolution has been passed by the UN only a very serious reason should exist to repeal it. Since I cannot see any recent developments which would suddenly indicate the universe as we know it has changed, or that suddenly intelligence unknown to the deligates has fallen like special effects from above, I cannot see how people can one day vote for a resolution, and the next vote to repeal it.

I remind my deligates that no UN resolution can be fully repealed, the application of a resolution is always greater than the application of the repeal of a resolution. If people insist that damage has been done, it has already been done. Last time I checked, I still have people in my nation, so obviously the damage hasn't been terminal.

More over, I only fear (as was the case last time) that the repeal of this resolution would only leave room for the creation and passage of yet another resolution. Two feet backwards, one foot forward. Two feet backwards, one foot forward. (Notice a trend here?) For these reasons I feel I must vote Nay. Never the less, I congratulate the proposer for a successful passage of this repeal, because I also realize that the deligates always vote yes, on the mistaken impression that the resolution is actually about "who wants dessert?"

[OOC: sublime intro, Kenny]

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;
This third paragraph doesn't inevitably follow on from the first two; we remain unpersuaded that the resolution in question penalises developing nations.

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;
I see no evidence of this 'rapid growth of nations over time'. [OOC: Ecopoeia pays no attention to the in-game population stat, on account of it being wholly unrealistic in a 'standard Earth' scenario, if you see what I mean.]

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;
I don't think this blanket statemtn necessarily holds true, though there is certainly a germ of truth in that birth rates do tend to be higher in poorer countries.

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
This is indeed of some concern, though time extensions based on qweaker criteria may have rendered the resolution toothless.

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,
This does not trouble me.

Ecopoeia, though not fully satisfied with the original resolution, will not support a repeal. Should a viable replacement be put forward, we will almost certainly alter our stance.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I see no evidence of this 'rapid growth of nations over time'. [OOC: Ecopoeia pays no attention to the in-game population stat, on account of it being wholly unrealistic in a 'standard Earth' scenario, if you see what I mean.]


But we aren't in "a 'standard Earth' scenario", we're in NS...

But we aren't in "a 'standard Earth' scenario", we're in NS...

If you're going to use that argument, we have no way of checking our fossil fuel emissions. NS RP is free-form; people are free to recognise themselves and others as being part of an Earth, a moon, on Mars, or whatever. We are in NS and Ecopoeia is in a standard Earth scenario. There is no conflict.

Now that it is a proper repeal for debate in the UN, Tzorsland will vote against the repeal. ... I cannot see how people can one day vote for a resolution, and the next vote to repeal it. ... I also realize that the deligates always vote yes, on the mistaken impression that the resolution is actually about "who wants dessert?"Ah, I see you also voted against the FFRA itself on the same grounds (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9743872#post9743872), just as you opposed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9687941#post9687941) the repeal of Promotion of Solar Panels for the very same reason. Am I to assume that you oppose everything, just because the majority usually votes yes?

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your own opinion. Thanks for your input.

[OOC: For God's sake, learn how to spell "delegate." The word is right there, on your nation page.]

But we aren't in "a 'standard Earth' scenario", we're in NS...
[OOC: Gruenberg is absolutely right. I should clarify - Ecopoeia is located on an 'alternative' Earth, where there are socialist-dominated continents named Aperin and Alcaera, Celdonian is the equivalent of English and pseudo-anarchies seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. Ecopoeia interacts with nations that don't shatter this reality (quite easy, since the globe isn't extensively mapped even in the two named continents), though the delegates to the UN are privy to the much wider NS multiverse. They just get their memories 'cleaned' whenever they leave the halls of the UN.

At least, that's how I look at it. Back on the original point, I see no reason to accept having to house four billion people on an archipelago that's about the same size as Japan. Nor do I see any reason to accept that being an old, established nation makes Ecopoeia a developed one.

Fourteen million of us, living in thankfully-not-too-abject poverty. Fancy a tourist visa?]

Ausserland fully supports repeal of this well-intentioned but badly flawed resolution. We have cast our vote in favor of the repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Now that it is a proper repeal for debate in the UN, Tzorsland will vote against the repeal. Our reasons for voting against the repeal is simple. We feel that once a resolution has been passed by the UN only a very serious reason should exist to repeal it. Since I cannot see any recent developments which would suddenly indicate the universe as we know it has changed, or that suddenly intelligence unknown to the deligates has fallen like special effects from above, I cannot see how people can one day vote for a resolution, and the next vote to repeal it.


If we understand the honorable delegate from Tzorsland correctly, he sees something wrong with attempting to correct a mistake. We cannot agree.

No recent developments have occurred to indicate repeal of this resolution. The resolution was badly flawed in the first place. And no intelligence has fallen from above. The central problem with the resolution was clearly pointed out in the original debate (although rather belatedly). Unfortunately, it did not sway enough votes to prevent the measure from passing. The repeal is an attempt to again put forth the argument, hopefully, this time, in a manner that will catch the attention and affect the opinion of the members.

We cannot accept the notion that, once a mistake has been made, we should simply sit on our hands and accept it. We believe that would be a violation of our responsibility to properly represent our nation. And, for the honorable representative's information, Ausserland voted against the original resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: Bottom line, we hate the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, so.....

IC: The people of Jey unanimously support this Repeal.

I fully support this repeal.

Having said that, I refuse to vote in the poll here on the forum until I get assurances from the mods that they won't go changing the poll options after I vote and eliminate the option I chose like Euroslavia did that one time.and yes I do realize that my request will probably not be heeded.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You can always do what I did and click the option of invading Chechnya just for humor value. ;)

I've requested stickydom etc., and have raised Flibbleites's concerns here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451849).

The ecologically-minded citizens of Strontiumas oppose this repeal with every fibre of being. International measures to protect the environment are few and far between, and repealing one of the most important will only bring more trouble.

Also we have a burgeoning solar panel industry...

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #126
Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed By: Ateelatay

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
Implemented: Sat Oct 8 2005

This is what the repeal is aimed at, for reference purposes.

For Flibble: The thread has been sticked and the poll is to be left as is. The Mods hath spoken. :D

For Strontiumas: International environmental measures?! "Few and far between"?! HA! ... Ha! Ha! ... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[collapses to the floor in hysterical laughter]

The NSUN's strife to protect the environment is insatiable, sometimes recklessly so. Observe (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Passed_UN_Resolutions#2002_Fourth_Quarter). (All them "green" resolutions? They're the environmental ones.) This is just one of the very worst, which we have the opportunity to correct now.

The people of Cobaria and its colonies fully support this repeal. The fossil fuel reduction act is an unrealistic and highly flawed resolution that needs to be repealed.

Also, we're almost unanimous here about supporting it, yet the resolution itself is losing. If you plan on voting against we would appreciate hearing your reasons!

as one of the delegates who fought this tooth and nail first time round I fully support this repeal.

therefore i don't need to repeat the same arguements over again.

We cannot accept the notion that, once a mistake has been made, we should simply sit on our hands and accept it. We believe that would be a violation of our responsibility to properly represent our nation. And, for the honorable representative's information, Ausserland voted against the original resolution.Ausserland's Minister for Foreign Affairs speaks truly, and with conscience. Should a mistake be made, it is our responsibility to do the right thing and correct it. Whereas some may believe that once an act has passed, it should be permanent and we must not "take two steps backward for every one forward," humanity is not infallible and mistakes of judgement do occur.

The old adage goes:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
While good and evil are out of place in this case, the lesson is the same.

New Fluffland supports this repeal. Those who do not obviously care only for their own already established nations, and not the welfare of lesser, younger nations, nor how the original act affects them.

This is just one of the very worst, which we have the opportunity to correct now.
Uh-huh. I'd be interested in seeing the replacement proposal you have in mind. If you don't, which I highly suspect, why should you say we are repealing it in order to correct it? This resolution that you are trying to repeal, I will admit has several mathmatical and legal loopholes. However, at least it is something. Personally, I enjoy something compared to nothing. Post your intended replacement proposal, and I will gladly vote for instead of against this repeal.

SqR

You enjoy something compared to nothing. I would think that's what your accountants will be saying in a few years.

Legislation is not good by default. Only effective legislation is of any consequence; given your admittance than this in no way constitutes that, why not seek to remove it? It is an unnecessary and damaging encumberance to the health of the UN to keep poor legislation on the books for the hell of it.

The English Union believes that the original proposal should be repealed and and another delivered which would take into account developing nations.

Given your admittance than this in no way constitutes that, why not seek to remove it?
When I see a replacement proposal, I will seek to remove the old one. In my opinion, the old proposal does more good than harm.

It destroys your economy. But it saves a few trees. So I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

Anyway, I'll talk to the delegate about a replacement, although that was never really his objective. We should remove harmful legislation regardless of what comes next.

Fossil fuel reduction act?
I see... so now that the richer nations run by Mr. Charley got theirs through using fossil fuels, they want to prevent a brother from doing the same. Just another conspiracy by the Man to keep us down.

I can tell you exactly where to put your solar panels, although the proud and talented nubian scientists of Shaftistheman assure me that your panels won't see much daylight.


Can you dig it?

FTL,MF!

Well, I don't think you are wondering about my position, so on to the criticism!

Yes, in the short term FFRA will hurt economies and make it harder for developing nations to use fossil fuel to develop, but hurting economies in favor of helping the environment is kind of spelled out in the resolution type, so that part doesn't seem a valid point to me. As to the nations looking to develop further by using fossil fuels, this will save them in the long run from making the mistake that more developed nations did of becoming almost completely reliant on cheap fossil fuels. So yes, FFRA does take into account developing nations; it just takes a longer view.

What would any who support this repeal like to see instead? Encouraging developing nations to continue to develop using fossil fuels and become another huge contributor to environmental destruction caused by using fossil fuels?

The repeal also claims that FFRA doesn't take into account the rapid population growth that nations, especially less developed ones, experience. I would counter by saying that this is not a flaw with the proposal itself, but with nations' inability to control their populations. Endless population growth is not sustainable to any degree, eventually there are more people (or sentient beings if you prefer) than can be accommodated by available resources, whatever they be. The Nation of Ateelatay takes a similar view of the NS population marker as Ecopoena; steady, endless population growth is unrealistic by any stretch of the imagination.

There are calls for FFRA to be replaced by more "sensible" legislation. I can't wait to see what toothless wonder is in store for this :rolleyes: . Will a reduction in fossil fuel use be STONGLY URGED, or just SUGGESTED?

Based on the discussion of FFRA, I seriously doubt that the author of this repeal will aver be the author of its replacement, or any effective environmental proposal for that matter and so, can only interpret his/her call for a replacement to be nothing more than meaningless diplomatic posturing in order to appear sympathetic to the spirit of FFRA.

I was also wondering what, vote wise, warranted this repeal. It's not as though FFRA passed by a slim margin or that there was a last minute rally against it, so was its overwhelming passage an inadequate representation of the will of the UN?

The ecologically-minded citizens of Strontiumas oppose this repeal with every fibre of being. International measures to protect the environment are few and far between, and repealing one of the most important will only bring more trouble.

Also we have a burgeoning solar panel industry...


At least yer Honest in your fine print. I respect that Laddie!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I was also wondering what, vote wise, warranted this repeal. It's not as though FFRA passed by a slim margin or that there was a last minute rally against it, so was its overwhelming passage an inadequate representation of the will of the UN?
No, it's the usual story: a bunch of crypto-fascist governments got pissy at the democratic decision, and decided to do everything in their power to overturn it.

I am confident that the majority of states within NSUN will see through their narrow-minded attempt to blacken our skies once again for the sake of big business.,

After careful consideration, soul searching(and the consumption of much "snakebite remedy") I am here to cast my lot for the repeal. When the proposal first came out I was under the missapprihention that it would only cut Fossil Feuls by 10%, not 90%(purely economic suicide for the sake of feeling good. Kool Aid(TM) anybody?). In NS I see no evidence of a crisis with Fossil Fuels, or enviromental catastrophe. I also see no alternative fuel source. Most of you green weenies hate nukes almost as much as you hate gas, oil,and coal. With more nuclear plants in the RL, we wouldn't have had such proplems with power generation years ago in Cali, and other places. So what are we supposed to do.? Become technology hating Luddites, and burn peat and cow chips for cooking and warmth? Trust the market my friends. When the Supply of these feuls run short, things will change. The capitalist market can be a cruel mistress at times and a great leveler.(I guess thats why I love her so) My nation is researching cold fusion and superconductors as alternative feul sources(of course that will be a by product of the real reason for research{weapon development}). So until some better alternative comes along I shal side with the repealers.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,
UN Ambassador
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

I support the principle of the original FFRA but not the wording. My main criticism is with the calculation of the reductions, since they make no room for population growth [either NS or Real World growth]. Also, I think developing nations need greater support in finding alternative power sources.

I am voting for this repeal for the same reason I voted against the original proposal.

No, it's the usual story: a bunch of crypto-fascist governments got pissy at the democratic decision, and decided to do everything in their power to overturn it.

I am confident that the majority of states within NSUN will see through their narrow-minded attempt to blacken our skies once again for the sake of big business.,

Big Business, Lad is what supplies your government with taxes so you can give it all away, to the proles.:D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

And its not crypto-fascist, its right wing, pro business capitalistic conservatives! Get it right or get a scorecard!:p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

I voted "FOSSIL FUELS??! AGAIN??!" on the poll. Sorry but I've greeted the repeal the same way I greeted the resolution when it was up for vote, with a huge yawn. I'm just sick of the whole fossile fuel saga.

The fact I know little about the subject, and barely understand the nitty gritty of the original resolution or the repeal doesn't help either.

Sorry Kenny even though you are another UNOGer, I'm abstaining for now. May change my mind later on after more people have contributed to this debate but for now, I just couldn't be bothered bothering :).

I see no alternative fuel source.
Um.... care to take that back? Or would you like some suggestions.
Trust the market my friends. When the Supply of these feuls run short, things will change.
Yeah, that's kind of like saying we'll use slaves until they're all dead. Or... when we've run out of soldiers to kill, we can stop making bullets :sniper: and make ploughs instead. Why does it always have to be an impending crisis that forces something to happen. Why can't we look a little to the future and realize that it would be easier to change now, while we have a definite supply of resources to aid us in change? While some hide behind the argument that this is an economic killer, and the people of the nation will suffer, keep in mind that revolution rarely comes without sacrifice of life, liberty, and lots of money.:rolleyes: So when do you want to change?

SqR

P.S. Waterana, maybe these are some reasons to vote against.;)

*snip*Please don't question my motives; I don't recall ever questioning yours. I do recall, however, strongly questioning the wisdom of your proposal, and continue to do so. No, I hadn't a specific proposal in mind; my preference for any replacement would be that it be crafted in a truly cooperative, thoughtful process that is not concerned with just rushing it to the floor on the whim -- as in the case of your proposal.

My concerns with the FFRA are not so much the "loopholes" you claim it opens, but the opportunities it closes. Your proposal is lopsided; it is not so much concerned with supporting initiatives to accelerate the development of clean, renewable alternative energy sources so much as it is with penalizing those nations who depend strongly on fossil fuels for their energy supply. The mandate of a single flat consumption rate for each nation, no matter how large or of whatever energy regime, hurts the economies not only of small and developing nations, but also of nations which have already made a positive effort to cut back on their fossil fuel consumption. But of course the FFRA was always about the end, never mind the means. Worldwide energy shortage? Economoic disaster? Who cares? At least we're getting rid of evil fossil fuels.

And yes, despite your claims to the contrary, I will support a strong, balanced replacement, so long as it is (unlike the FFRA) reasonable and sensitive to economic factors. I do support environmental legislation, but only good legislation, like UNCoESB. An effective replacement for this legislation may include credits awarded to nations who have already made great strides toward reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, develop clean alternatives, or are not all that dependent on fossil fuels to begin with. Such credits can be sold to smaller nations which depend on fossil fuels for their development, provided that these nations make honest, good-faith efforts to pursue clean alternative energy sources and slow the growth of fossil-fuel-based energy development and the output of greenhouse gases. And no encouragement of nations simply to go nuclear, either; for God's sake, that particular clause of the FFRA only insures global instability.

Looky there; only a few minutes of brainstorming and I have already come up with the framework for an effective plan to reduce the world's (at least the UN part of it) dependence on fossil fuels and encourage development of alternatives, without crippling developing economies! I wish such thought had gone into the drafting of the FFRA.

You cite the popularity of your proposal and the wide margin by which it passed. I would humbly submit that it only passed by such a wide margin because many nations didn't bother to think through the ramifications or consequences, and many were only concerned with putting something, anything through, no matter how flawed, to make up for the orgy of masochism that was the Solar Panels resolution (and by the looks of this thread, some nations are still of that mindset). Now that members do have the opportunity to rethink this measure, the margin to sustain it seems to have narrowed considerably. And that encourages me. :)

Um.... care to take that back? Or would you like some suggestions.

Yeah, that's kind of like saying we'll use slaves until they're all dead. Or... when we've run out of soldiers to kill, we can stop making bullets :sniper: and make ploughs instead. Why does it always have to be an impending crisis that forces something to happen. Why can't we look a little to the future and realize that it would be easier to change now, while we have a definite supply of resources to aid us in change? While some hide behind the argument that this is an economic killer, and the people of the nation will suffer, keep in mind that revolution rarely comes without sacrifice of life, liberty, and lots of money.:rolleyes: So when do you want to change?

SqR

P.S. Waterana, maybe these are some reasons to vote against.;)


Show me where in Sam Hill there is a ecological crisis, or shortage of FF in NS. I got news for ya mate, I can't find nary a one. Funny too how the amount of nations keep growing, yet all the peoples seem to have plenty of food. And its exremely funny that some believe that a minority of the NS community(THe UN members) will make a difference in global catastrophy by ending FF usage! Y'all might as well try to create a new ocean by spitting in one area and hoping for the best. Cutting back our consumption will do nothing while the rest of the world, unfettered by UN regs continues at their rate of usage. How are y'all planning to stop them, Hmm?

You can always do what I did and click the option of invading Chechnya just for humor value. ;)
Actually I planned on voting for that one, I just wanted to make sure that my choice would stick around.

As the regional Delegate for True Evil, I would like to just say, I vote against repealing the Fossil Fuel Act. We do not care that poorer nations and inept nations will find it difficult to meet required quotas. That's there problem. I also hope that it's expensive and forces poorer nations to raise taes, and take more anti-business decisions to raise more funds to pay for having to meet the standards on time.

We do not care that poorer nations and inept nations will find it difficult to meet required quotas. That's there [sic] problem. I also hope that it's expensive and forces poorer nations to raise taes [sic], and take more anti-business decisions to raise more funds to pay for having to meet the standards on time.That's all well and good; with a foundering currency, a GDP smaller than my Commerce budget, and an unemployment rate of 23.84%, there ain't much further a "poorer nation" like yours (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=child+care+workers) could sink.

Please don't question my motives; I don't recall ever questioning yours. I do recall, however, strongly questioning the wisdom of your proposal, and continue to do so. No, I hadn't a specific proposal in mind; my preference for any replacement would be that it be crafted in a truly cooperative, thoughtful process that is not concerned with just rushing it to the floor on the whim -- as in the case of your proposal.

My concerns with the FFRA are not so much the "loopholes" you claim it opens, but the opportunities it closes. Your proposal is lopsided; it is not so much concerned with supporting initiatives to accelerate the development of clean, renewable alternative energy sources so much as it is with penalizing those nations who depend strongly on fossil fuels for their energy supply. The mandate of a single flat consumption rate for each nation, no matter how large or of whatever energy regime, hurts the economies not only of small and developing nations, but also of nations which have already made a positive effort to cut back on their fossil fuel consumption. But of course the FFRA was always about the end, never mind the means. Worldwide energy shortage? Economoic disaster? Who cares? At least we're getting rid of evil fossil fuels.

And yes, despite your claims to the contrary, I will support a strong, balanced replacement, so long as it is (unlike the FFRA) reasonable and sensitive to economic factors. I do support environmental legislation, but only good legislation, like UNCoESB. An effective replacement for this legislation may include credits awarded to nations who have already made great strides toward reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, develop clean alternatives, or are not all that dependent on fossil fuels to begin with. Such credits can be sold to smaller nations which depend on fossil fuels for their development, provided that these nations make honest, good-faith efforts to pursue clean alternative energy sources and slow the growth of fossil-fuel-based energy development and the output of greenhouse gases. And no encouragement of nations simply to go nuclear, either; for God's sake, that particular clause of the FFRA only insures global instability.

Looky there; only a few minutes of brainstorming and I have already come up with the framework for an effective plan to reduce the world's (at least the UN part of it) dependence on fossil fuels and encourage development of alternatives, without crippling developing economies! I wish such thought had gone into the drafting of the FFRA.

You cite the popularity of your proposal and the wide margin by which it passed. I would humbly submit that it only passed by such a wide margin because many nations didn't bother to think through the ramifications or consequences, and many were only concerned with putting something, anything through, no matter how flawed, to make up for the orgy of masochism that was the Solar Panels resolution (and by the looks of this thread, some nations are still of that mindset). Now that members do have the opportunity to rethink this measure, the margin to sustain it seems to have narrowed considerably. And that encourages me. :)


tl;dr

tl;dr
Then why did you quote it?

OOC:I know NSUN is not similar to real world but I try to treat my decisions based on Real world actions and what I feel is best from a real world point. It's kind of hard to have any resolution that makes sense if we're not all on at least a simialr plane of existance here. basing it on that I don't think the resolution is that unreasonable and have to go agaisnt this prposal to strike it down.

The republic has decided to oppose this repeal for the benefit of the environment. So what if it costs - the cost will be much higher if er do nothing, and will be paid by the poor nation. Without force, no-one cares for the environment until it's too late.

It's my clean air we're talking about, after all. Without this resolution there's little point in my nation trying to implement policies to protect the environment, if large economies continue to pollute. They inevitably pollute my nation too, and this needs to be stopped.

Vote AGAINST the repeal!

the cost will be much higher if er do nothing, and will be paid by the poor nation. Without force,

Most air pollution so far has been produced and is produced by developed Nations

It's not to developing nations to bear the burden of developed Nations pollution, as "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" does.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to vote FOR the repeal, which will free developing Nations from this unacceptable diktat.

No, it's the usual story: a bunch of crypto-fascist governments got pissy at the democratic decision, and decided to do everything in their power to overturn it.

I am confident that the majority of states within NSUN will see through their narrow-minded attempt to blacken our skies once again for the sake of big business.,[emphasis added]

OOC:Sorry, but I disagree. The "democratic decision" wasn't at all representative and democratic for my "crypto-fascist" population who have to live every day with the results of this resolution. They wanted an energy plan that dealt with their unique consumption: something practical and sensible. They wanted something more representative and more reasonable, and it's why, IC, I'm voting For.

and for this: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,
IC:Powerhungry Chipmunks Office of Foreign Relations has officially announced that it is seeking, at tax abatement for multiple years, new partnerships with trade-sanctioned nations. Almost any industry or trade lost to trade sanctioning nations Powerhungry Chipmunks is willing to open in place of a blockage.

The Powerhungry Chipmunks Office of Foreign Relations also announces a recently passed moratorium on these authorized trade sanctions against nations' energy production decisions, citing the drasticness of the scale upon which they are authorized.

The republic has decided to oppose this repeal for the benefit of the environment. So what if it costs - the cost will be much higher if er do nothing, and will be paid by the poor nation. Without force, no-one cares for the environment until it's too late.
Vote AGAINST the repeal!

We all understand the necessity of the sanctity of the environment. The UN has addressed this issue with a number of resolutions: disease-free, hydrogen powered vehicles, solar panels (repealed though), etc, etc. All of these resolutions were straight-forward with their decision and did not reccommend TRADE SANCTIONS for countries who did not comply. I'm not saying kill the environment by supporting this, I'm saying TRADE SANCTIONS are wrong and should not be imposed. To have a reccommendation of TRADE SANCTIONS in a non-repealed UN resolution is ridiculous.

VOTE FOR THE REPEAL!

We'll get a better proposal up very soon!

The repeal also claims that FFRA doesn't take into account the rapid population growth that nations, especially less developed ones, experience. I would counter by saying that this is not a flaw with the proposal itself, but with nations' inability to control their populations. Endless population growth is not sustainable to any degree, eventually there are more people (or sentient beings if you prefer) than can be accommodated by available resources, whatever they be. The Nation of Ateelatay takes a similar view of the NS population marker as Ecopoena; steady, endless population growth is unrealistic by any stretch of the imagination.

We thank the honorable representative for this comment. He has explained quite nicely why FFRA is dangerously flawed. He considers the rapid population growth of nations to be unrealistic, so his resolution ignored it. The problem is that rapid population growth may be unrealistic, but it is reality in the world of NationStates. If the resolution was to apply to the mythical world of RL, we would have no problem with it. But it does not. It applies to the world of NS. It is unrealistic in that world. (OOC: When I play a game, I believe in playing by the game's rules, not ones that I make up when I don't like the existing ones.)


There are calls for FFRA to be replaced by more "sensible" legislation. I can't wait to see what toothless wonder is in store for this :rolleyes: . Will a reduction in fossil fuel use be STONGLY URGED, or just SUGGESTED?

Based on the discussion of FFRA, I seriously doubt that the author of this repeal will aver be the author of its replacement, or any effective environmental proposal for that matter and so, can only interpret his/her call for a replacement to be nothing more than meaningless diplomatic posturing in order to appear sympathetic to the spirit of FFRA.

We would gladly have supported a resolution that imposed rational reduction quotas rather than requirements which are unrealistic in the world of NationStates.


I was also wondering what, vote wise, warranted this repeal. It's not as though FFRA passed by a slim margin or that there was a last minute rally against it, so was its overwhelming passage an inadequate representation of the will of the UN?

There is nothing, "vote-wise", that warranted this repeal. The vote numbers on the original resolution are irrelevant. We believe, as does the proposer of this repeal, that passage of the resolution was a mistake. The repeal is an attempt to allow members to correct that error.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

(OOC: When I play a game, I believe in playing by the game's rules, not ones that I make up when I don't like the existing ones.)

OOC: Sorry, I have to take issue with this. It sounds like you disapprove of players like myself deciding to ignore the population statistic. The fact is, I have to ignore the stat or Ecopoeia becomes a nonsense. There aren't four billion (and increasing) Ecopoeians, there are about fourteen million, and there's no backing down from this. In the same way, some nations have dolphins frolicking in rainforests - really? It's clearly nonsense, so let's substitute seas for forests for such nations, yes? 100% tax rates? Nonsense for most nations that have this statistic, especially as (as far as I'm aware) it's not possible to reduce taxes once this level has been reached. I'd prefer to see no reference in resolutions to population whatsoever, from either side of the debate.

The game has grown way beyond its limited beginnings. Sadly, this growth ain't going to get coded into the nation pages, so I think it's reasonable for players to ignore certain hardwired elements that they cannot influence (such as populations and national animal habitats).

OOC: Sorry, I have to take issue with this. It sounds like you disapprove of players like myself deciding to ignore the population statistic. The fact is, I have to ignore the stat or Ecopoeia becomes a nonsense. There aren't four billion (and increasing) Ecopoeians, there are about fourteen million, and there's no backing down from this. In the same way, some nations have dolphins frolicking in rainforests - really? It's clearly nonsense, so let's substitute seas for forests for such nations, yes? 100% tax rates? Nonsense for most nations that have this statistic, especially as (as far as I'm aware) it's not possible to reduce taxes once this level has been reached. I'd prefer to see no reference in resolutions to population whatsoever, from either side of the debate.

The game has grown way beyond its limited beginnings. Sadly, this growth ain't going to get coded into the nation pages, so I think it's reasonable for players to ignore certain hardwired elements that they cannot influence (such as populations and national animal habitats).

OOC:

No, Eco, I don't disapprove of your style of gameplay at all. After all, this is a game, and everyone should be free to play it as they wish. What I do disapprove of is resolutions which ignore the realities of the game as it is set up. You're making choices for your nation, which is fine with me; resolutions impose requirements on all of us.

Despite the amusing ways of ripping off unlucky nations made to suffer by the act, the nation of Cuation votes for the repeal. Let us be free to harm the enviroment for more money, our children can suffer when we are all dead.

Marjam Chicken
UN diplomat for Cuation

OOC:

No, Eco, I don't disapprove of your style of gameplay at all. After all, this is a game, and everyone should be free to play it as they wish. What I do disapprove of is resolutions which ignore the realities of the game as it is set up. You're making choices for your nation, which is fine with me; resolutions impose requirements on all of us.
Yeah, I guess this is one of the many occasions where players' perceptions of the game create real problems fo each other. The irony in this case is that OOC I'm not a fan of the resolution, but IC deem it to be satisfactory as an interim measure.

The problem is that rapid population growth may be unrealistic, but it is reality in the world of NationStates. If the resolution was to apply to the mythical world of RL, we would have no problem with it. But it does not. It applies to the world of NS. It is unrealistic in that world. (OOC: When I play a game, I believe in playing by the game's rules, not ones that I make up when I don't like the existing ones.)

This is true, and one of the reasons why the resolution probably should not have been approved in the first place, but if you want to invoke the world of NationStates you have to take the whole package. (Ironicaly I just got one of the choose your power type issues this morning.) You can go for solar and wind which will cause frequent power outages when the nation is beset by cloudy windless days. You can go for coal and never, I repeat never see the sun ever again. Or you can go nuclear and have a meltdown. My nation has a population of over 3 billion!

On second thought I should re-consider my original support for your argument. Population growth is not "rapid" only initially so. It is more or less a constant. It grows at more or less the same absolute rate, so as your population increases the percentage increase actually decreases over time.

Looking at the resolution from a NationStates perspective, there is really nothing that messes with an individual nation more than every other issue that comes before an individual nation on a day by day basis. Compared to most issues (including the one I just mentioned) the UN resolution was actually rather tame. It's not like you are suddenly eating your naitonal animal, switching completely to wind and solar, or going completely naked.

Perhaps if people spent more time trying to prevent these resolutions from passing in the first place ... the world would be a duller place to live.

The republic has decided to oppose this repeal for the benefit of the environment. So what if it costs - the cost will be much higher if er do nothing, and will be paid by the poor nation. Without force, no-one cares for the environment until it's too late.
It's my clean air we're talking about, after all. Without this resolution there's little point in my nation trying to implement policies to protect the environment, if large economies continue to pollute. They inevitably pollute my nation too, and this needs to be stopped.


St Edmund isn't situated on the same version of Earth as you are, therefore any pollution caused by our industries doesn't affect you...

The fact is, I have to ignore the stat or Ecopoeia becomes a nonsense.

As much as I hate to write this ... if you do this then why the bleep are you here? Everything that NationStates does is based on the numeric statistics that is a part of the NationStates simulation system. Every issue you decide on, every UN resolution passes effects those numeric stastics. This wole game is a simulation. How can you ignore the results of that simulation?

The basic stats that are available for public view are obtainable through an XML feed http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi?nation=your_nation_goes_here

It is one thing to ignore the non stastistical elements of the game, the tech level is one example, but to ignore the basic staststics is like saying, "Let's play chess, only without the chess rules, and without the chess pieces and the chess board." Why bother with UN resolutions at all? Why bother with the UN? Why bother with NS? Why bother US?

Because it makes for a more interesting game. RPing your nation EXACTLY AS IT IS is unrealistic, boring, and silly. There is no requirement to RP at all, so when people do so, it is necessarily free-form.

Quit hijacking this thread please.

With all respect to our distinguished colleague and friend from Omigodtheykilledkenny, we don't see any hijacking of this thread. A principal--and the most telling--argument for your repeal proposal is that the original resolution is damagingly unrealistic in the world of NS. We see the current discussion as completely on point. However, if the honorable delegate feels it is interfering with the debate on his proposal--which we continue to strongly support--we will withdraw from the discussion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We all understand the necessity of the sanctity of the environment. The UN has addressed this issue with a number of resolutions: disease-free, hydrogen powered vehicles, solar panels (repealed though), etc, etc. All of these resolutions were straight-forward with their decision and did not reccommend TRADE SANCTIONS for countries who did not comply. I'm not saying kill the environment by supporting this, I'm saying TRADE SANCTIONS are wrong and should not be imposed. To have a reccommendation of TRADE SANCTIONS in a non-repealed UN resolution is ridiculous.

And how do you think the resolution could be forced without sanctions? I am quite proud that the UN itself has said that those not complying should be punished. Trade sanctions seem a good measure. Punish the polluters!

It's not to developing nations to bear the burden of developed Nations pollution, as "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" does.

Developing nations shouldn't bear the burden, not the pollution and not the cost. The pollution is tackled in the FFRA, the cost is something we all have to pay for. Fortunately, developing nations can claim severe economic depression and use that to adapt the reduction of fossil fuels to what they can manage. No deleloping nation will suffer from this resolution.

(and usually, developing nations are kept developing by the developed nations. If we want to help developing nations, fair trade and proper support would be a start. Not repealing this resolution)

With all respect to our distinguished colleague and friend from Omigodtheykilledkenny, we don't see any hijacking of this thread. A principal--and the most telling--argument for your repeal proposal is that the original resolution is damagingly unrealistic in the world of NS. We see the current discussion as completely on point. However, if the honorable delegate feels it is interfering with the debate on his proposal--which we continue to strongly support--we will withdraw from the discussion.My sincerest apologies. I'm kinda tired right now (so I'm bound to be a little grouchy); perhaps I'm reading stuff that's not really there? :)

At any rate, I was referring more to those who were griping about the way Eco chooses to RP his nation (Tzorsland, I'm looking in your direction), because Eco is entitled to RP any way he wishes, and complaining about it here is not going to change anything.

I am very much in favor of the repeal of the FFR Act, and look forward to a more sensible replacement.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

What follows is entirely OOC. Apologies to Kenny.

As much as I hate to write this ... if you do this then why the bleep are you here? Everything that NationStates does is based on the numeric statistics that is a part of the NationStates simulation system. Every issue you decide on, every UN resolution passes effects those numeric stastics. This wole game is a simulation. How can you ignore the results of that simulation?
For the reasons stated by Gruenberg and for the fact that I choose to adopt a more realistic interpretation of the game than most.

Ecopoeia has a physical location, it has relations with neighbouring lands, it is at the mercy of local tectonic conditions, it can be affected by factors outside of the basic simulation. It is a nation that exists beyond the basic game - see the CDQ, UNOG and Christ knows how many other forums.

The basic stats that are available for public view are obtainable through an XML feed http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi?nation=your_nation_goes_here
I know. Are these officially endorsed? I suspect not. Should I wish to use this or any other calculator, I'll amend the population stat accordingly. It's hardly cheating, is it? It means my nations has less cash, etc.

It is one thing to ignore the non stastistical elements of the game, the tech level is one example, but to ignore the basic staststics is like saying, "Let's play chess, only without the chess rules, and without the chess pieces and the chess board." Why bother with UN resolutions at all? Why bother with the UN? Why bother with NS? Why bother US?
Cobblers. The population stat is a measure of age more than anything else.

Still, if you'd prefer me to fuck off, then just say.

One of my biggest points is based on what you just stated. There is no immediate shortage crisis, and no impending disaster either, setting emmision pollution aside. But the fact remains that we use fossile fuels many times faster than they are reproduced. So the question therefore is... when do we change? Now, when we have ample resources. Or only in front of the impending crisis, in the midst of economical panic? To be sure, economies will suffer in both conditions, but which will suffer harder? Probably if it came to a fossile fuel revolution.

You also have a valid point about us not having any control over anyone outside the UN, your argument being, therefore, why bother? ...Because there is every reason to bother. Not everything in this NS world should be about making other countries do what we want. It's physically impossible. It's common sense that we cannot change anyone except ourselves. Change has got to start somewhere, and it should very well start in this finely knit body of nations. (On a side note, when a shortage comes, who will you have to blame if you are as much at fault?)

The overall message here is this. Reform must happen sometime. The downs are about equal for each option, but the ups favor a gradual change. If someone individually, or nations together do not do something now, we are condemning our posterity to right our wrong.

SqR

Developing nations shouldn't bear the burden, not the pollution and not the cost. The pollution is tackled in the FFRA, the cost is something we all have to pay for. Fortunately, developing nations can claim severe economic depression and use that to adapt the reduction of fossil fuels to what they can manage. No deleloping nation will suffer from this resolution.

(and usually, developing nations are kept developing by the developed nations. If we want to help developing nations, fair trade and proper support would be a start. Not repealing this resolution)

Developing Nations need cheap energy to sustain their development.
Sadly, clean energies are not cheap nowadays, it's why "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" can be very dammaging for Developing Nations

"Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" doesn't care about Developing Nations as it authorizes “time extensions” only for “severe economic depression” and nothing for "significant ones", this is dramatic.

We thank the honorable representative for this comment. He has explained quite nicely why FFRA is dangerously flawed. He considers the rapid population growth of nations to be unrealistic, so his resolution ignored it.

Not quite, I don't disbelieve that nations' populations can rise rapidly, what I do not believe is that any nation's poulation can grow at a steady, high rate, indefinitely without collapsing all resource bases, natural or otherwise.

We would gladly have supported a resolution that imposed rational reduction quotas rather than requirements which are unrealistic in the world of NationStates.

I think this reduction is quite reasonable for the reality of NS. If you accept continued unending population growth without negative consequence, you would likely be RPing that you have unlimited resources and space (not a reality I personally accept, but conceivable none the less). If this is true, you should have no problem devoting those unlimited resources and space to alternative power sources.

If, however you accept space and resources as finite, I see no way you could accept unlimited population growth, and therefore, the population meter does not apply to you.

There is nothing, "vote-wise", that warranted this repeal. The vote numbers on the original resolution are irrelevant. We believe, as does the proposer of this repeal, that passage of the resolution was a mistake. The repeal is an attempt to allow members to correct that error.

Well, based on current voting on the repeal, I would say that the UN members feel otherwise.

By L&EDeveloping Nations need cheap energy to sustain their development.
Sadly, clean energies are not cheap nowadays, it's why "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" can be very dammaging for Developing Nations

I would disagree, I would say developiong nations need a way to develop that doesn't do long-term damage to the environment and result in the reliance on fossil fuel. With FFRA, there is a lot of money going into R&D of clean, renewable energy sources, developing nations could benefit from this just as they benefit from buying fossil fuel technology from more developed nations.

"Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" doesn't care about Developing Nations as it authorizes “time extensions” only for “severe economic depression” and nothing for "significant ones", this is dramatic.

FFRA does care about developing nations, much more than nations that would encourage them to use polluting finite sources of fuel to develop.

Looking back, the term "severe" is one of the few parts I regret. I didn't want any nation in a small economic recession to be able to apply for time extensions, but I should have used a better term such as "significant." However, since it is up to NSUN nations to decide what qualifies as "severe," it is within there ability to equate it with "significant."

Please don't question my motives; I don't recall ever questioning yours. [snip] No, I hadn't a specific proposal in mind; my preference for any replacement would be that it be crafted in a truly cooperative, thoughtful process that is not concerned with just rushing it to the floor on the whim -- as in the case of your proposal.

True, you did not question my motives in FFRA, but when your repeal implicitly calls for replacement legislation and then you offer none, it makes me suspicious.

I do take issue with your statement that my proposal was rushed. It was posted on this forum for two weeks, including most of the time that Promo of Solar Panels was being debated. I started with a very basic outlin of what I wanted to accomplish and, with the comments of other posters, came to FFRA's final draft. Also, by the time I did submit it, the comments on it had run a bit dry, so I figuired there was no more criticism.

My concerns with the FFRA are not so much the "loopholes" you claim it opens, but the opportunities it closes. Your proposal is lopsided; it is not so much concerned with supporting initiatives to accelerate the development of clean, renewable alternative energy sources so much as it is with penalizing those nations who depend strongly on fossil fuels for their energy supply. The mandate of a single flat consumption rate for each nation, no matter how large or of whatever energy regime, hurts the economies not only of small and developing nations, but also of nations which have already made a positive effort to cut back on their fossil fuel consumption. But of course the FFRA was always about the end, never mind the means. Worldwide energy shortage? Economoic disaster? Who cares? At least we're getting rid of evil fossil fuels.

Yes, all economies do take a hit, but this is stated in the type of resolution it is. I think that those nations that use the most fossil fuels need to be regned in the most, because they cause the most pollution and other environmental damage. My aim was not so much to penalize large fossil fuel users, but to guide them in the direction they know they will need to go sooner or later.

And yes, despite your claims to the contrary, I will support a strong, balanced replacement, so long as it is (unlike the FFRA) reasonable and sensitive to economic factors. I do support environmental legislation, but only good legislation, like UNCoESB. An effective replacement for this legislation may include credits awarded to nations who have already made great strides toward reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, develop clean alternatives, or are not all that dependent on fossil fuels to begin with. Such credits can be sold to smaller nations which depend on fossil fuels for their development, provided that these nations make honest, good-faith efforts to pursue clean alternative energy sources and slow the growth of fossil-fuel-based energy development and the output of greenhouse gases. And no encouragement of nations simply to go nuclear, either; for God's sake, that particular clause of the FFRA only insures global instability.

I am happy that you do support environmental legislation, should your repeal pass, I would like to help in the drafting of a replacement.

You cite the popularity of your proposal and the wide margin by which it passed. I would humbly submit that it only passed by such a wide margin because many nations didn't bother to think through the ramifications or consequences, [snip]

I would say that the voting on the repeal shows otherwise, but we shall see.

I would like to commend you, though, I leveled sharp and sarcastic criticism on you and you responded calmly and considerately, well done.

First of all this act has not been on the books for even a month yet. I ask you, how much chance have those who seek to repeal this act given this bill?

The alternative we face now is to walk away from this act, to do nothing and let the problem accelerate. However there is little doubt in the scientific community as to what the consequences will be if our emissions are left unchecked. Sooner or later this problem will come to haunt us, and any inaction now will cause a heavy toll in the future. until we have no choice but to face it.

How this really works out is that we're after reducing each year the emissions to 98% of those on the previous year. So the calculation is that for any given year the emissions are 0.98 to the power of the number of years since the act was passed.

This means we are looking to try to reduce our emissions by half over 35 years. Is this possible?

There are three main prongs of attack to approaching this problem, and our governments should explore each in full,
* create better filtration of emissions
* create more efficient engines
* investigate alternative energy sources

As a species we have an unlimited ability for creativity. Within 40 years of discovering flight we developed the jet engine, within 10 years of understanding the structure of the matter we had built our first atomic bomb, within 10 years of JFK's dream we had touched the Moon.

Our inventiveness and ingenuity know no bounds, but they need a goal, and they need direction. By this act the UN is setting the governments of the world its most important task yet, to save our planet.

It's time to get a wake up call. Gas reserves are already becoming scarce. World demand is ever increasing, however new find of crude oil are yielding less and less. We have at best another 100 years of oil, before it runs out. Fossil fuels are already on our endangered list, and if our dependency on them is left unchecked, our fate will be to follow the dinosaurs from which it came to the same ignominious end.

I hope you will join me in voting against any attempt to repeal this vital act.

I have been long mute on this arguement and i now believe it is time to add my two cents.
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/871309/0/nouser_871/T1_-1_871309.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=871309)

I'm supporting the repeal. This resolution fails to take into account the fact that many nations have already cut their fossil fuel usage down to the bare minimum. If you are currently using more than your nation's fair share of the world's fossil fuels, this resolution will allow you to continue doing so. Here's what I posted on an off-site forum in opposition to the FFRA when it was at 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 that doesn't take into account the increase in population (but that, I believe, is uniform between NS nations, so the imbalance is in the same ratio).

Cobdenia supports this resolution. In order to stop our people from rioting (which they would have done, as our entire nation is in the industrial age and relies on the increasing use of fossil fuels if we are to expand economically), we had to build a big pointless fossil fuel burning machine just before the resolution passed. We just use slightly less and less fuel in the big pointless fossil fuel burning machine each year. This will allow us to use increasing amounts of fossil fuels in our actual factories, our railways, our motorcars, etc. But it isn't very good for the environment, or the problem of running out of fossil fuels. If it was repealed, Cobdenia will be using far less fossil fuels as a consequence...

First of all this act has not been on the books for even a month yet. I ask you, how much chance have those who seek to repeal this act given this bill?I'll answer that right now: none. I had no faith in the supposed "benefits" of the FFRA, as the potential adverse effects far outweighed them.

The alternative we face now is to walk away from this act, to do nothing and let the problem accelerate. However there is little doubt in the scientific community as to what the consequences will be if our emissions are left unchecked. Sooner or later this problem will come to haunt us, and any inaction now will cause a heavy toll in the future. until we have no choice but to face it.But if we don't repeal, thousands of nations will be faced with energy shortages and economic calamity. Given the choice between helping people and helping the trees, should we not err on the side of people, repeal this nonsense and replace it with something workable?

I'm voting against this repeal. We abolished the previous one before this to cut emmissions, and although this one is worse in the long run, it's better planned than the prior. But these Acts seem to be getting worse for the environment (and in return people's health).

I'm voting against this repeal. We abolished the previous one before this to cut emmissions, and although this one is worse in the long run, it's better planned than the prior. But these Acts seem to be getting worse for the environment (and in return people's health).

So we should keep poor legislation on the books solely because of planning, regardless of how that translated into actual administrative efficiency? I find that to be a very curious approach to governance. We would rather remove any and all damaging resolutions than worry about the feelings of those who planned them.

I don't understand the UN on this point. Reducing the burden of our mother Earth by reducing the usage of fossil fuels was one of the greatest achievement of the UN.
Now you want to repeal it just because you can't deal with the new situation. Your car doesn't accelerate as zippy as before and infrastructure can't be a secondary topic anymore. There have to be drastic changes in the enviroment to stop exploiting the earth. We can't use fossil fuels forever, so we have to reduce the usage now while we stil have the fossil resources to do that.

Young nations may or may not be able to rely on fossil resources. It's our job to support them build up a permanent and working enviroment by giving knowledge and education to those countries in need of them.

It's our only hope or we might end up in fighting each other over such vanities like 1 year's support of fuel. In the name of global peace, the protection of nature and our children we have to hold the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" upright.

Remember: "We're the good ones!"

The problem, as illustrated by the likes of _Myopia_, is that the economic model used for the FFRA means, basically, that in a year's time we'll all be fucked. Mother Earth will be sitting pretty. But we'll all be dead, so we won't even be able to be smug about it. I don't oppose environmental legislation; I oppose stupid legislation that's impractical and poorly conceived.

The problem, as illustrated by the likes of _Myopia_, is that the economic model used for the FFRA means, basically, that in a year's time we'll all be fucked. Mother Earth will be sitting pretty. But we'll all be dead, so we won't even be able to be smug about it. I don't oppose environmental legislation; I oppose stupid legislation that's impractical and poorly conceived.

Love and esterel fully support Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" for the reasons we have already said in this thread.

But we want to say that even if it contains some significant flaws, "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" is NOT a stupid legislation.

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who supports the repeal. We oppose the FFRA, whether it is worthy of winning a PhD or not.

Ok then, My view is simple. We were against the solar panels fiasco from the begining. We voted for that repeal. We voted against the FFRA and we support this repeal. Why?
Our nation is Uranium and Nuclear based and we see that as the next logical target for you fluffie nations out there. I have no other opinions on this and this will be my final post on the matter.
VL.

I voted no on this one. It may just be my hippy country, but we use solar and wind power. We don't like fossil fuel because it's expensive and it smells bad too.

I voted no on this one. It may just be my hippy country, but we use solar and wind power. We don't like fossil fuel because it's expensive and it smells bad too.

Can you at least understand the concerns of countries who aren't available to generate electricity by these means (i.e. those with vaguely normal weather)?

Can you at least understand the concerns of countries who aren't available to generate electricity by these means (i.e. those with vaguely normal weather)?

Or countries that are in the (late) industrial age?

Developing Nations need cheap energy to sustain their development.
Sadly, clean energies are not cheap nowadays, it's why "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" can be very dammaging for Developing Nations

"Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" doesn't care about Developing Nations as it authorizes “time extensions” only for “severe economic depression” and nothing for "significant ones", this is dramatic.

So you propose to substitute one problem (cheap energy) for another (environmental degredation)? Well, at least you classify as a proper politician by going for the short-term option while neglecting the long-term advantage.

Sustainable energy will become cheaper if it's to be used more. The same process can be seen in many other economic activities. The important factor is force. Scientific studies have shown that people (and companies, organizations, etc) tend to "abuse" common (ie shared) resources by only benefitting without contributing. It makes sense: if your neighbour is making a mess of the public area, why should you clean it up so your neighbour benefits? And that's exactly why we need to force these regulations.

Now, they might be a bit harsh for developing nations (though much more so for developed nations, who rely a great deal more on fossil fuels), but in the end, it will be cheaper. But the longer we wait, the greater the price we'll pay will be, because fossil fuel prices will rise as easily accessible resources will run out. And developing nations will pay the price then, too, and a higher one at that.

Hmm ... there seems to be an intense uninterest in this forum topic. The "Ambassadors are trying to sleep" poll option has an edge over the alternatives, and forumgoers seem to be more interested in computers for schoolchildren than they are possible environmental (or economic) Armageddon.

Glad to know the UN has its priorities straight. :D

So you propose to substitute one problem (cheap energy) for another (environmental degredation)? Well, at least you classify as a proper politician by going for the short-term option while neglecting the long-term advantage.

Sustainable energy will become cheaper if it's to be used more. The same process can be seen in many other economic activities. The important factor is force. Scientific studies have shown that people (and companies, organizations, etc) tend to "abuse" common (ie shared) resources by only benefitting without contributing. It makes sense: if your neighbour is making a mess of the public area, why should you clean it up so your neighbour benefits? And that's exactly why we need to force these regulations.

Now, they might be a bit harsh for developing nations (though much more so for developed nations, who rely a great deal more on fossil fuels), but in the end, it will be cheaper. But the longer we wait, the greater the price we'll pay will be, because fossil fuel prices will rise as easily accessible resources will run out. And developing nations will pay the price then, too, and a higher one at that.

Love and esterel is very committed with environment and we have said several times in this forum we would be very happy with a FAIR resolution about clean energy sources + fossil fuel reduction.

But, it's up to developed nations (including Love and esterel) to clean their own mess, most worlwide polution is their (our) own.

Love and esterel will not oppose the "requirements" of "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" for developed nations. But, please URGES but not MANDATES anything on this mater to developing nations until the price of clean energy sources is reasonable, thanks.

May developing Nations in NS world can stop to be so egoistic, thanks.
"Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" = developping nations saying to developing ones: "Do What We Say, Not What We Did"

I just dont understand y'all. The FFRA was up for debate and I believe that the author wanted to consult with everyone as to the exact wording of the FFRA in these forums. See this thread

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553

and specifically


So lets strike while the iron is hot and together come up with a resolution that we can all be happy with that improves the environment and phases out fossil fuel energy

As result of which the FFRA resolution was submitted, approved and voted on. This means all of you have had your chances to influence the wording to create a resolution acceptable to everyone. Your temper tantrums on the floor is a little bit late now I would say. It is irrelevant as to whether people vote for resolutions mindlessly. If any of you were that concerned, a telegram campaign should have been the order of the day. Dear Leader is personally disappointed at this lack of bilateralism and hopes for better in the future. He is always receptive to people who want to put forward an argument for or against in order to make his own mind.

In the interest of the environment, I am voting against this repeal. I am not a sandal wearing greenie, not a vegetarian, not a hippy, I do not like mung beans. I am voting this way because I strongly believe that alternative methods of energy generation must be researched and developed and that fossil fuel related emissions must be curbed.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Ok. But the trouble is not everyone is active all the time. I wasn't particularly active in the UN at the time of FFRA's passage. Sometimes suggestions are turned down. Furthermore, TG campaigns have not proven hugely effective. The delegates of the UN have decided this repeal was merit-worthy; that should be enough to justify its place on the floor.

The FFRA was up for debate and I believe that the author wanted to consult with everyone as to the exact wording of the FFRA in these forums. See this thread

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553


i fully agree with you, i think Ateelatay deserves merits to have posted and constructed his draft on this forum.
You are also right that most people in favour of the repeal (including me) are responsible of the flaws we think are present in FFRA, as we didn't participate in Ateelatay's thread.

But our lack of seriousness on this matter does not mean FFRA is perfect.

*snip*Oh, please. Most of this "discussion" you reference took place after the proposal had already been submitted, so it was too late to change anything then. Furthermore, most people were under the impression that this proposal only requires a 10-percent reeduction, not a reduction to 10 percent of current usage. And given the telegrams I've fielded on this, many are still under that impression. Bottom line: This act was not the product of a sane, rational discussion, but of an hysteria over fossil fuels generated by that ridiculous Solar Panels resolution. This was rushed to floor on a whim and voted on blindly by the relentlessly treehugger-happy membership.

What's more, I did spearhead a telegram campaign during the vote, and convinced a good many delegates to change their minds. It wasn't enough, however. Now we have the chance to correct an error, but unfortunately, many people aren't buying, simply because they're sick of hearing about fossil fuels, they've already put through a law to mitigate their effect, and something's always better than nothing, isn't it? :rolleyes:

With regard to "bilateralism," this repeal was by no means the product of a single nation (or even several nations) with an ax to grind; it was the product of consultations with forum regulars, the NSO and the Old Guard. The establishment mostly supports a repeal, but the wishes of the establishment are not necessarily shared by the rank and file. The UN is, after all, a "democracy." Off to work now. Good day to you.

Oh, please. Most of this "discussion" you reference took place after the proposal had already been submitted, so it was too late to change anything then. Furthermore, most people were under the impression that this proposal only requires a 10-percent reeduction, not a reduction to 10 percent of current usage. And given the telegrams I've fielded on this, many are still under that impression. Bottom line: This act was not the product of a sane, rational discussion, but of an hysteria over fossil fuels generated by that ridiculous Solar Panels resolution. This was rushed to floor on a whim and voted on blindly by the relentlessly treehugger-happy membership.


The discussion that I referenced was the discussion of the resolution where ateelatay was still taking suggestions for improvements and changes, this started on the 17 September 2005. The official discussion of topic at vote started on the 10 October 2005, nearly a month later. Plenty of time I had thought.

I ended up voted against the solar panels resolution after reading the arguments carefully on the debate related to it so I am not a hsyterical tree hugger blindingly voting for anything and everything.

What's more, I did spearhead a telegram campaign during the vote, and convinced a good many delegates to change their minds. It wasn't enough, however. Now we have the chance to correct an error, but unfortunately, many people aren't buying, simply because they're sick of hearing about fossil fuels, they've already put through a law to mitigate their effect, and something's always better than nothing, isn't it?

I too am sick of it. But i still pay attention to all resolutions and vote for or against depending on which way i have been swayed.


With regard to "bilateralism," this repeal was the product of consultations with several forum regulars, the NSO and the Old Guard. The establishment mostly supports a repeal, but the wishes of the establishment are by no means expressed in the will of the rank and file.

I can't consider myself establishment but I always follow the debates without necessarily contributing and would always welcome a telegram sent to Dear Leader's office. His secretary is very efficient.


Off to work now. Good day to you.

And to you too.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

when i showed this on my regions forum a lot of people also thought it was only a ten percent cut.

if it had been made clearer that it was a 90% cut i doubt this would have passed first time round.

having 'something rather than nothing' is a very short sighted attitude especially as the worlds economies and your people will bear the consequences.

you may not see the consequences in your lifetime but your children certainly willl. thats why i opposed this with all my being and will continue to fight against this and any unreasonable, ill thought out proposal that may replace this some day.

I am voting for the repeal of this ridiculous resolution. Cutting 90% of all fossil fuels is unrealistic and quite frankly impossible for at least another century, until we discover technology that allows alternative sources of energy. Of course this resolution offers no alternatives, only a ruined economy, and a severe depression. Darvainia has enough on its plate right now with a now subsiding civil war, and as a result a devastated land, and now we've been struggling to comply with this resolution because of the fear tactics it practices by forcing all nations to comply with it or face economic retribution. Basically this resolution says, "destroy your own economy or we'll do it for you!"
It is unconstitutional for the nation of Darvainia to forbid its businesses from using a certain kind of fuel, and it is not commonsense, it will destroy our economy, and dig into our production, in the long run it will hurt us more than help. Please point me to one nation(under the population of 200 million or so especially) that is capable of using only ten percent of their current fossil fuel production, why don't you just ask them to ban factories and go back to horse and buggies while you're at it. Oh well back to churning butter at the old windmill, hope you have fun watching the people of smaller U.N nations starve to death because of this resolution, and eventually nations like mine.

This was rushed to floor on a whim and voted on blindly by the relentlessly treehugger-happy membership.

I fail to see how holding a two week discussion on the resolution and building it from scratch based on forum poster comments is "rush[ing] it to the floor on a whim"

Given the length of time devoted to discussions of some resolutions, those two weeks don't seem so long. Besides, if many delegates are still only realizing what, statistically, it means, they clearly haven't been taken through it step by step, have they?

I am voting for the repeal of this ridiculous resolution. Cutting 90% of all fossil fuels is unrealistic and quite frankly impossible for at least another century, until we discover technology that allows alternative sources of energy. Of course this resolution offers no alternatives, only a ruined economy, and a severe depression. Darvainia has enough on its plate right now with a now subsiding civil war, and as a result a devastated land, and now we've been struggling to comply with this resolution because of the fear tactics it practices by forcing all nations to comply with it or face economic retribution. Basically this resolution says, "destroy your own economy or we'll do it for you!"
It is unconstitutional for the nation of Darvainia to forbid its businesses from using a certain kind of fuel, and it is not commonsense, it will destroy our economy, and dig into our production, in the long run it will hurt us more than help. Please point me to one nation(under the population of 200 million or so especially) that is capable of using only ten percent of their current fossil fuel production, why don't you just ask them to ban factories and go back to horse and buggies while you're at it. Oh well back to churning butter at the old windmill, hope you have fun watching the people of smaller U.N nations starve to death because of this resolution, and eventually nations like mine.The problem is we will be out of fossil fuels in 20 to 60 years, we will need to phase out fossil fuels soon. Its not difficult we have several much more abundant energy, like the sun or some places of the world geothermal. While both are currently flawed they have improved greatly.
I agree in my nation it is unconstitutional to dectate what buissness do, but my nation is already committed to changing its principle energy source. Besides or economy will adjust just as it always has, better to go through a depression we can do something about then to run out of oil and be screwed down the line.

The problem is we will be out of fossil fuels in 20 to 60 years, we will need to phase out fossil fuels soon.
(Whispers)**Be careful, I see the capatilist sharks circling. You see, they hide behind two statements... one: "this is the NS world and there is no impending disaster". This proves they have no foresight concerning anything except the stock markets. And two: "the legislation is harmful to younger nations' economies", while at the same time they pull in the benefits of cheap, dirty fuel for their own economically corrupt societies. So don't give them anything to go on, they'll twist your words quicker than they can pick up a dollar from a distracted child.**

It's all a question of how you RP. I personally assume a great equivalence to RL earth: in which case, I believe there is an impending crisis (although I don't believe we'll run out of all fossil fuels in 20 years). Simply saying "no, we'll never run out" is a godmode, in my opinion.

So is saying subsistence on wind and solar power alone is a viable option for all nations. I believe that the only way we can tackle the energy crisis is through responsible measures. Bankrupt our industries and we will have no means for implementing new strategies and exploiting (in the positive sense of the word, not as in 'raping' etc.) new resources. I don't, where possible, want to regulate industry: but I do accept that mere incentivisation doesn't work.

To people on both sides of the debate, I'd urge you away from comments like those of Square rootedness. I know that, really, ardent environmentalists don't want everyone to die of cholera in some Wena-forsaken hovel; I hope you know that those proposing the repeal don't want to drop dead in smog-washed lands blackened of all life. It's a question of being reasonable.

I don't believe this resolution is reasonable. It's based on an unworkable model, and I basically believe a mistake was made in the calculation. I laud its intentions, and it's a whole lot more sensible than some 'green' legislation on the books. But economics isn't some boogeyman used to enslave the poor: it's a system, used by capitalists and communists alike, for describing the state of one aspect of a nation's health.

I don't want to hurt poor, small nations - hell, I'm barely over 500 million myself - or to kill everyone and everything. But I don't believe that blindly rushing into the problem without any thought for the practicalities of energy change is helpful: I see it as counter-productive.

Now, they might be a bit harsh for developing nations (though much more so for developed nations, who rely a great deal more on fossil fuels), but in the end, it will be cheaper. But the longer we wait, the greater the price we'll pay will be, because fossil fuel prices will rise as easily accessible resources will run out. And developing nations will pay the price then, too, and a higher one at that.

Excuse me? This resolution favours polluting (mostly developed) nations using lots of fossil fuels over more frugal (mainly poorer or environmentally aware) nations. It takes into account the fact that Nation A uses more than its fair share of fossil fuels and Nation B has cut its use to the bare minimum, perhaps a hundredth of nation A's consumption - and instead of congratulating B and imposing strict requirements on A, it forces B to cut its use by the same proportion as A. The fossil fuel reduction act rewards disproportionate polluters with the right to continue to disproportionately pollute.

As I showed earlier in this thread, if this was done in reality, Canada would be allowed, with the blessing of supposedly environmental legislation, to use over 560 times more oil per capita than Afghanistan.

I just dont understand y'all. The FFRA was up for debate and I believe that the author wanted to consult with everyone as to the exact wording of the FFRA in these forums. See this thread

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444553

and specifically



As result of which the FFRA resolution was submitted, approved and voted on. This means all of you have had your chances to influence the wording to create a resolution acceptable to everyone. Your temper tantrums on the floor is a little bit late now I would say. It is irrelevant as to whether people vote for resolutions mindlessly. If any of you were that concerned, a telegram campaign should have been the order of the day. Dear Leader is personally disappointed at this lack of bilateralism and hopes for better in the future. He is always receptive to people who want to put forward an argument for or against in order to make his own mind.

In the interest of the environment, I am voting against this repeal. I am not a sandal wearing greenie, not a vegetarian, not a hippy, I do not like mung beans. I am voting this way because I strongly believe that alternative methods of energy generation must be researched and developed and that fossil fuel related emissions must be curbed.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Apart from the fact that all our protestations were ignored in a fit of "I don't want to deal with that technology" arguments, as well as "who cares about the poor, the environment is more important" and the classic "this is true to RL, so it must be true to NS"...

After a brief parliamentary discussion in the New Pictavien Senate, the New Pictavien Government have voiced their approval of this repeal, on the grounds that we are still somewhat a developing country and will be for a few years to come. Thus our need for fossil fuels is still a large proportion of our fuel consumption, despite our striving for better sources of energy.

Oh, please. Most of this "discussion" you reference took place after the proposal had already been submitted, so it was too late to change anything then. Furthermore, most people were under the impression that this proposal only requires a 10-percent reeduction, not a reduction to 10 percent of current usage. And given the telegrams I've fielded on this, many are still under that impression. Bottom line: This act was not the product of a sane, rational discussion, but of an hysteria over fossil fuels generated by that ridiculous Solar Panels resolution. This was rushed to floor on a whim and voted on blindly by the relentlessly treehugger-happy membership.

What's more, I did spearhead a telegram campaign during the vote, and convinced a good many delegates to change their minds. It wasn't enough, however. Now we have the chance to correct an error, but unfortunately, many people aren't buying, simply because they're sick of hearing about fossil fuels, they've already put through a law to mitigate their effect, and something's always better than nothing, isn't it? :rolleyes:

With regard to "bilateralism," this repeal was the product of consultations with forum regulars, the NSO and the Old Guard. This was by no means the product of a single nation (or even several nations) with an ax to grind. The establishment mostly supports a repeal, but the wishes of the establishment are not necessarily expressed in the will of the rank and file. The UN is, after all, a "democracy." Off to work now. Good day to you.


Huuhh??!! Wazagiong on! Will y'all keep it down I was trying to sleep off a drunk here? Oh yes now I know what I wanted to say. I was one of those nations who though that all I would have to cut back was 10%. Once I realized it would be 90% and I was going to get royally reamed(without even dinner and a movie), I voted against the origional resolution, and nothing has changed my mind. Personally trade santions don't bother me all that much. There are more trade partners outside of the UN than in the UN. If The Palentine cannnot trade with the few, then The Palentine shall trade with the many. Now Back to sleep. Keep it down, please, Old Crow is nasty stuff!

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

PS Go for it Kenny, the Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine is firmly behind ya!<cheers and applause!>

(Whispers)**Be careful, I see the capatilist sharks circling. You see, they hide behind two statements... one: "this is the NS world and there is no impending disaster". This proves they have no foresight concerning anything except the stock markets. And two: "the legislation is harmful to younger nations' economies", while at the same time they pull in the benefits of cheap, dirty fuel for their own economically corrupt societies. So don't give them anything to go on, they'll twist your words quicker than they can pick up a dollar from a distracted child.**


Economically corrupt, and Damn proud of it!:D ! I just love lefties and their irrational fear of capitalism! :p

I have to say I'm still a bit miffed about the dolphin repeal....



New Hamiltonians can be very small petty petty people...


But still undecided until Thursday...

*SNIP!*

Personally, I enjoy something compared to nothing.


So next time you're hungry and have nothing else on hand to eat, perhaps a plate of vomit will make you happy?

Economically corrupt, and Damn proud of it!:D ! I just love lefties and their irrational fear of capitalism! :p


Don't get Capitalism and Predatory Capitalism mixed up.


And anywise, the only way a country can achieve long term economic wealth is to become energy Independent.


To base an economy on a finite resource makes ZERO economic sense.


Unless of course someone can show me an economic model that disproves this?

OOC: I hate rl references, but take a look at the PRC over the past 15 years for your example.

Don't get Capitalism and Predatory Capitalism mixed up.


And anywise, the only way a country can achieve long term economic wealth is to become energy Independent.


To base an economy on a finite resource makes ZERO economic sense.


Unless of course someone can show me an economic model that disproves this?
Can you show me where oil is a finite resource in NS? And considering that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has developed a process for creating a synthetic version of crude oil that has all the same uses as the real thing, obviously oil is not a finite resource for us.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*snip**snip*Exactly six days elapsed from the time that Solar Panels was repealed and the UN began to vote on FFRA. There was little time to discuss this resolution apart from the Solar Panels hysteria, because you were exploiting a prevailing attitude in the UN that a replacement had to be forced through right away, y'know, because apparently you can't repeal something without rushing a replacement to queue (here I recall the repeal of DVD regional removal and the equally ridiculous replacement it engendered).

And as I already pointed out, many, many nations were misunderstood about the ramifications of this resolution (i.e., many did not realize it was actually a 90-percent cut), and many had errantly voted for it before realizing exactly what they were voting for (and informed me via telegrams while I was TGing against the FFRA). So, obviously, this was pushed through simply because everyone thought a replacement was in order, and few actually considered what exactly they were replacing Solar Panels with.

This is a terrible way to legislate. And now so many are convinced that, even though the FFRA is flawed, at least we're doing something about fossil fuels, and something is always better than nothing. Such reasoning is as reckless and irresponsible as the FFRA itself.

Can you show me where oil is a finite resource in NS? And considering that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has developed a process for creating a synthetic version of crude oil that has all the same uses as the real thing, obviously oil is not a finite resource for us.

If NS oil is "Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel," as defined in FFRA, then yes, it is finite because it is used much faster than it is created. There are, at any given time, a finite number of nations in NS. Each nation, it is my interpretation, has finite land and therefore finite resources, including fossil fuel.

Can you, on the otherhand, prove that NS oil is an infinite resource?

Aside from the techwankyness of your infnite synthetic, oil, if it does not fall under the definition of fossil fuel, as laid out in FFRA, it is not regulated by it, so where is your problem?

Exactly six days elapsed from the time that Solar Panels was repealed and the UN began to vote on FFRA. There was little time to discuss this resolution apart from the Solar Panels hysteria, because you were exploiting a prevailing attitude in the UN that a replacement had to be forced through right away,[snip]

Actually, I was trying to exploit the fact that so many nations were coming to the forum to debate Solar Panels and I thought maybe enough of them would comment on the FFRA thread. And who is questioning motives now?

And as I already pointed out, many, many nations were misunderstood about the ramifications of this resolution (i.e., many did not realize it was actually a 90-percent cut), and many had errantly voted for it before realizing exactly what they were voting for (and informed me via telegrams while I was TGing against the FFRA).

If that is the case then it is their fault for not reading the resolution more carefully.

So, obviously, this was pushed through simply because everyone thought a replacement was in order, and few actually considered what exactly they were replacing Solar Panels with.

Again, I would say the voting on this repeal reveals otherwise. If they still are under a false impression of the implications of FFRA, this is their fault even more because they have had quite a long time to read and digest it.

But I could level the same criticism on this repeal, why is it comming so fast? Maybe a lot of the naitons that voted against it mistakenly thought that it was a 10% reduction not a 90% reduction and thought it wasn't enough and so voted against. Maybe these same nations havn't had enough time to realize that it is a much more progressive reduciton and will errantly vote for the repeal.

Or, maybe many that voted against did so in a knee jerk reaction to seeing that they would loose 90% of their fossil fuel, and didn't realize that it was gradually and over a 45 year span. These nations may not have had time to consider the true rammifications since the hastily thrown up repeal thread started in the hysteria during the voting on FFRA.

This is a terrible way to legislate. And now so many are convinced that, even though the FFRA is flawed, at least we're doing something about fossil fuels, and something is always better than nothing. Such reasoning is as reckless and irresponsible as the FFRA itself.

I too agree that the something is better than nothing rationale is flawed, but I stand by that FFRA is a lot better than just something. It is real action, but it is not reactionary but progressive and with many checks and balances as well as concessions.

I still think the honourable delegate from Ateelatey is wrong and their act is fundamentally flawed.

even over 45 years, a 2% per annum reduction will be hard for a nations economy to take.

the calculation is also based on the next 3 years usage and dosen't allow for future population growth after that period of time.

nations will always increase in size. they don't stay static and the fact that this was just ignored shows the dangerous economics at work here.

i would ask the nations who voted against to consider these facts and rethink their position. my nation is trying to do something about this problem at a nation level already and was before this big stick of an act came along.

however the level of technology needed to produce enough alternative energy does not exist yet. Solar power is not a solution for everyone and how can a land locked nation use use tidal power.

that leaves hydro electric, wind and nuclear power. this act will force a lot of nations into building nuclear power plants which will cause another future problem. eventually they'll be neeed to be replaced as well under this act and the risk of thousands of thousands of meltdowns worldwide frightens me.

As I showed earlier in this thread, if this was done in reality, Canada would be allowed, with the blessing of supposedly environmental legislation, to use over 560 times more oil per capita than Afghanistan.
And that's what's bothering me about FFRA and why I support the repeal. The numbers don't lie. FFRA is harmful to the economies of developing nations. Disproportionately so. It ensures that developing economies will never rise above the level of developing. It asks the greatest sacrifices of those who are least capable of making them.

Bottom line: This act was not the product of a sane, rational discussion, but of an hysteria over fossil fuels generated by that ridiculous Solar Panels resolution. This was rushed to floor on a whim and voted on blindly by the relentlessly treehugger-happy membership.

Hey there, Mr. Grumpy Gills. When life gets you down do you wanna know what you've gotta do? Just keep swimming.

when i showed this on my regions forum a lot of people also thought it was only a ten percent cut.

if it had been made clearer that it was a 90% cut i doubt this would have passed first time round.

having 'something rather than nothing' is a very short sighted attitude especially as the worlds economies and your people will bear the consequences.

you may not see the consequences in your lifetime but your children certainly willl. thats why i opposed this with all my being and will continue to fight against this and any unreasonable, ill thought out proposal that may replace this some day.

Odd. If you're concerned about the consequences for your children, then why do you support a repeal that will make their situation worse?

Fossil fuel prices will rise as they run out. Your economy will suffer. With this resolution, there's at least an incentive to make the shift to more sustainable forms of energy use while we can still do so cheaply.

The attitude displayed by those for this repeal on this forum is rather worrying. Not only are they advocating a worse environment for my nation and my people, but they're also sending the world, including my nation, into a certain economic disaster with their efforts to repeal the FFRA.

Vote against the repeal! Choose economy, choose environment!

The problem is we will be out of fossil fuels in 20 to 60 years,

We won't. We will be out of (relatively) cheaply accesible fossil fuels, though. As we progress, we need to use more and more resources which are expensive to exploit. But because the price is rising, more and more resources are now economically viable to exploit. So we're not running out, it's just getting more expensive.

Excuse me? This resolution favours polluting (mostly developed) nations using lots of fossil fuels over more frugal (mainly poorer or environmentally aware) nations. It takes into account the fact that Nation A uses more than its fair share of fossil fuels

What's a fair share?

and Nation B has cut its use to the bare minimum, perhaps a hundredth of nation A's consumption

But they were already using less.

- and instead of congratulating B and imposing strict requirements on A, it forces B to cut its use by the same proportion as A. The fossil fuel reduction act rewards disproportionate polluters with the right to continue to disproportionately pollute.

But in absolute terms a lot more reduction, and in economic terms probably more difficult to achieve.

As I showed earlier in this thread, if this was done in reality, Canada would be allowed, with the blessing of supposedly environmental legislation, to use over 560 times more oil per capita than Afghanistan.

Yes. Lies, bloody lies and statistics. I was so unimpressed by those figures that I didn't even bother to reply. Sure, the figures were right. The interpretation very one-sided. You didn't use those figures to find the truth, but to prove your point. Clever, and some might fall for it, but I won't.

I was one of those nations who though that all I would have to cut back was 10%. Once I realized it would be 90% and I was going to get royally reamed(without even dinner and a movie), I voted against the origional resolution, and nothing has changed my mind.

I thought it was 10% too, and when I found out it was 90% I changed my vote from AGAINST to FOR.

Can you show me where oil is a finite resource in NS? And considering that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has developed a process for creating a synthetic version of crude oil that has all the same uses as the real thing, obviously oil is not a finite resource for us.

In that case we might as well consider the new superefficient "lunar panels", which can generate enough power with 1m2 for one household on as much light as the moon emits on a cloudy night.

But if that's how we're playing, we might as well leave the UN and start for ourselves, because for every problem we can invent a solution.

*SNIP!*
And now so many are convinced that, even though the FFRA is flawed, at least we're doing something about fossil fuels, and something is always better than nothing. Such reasoning is as reckless and irresponsible as the FFRA itself.
(Bolding added.)

The people of Cluichstan would hardly call that "reasoning."

So next time you're hungry and have nothing else on hand to eat, perhaps a plate of vomit will make you happy?
Having vomit in the first place would mean that I already had had food right? :rolleyes: Anyway, I think your taking that quote way out of context, you know what I meant by that. Relax :p take it easy.

The people of Cluichstan would hardly call that reasoning.
Uh-huh, and on the other end of the spectrum, some may think that reasoning doesn't apply to destroying the worlds finite resources and it's environment for the sake of a cheap dirty economy. That part is all a matter of opinion boys and girls. :rolleyes:

SqR

Uh-huh, and on the other end of the spectrum, some may think that reasoning doesn't apply to destroying the worlds finite resources and it's environment for the sake of a cheap dirty economy. That part is all a matter of opinion boys and girls.

SqR

I certainly don't think that's sound reasoning. Mind you, I can't think of any nations trying to do that. Those pushing the repeal have a replacement lined up; it's not perfect, but we're trying. We need to act on the environment. That is no excuse for rushing through hurried and rash legislation, though.

But, I don't think it matters. TG responses I'm getting are along the lines of:

Ok, so maybe it will ne economically damaging to smaller nations, but ultimately, I think it's more important that we save the planet than worry about that

Nice to see the motivations at work here. And we're the dirty capitalists?

I would first like to start my latest comments with a story. When I was in high school one of the students used to talk about his "invisible watch that game the time on all the planets." This was the most free form possible because the watch obeyed no rules whatsoever. It could be one time one moment and another time the next moment and there was nothing but the whim of the person at the time.

The purpose of this story is that for any game to be enjoyable we need a set of common rules and expectations. While this isn't always true for just playing the game, it's a practical necessity for trying to do any realistic role playing in a forum which is in effect dedicated to a particular game mechanic feature (the NS UN). In one sense the UN is similiar to the invisible watch in that from a non game stat standard there is no common set of expectations. One nation might be a planet in a galactic empire, the other a feudal kingdom in the middle of a world where unicorns dance with maidens. Several times this has made discussion practically impossible, and I'm really surprised that this level of "role play" hasn't entered the discussion so far.

I am a strong supporter of the notion that we need some vague commonality in order to be able to talk to each other. In that respect I have this quaint notion that since this is, after all, Nation States, then the general commonality should indeed revolve around the common generality that is Nation States. In other words the same commonality that is generally applied to the rules and to the issues should apply to the United Nations. If there is a "ten commandments" to Nation States, I fimly believe that they were carred down by the great man Murphy and it's his laws that should be the credo for cause and effect in Nation States. Things are carried out until we get sick of them or until they become absurd.

Consider, for a moment the discssions about population over time. What is time? Seriously, what is time? What is a year in Nation States? I don't think it is defined anywhere. Some people assume one NS year is one real world year, but whe all know the story about when you "assume."

The NS UN is not the RW UN, especally in the most obvious case that you can always leave it. Based on the various arguments presented here, almost all of them are purely a matter of role play. No nation will be "destroyed" if the resolution continues or is repealed. Any economic impact (and technically there will be no economic impact) will be minor compared to taking the wrong decision on any given issue. (which isn't wrong at all, but that's a different issue.)

In the end, I have voted against this repeal. The only real reason I am doing so was that this was a motion that was passed in the wake of a repeal. I am starting to think we have a bunch of lemmings who will vote AYE for anyting, and the repeal of this resolution will only cause a dfferent and equally potentialy disasterous resolution to follow in its wake.

If NS oil is "Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel," as defined in FFRA, then yes, it is finite because it is used much faster than it is created. There are, at any given time, a finite number of nations in NS. Each nation, it is my interpretation, has finite land and therefore finite resources, including fossil fuel.
Can you, on the otherhand, prove that NS oil is an infinite resource?


It is a manifest fact that the NS nations don't all exist on just one single version of the Earth. As things currently stand it seems that players can open up as many new version of Earth, and of other worlds too for that matter, as they want.
Infinite worlds -> infinite resources...

The resolution that will follow in it's wake will be MINE. It still needs some tikering, but it will be submitted (assuming the repeal passes) as "Finite Fuel Reduction" (broader than fossil fuel).

Here's the link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448762)

Feel free to comment!

Actually, I was trying to exploit the fact that so many nations were coming to the forum to debate Solar Panels and I thought maybe enough of them would comment on the FFRA thread.So, I guess that's why you barely had time to wait for the ink to dry on the Solar Panels repeal before submitting?

If that is the case then it is their fault for not reading the resolution more carefully.[OOC: And I suppose if Congress mistakenly passed a law to burn down every school in America, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, "They should have read the bill more carefully"?]

But I could level the same criticism on this repeal, why is it comming so fast? ... These nations may not have had time to consider the true rammifications since the hastily thrown up repeal thread started in the hysteria during the voting on FFRA.That thread logged maybe 15 responses, and was posted without my assent. And what's more, we're reconsidering an act an entire month after it was passed. I wonder how many minutes had passed after the Solar Panels repeal was certified that you clicked "submit"?

I stand by that FFRA is a lot better than just something. It is real action, but it is not reactionary but progressive and with many checks and balances as well as concessions.Oh, so that's what you liken a one-size-fits-all mandate on all nations, regardless of size, energy regime, state of economy, rate of population growth, reliance (or lack thereof) on fossil fuels, and initiatives already voluntarily undertaken to reduce fossil-fuel usage -- and all the while doing precious little to facilitate a worldwide replacement energy regime? I myself would have called such an act "insane, unworkable and monumentally destructive," "Promotion of Solar Panels' belligerent second cousin," and "indefensible," in that most defenses we've seen of this act have just brushed aside its inherent flaws to state "At least we're doing something to help the environment" -- but I guess that's just me. :D

In the end, I have voted against this repeal. The only real reason I am doing so was that this was a motion that was passed in the wake of a repeal. I am starting to think we have a bunch of lemmings who will vote AYE for anyting, and the repeal of this resolution will only cause a dfferent and equally potentialy disasterous resolution to follow in its wake.

We cannot agree with the logic of the honorable representative. He seems to be saying that we shouldn't clean up spilled milk because someone might spill milk again.

We prefer to vote on the merits of the issue. We continue to support this repeal. And, for the honorable delegate's information, this nation of "lemmings" voted against the FFRA.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Consider, for a moment the discssions about population over time. What is time? Seriously, what is time? What is a year in Nation States? I don't think it is defined anywhere. Some people assume one NS year is one real world year, but whe all know the story about when you "assume."

Quite. I think time is usually ignored, or considered very fluid. That doesn't detract from the argument in any way, though. There is still a measurable population increase in NS terms, and most nations also pick an RPed population growth. Now, the FFRA makes mention of years: what else can we do but RP it? I will very possibly be dead in 45 years' time: I don't plan on waiting till then to see if 'Gruenberg' will be subject to sanctions. I plan on continue to RP as I do, and no legislator in their right minds would tell me that that constituted 'wank'. I just don't see your point.

The NS UN is not the RW UN, especally in the most obvious case that you can always leave it. Based on the various arguments presented here, almost all of them are purely a matter of role play. No nation will be "destroyed" if the resolution continues or is repealed. Any economic impact (and technically there will be no economic impact) will be minor compared to taking the wrong decision on any given issue. (which isn't wrong at all, but that's a different issue.)

You can leave the RL UN. And no, there won't be a technical economic impact beyond minor stats changes. But then, there's no point to any of this. There is no point keeping a bill that talks about fossil fuel reduction when we have, in game terms, no ability to implement. There are no NS fossil fuels. Saying, then, that there's no economic collapse looming is to ignore the, in some case years, of energy that have been devoted the development of RPed economic systems. If everyone simply used stats, NS would be a game that would last five minutes, and be left to the region crashers and defenders. Now, I enjoy Gameplay as it happens, but I don't for a minute think I'd stay here solely for that: I enjoy the RP aspects too much. And our regional trading will be affected by this: we choose to make it so.

In the end, I have voted against this repeal. The only real reason I am doing so was that this was a motion that was passed in the wake of a repeal. I am starting to think we have a bunch of lemmings who will vote AYE for anyting, and the repeal of this resolution will only cause a dfferent and equally potentialy disasterous resolution to follow in its wake.

Well, you're wrong about the lemmings. It looks like they're going to vote NO. I personally wish they didn't; I respect their democratic right to do so, and unlike some UN forum posters, I don't intend on slandering the intellect of the general populace every time some shoddy bit of legislation gets passed. There have been so many poor resolutions passed that if we assumed that solely due to the voting ability of the GA, we would struggle to believe they were capable of co-ordinating the 'left click on Vote For' motor function.

No, I don't see the rapid transition of legislation as indicative of 'lemmings'. And, if it is, then it is our fault, as those who use the forums and perhaps get more involved in the drafting process - although I maintain the importance of unseen, off-site polls and votes and debates - for not communicating out to the GA the full scope of discussion. This 'oh, they'll vote yes for anything' is an insult to the voters, to the legislators, and to ourselves as those who choose to remain part of a democratic body.

A blind-post from me, but with assurances I'll read this thread later on.

I fail to see the fact that the resolution is universal in respect to any nation as a flaw. The smaller, developing nations are more, not less, capable of reducing their emissions simply because they've got a lot less to reduce - a little nation has the advantage of flexibility in these circumstances.

With a larger population growth comes more development, and one of the primary advantages of stopping fossil fuel increases early on is that it forces those nations to choose alternate, more long-term methods of supplying energy, thus fixing a problem before it starts.

While in NationStates population growth is pretty steady, you refer to faster growth in the early years. This growth, in RL terms, is partially based on what sort of requirements a nation can fulfill for its citizens. Using massive amounts of fossil fuel to supply cheap development increases the growth of the nation, which in turn causes even bigger problems when that resource runs out - more people without energy. But if you start this reduction now, you'll actually experience less growth in terms of population due to the energy overhaul, since less jobs are available as the nation develops slower. When times are a little lean people make fewer babies and immigration slows. This does not mean that that nation is going to sink into economic depression, as sayeth the specific proviso in the act itself:

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.

Are we looking at harming the economy of nations temporarily? Yes. That's always been the case - slow the use of fuel now while it's still possible to do it slowly and quietly, take that short downward spike in growth for a more stable upwards leaning line. Are we looking at destroying smaller nations economies? Not in the least. Indeed, the establishment of a stable energy source stops economies from bottoming out at the point they lose their precious fossil fuel - stops them from crashing when they're big and unmaneuverable, and the cuts they'll have to take to save their asses are far more than 2 percent.

Just about every resolution is a trade-off - you can't have your cake and eat it too, to use the boring cliche. Short-term damage for several long-term benefits is a good trade, especially when special cases are properly mitigated. I vote against.

The replacement ensures both short term economic groeth and long term environmental stability

If NS oil is "Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel," as defined in FFRA, then yes, it is finite because it is used much faster than it is created. There are, at any given time, a finite number of nations in NS. Each nation, it is my interpretation, has finite land and therefore finite resources, including fossil fuel.

Can you, on the otherhand, prove that NS oil is an infinite resource?There are nations of over 6 billion people and I've never heard a single one complain about a shortage of any resource.

Aside from the techwankyness of your infnite synthetic, oil, if it does not fall under the definition of fossil fuel, as laid out in FFRA, it is not regulated by it, so where is your problem?The problem is, that the process for creating it is still being perfected and it's not currently cost effective to switch over to the synthetic completly, therefore we still have to use the real stuff too.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Pojonia is ranked 1st in the region and 1,110th in the world for Most Beautiful Environments.
Pojonia is ranked 1st in the region and 909th in the world for Best Weather.
Pojonia is ranked 1st in the region and 517th in the world for Most Compassionate Citizens

Pojonia, your Economy: Imploded

Don't you think economy is also important?
Don't you want to find a sensible mix between environment, economy, civil rigts, political freedoms?

from:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Economic%2C_Political%2C_and_Civil_Rankings

http://test256.free.fr/Economic,%20Political,%20and%20Civil%20Rankings.jpg

The replacement ensures both short term economic groeth and long term environmental stability

Where? From what I see, it says it reduces finite resources, except that it's all wonky and reliant on a committee. That doesn't ensure short-term economic growth or long-term environmental stablity (and I'm not just talking about the environment). Instead, it makes everything dependent on a committee which is exceptionally untrustworthy. Committees increase the amount of steps required for direct action, and they certainly don't guarantee or ensure anything. If the committee does its job, it will be decreasing short-term growth. Unless the committee isn't doing it's job, in which case that long term stability doesn't really come into play.

I don't particularly wish to argue over the replacement - I've got issues with it, but primarily I have issues with the repeal itself. I don't see any type of benefit to repealing the resolution and replacing it with a new one, simply because the old one works.

OoC: Urm...commitee's are trustworthy as they are staffed by mythical beings. Claiming that a comitee is untrustworthy is akin to metagaming

Pojonia, you forget to mention:

Pojonia Economy: Imploded

Don't you think economy is also important; how can you sustain Political Freedoms & Civil Rights without economy and vice-versa?


Well, apparently its not too hard, seeing as my Political Freedoms and Civil Rights are both "superb" at the moment and usually surpass even that. Of course, you might want to look to my U.N. nation, the Pojonian Puppet, for statistics.

That being said, what relevance does this have? What I'm saying is that this resolution is about preserving the economy in the long run in exchange for a short spike in the short. I never devalued the economy, but rather vouched for a sustainable economy as opposed to a rapidly growing juggernaut that falls off a cliff upon reaching its peak size.

Of course, you might want to look to my U.N. nation, the Pojonian Puppet, for statistics.


you right, The Pirate Protectorate of The Pojonian Puppet economy is Ok

I don't see any type of benefit to repealing the resolution and replacing it with a new one, simply because the old one works.Hmm ... and nations whose primary industry is steel manufacturing or aeronautics? I wonder how this is "working" for them? Have you considered how these industries will thrive without fossil fuels? Given rapid population growth, smaller nations within 10 years may have to replace 80 to nearly 100 percent of their fossil fuel market under this act, which will pulverize their economies, not even taking into account whether their primary industries are heavily reliant on fossil fuels just to function.

This is not intended as a pointed remark: it is a genuine question. In fact, a sensible answer might even help change my mind.

How does one actually construct vast networks of turbines and solar panels and incinerators, and get them up and running, considering they presumably need a good deal of electricity in the manufacturing stages, without using fossil fuels? Mechanically, is it going to be possible on a cost:benefit ratio to set up sufficient alternative energy generators? I would wonder if the processes involved wouldn't require too much fossil fuel burning.

What's a fair share?

Something a little closer to being proportionate to their population, perhaps (and I guess, given the special circumstances of the NS world, modulated by technological development)?

But they were already using less.

There are certain things that we can't really do without fossil fuels given current technology. For instance, how would you propose we extract iron from its ore without carbon reduction, which requires coke? What are planes supposed to run on (both nuclear and solar solutions, I am told, are at present impractical)? Some nations might have already cut their use down to this bare minimum, replacing all electricity generation and transportation with environmentally friendly methods. You're then asking them to cut down further into this bare minimum level, which means not just tightening belts but actually cutting off supplies of iron and other things. Meanwhile, other nations, due to their gross excesses in previous years, get to enjoy a mere tightening of belts. They'll probably still have enough of a ration to continue all the essential uses as well as maintaining at least some fossil fuel powered electricity generation and/or transportation.

How on Earth is that fair?

But in absolute terms a lot more reduction, and in economic terms probably more difficult to achieve.

If you mean that it would be harder to achieve a fairer reduction - then maybe that's only fair. The onus should be on wasteful nations to cut down drastically. Why should nations like _Myopia_, already suffering poverty and undergoing hardship in the name of resource and environment conservation, have to take up the slack on behalf of more wasteful, polluting rich nations who can't be bothered to make the same effort we have?

The way I see it is this. It's like if a group of people were stranded on a desert island or something, with quite a large, but finite, food supply that they need to make last until they are rescued (i.e. until technology produces alternatives for every use of fossil fuels). At first, it's something of a free-for-all, and quite a lot of people gorge themselves, taking far more than what they need. Meanwhile, a few people, realising the reality of the situation, ensure they limit themselves to only what they need to survive healthily. Eventually, everyone on the island comes round to the realisation that they need to ration the food. Surely it only makes sense that the greatest reductions are asked of the over-eaters, and an equitable ration implemented, rather than asking everyone to cut their food by the same proportion, so the responsible ones begin to starve, while the gluttons are still eating more than the minimum they need for health.

Yes. Lies, bloody lies and statistics. I was so unimpressed by those figures that I didn't even bother to reply. Sure, the figures were right. The interpretation very one-sided. You didn't use those figures to find the truth, but to prove your point. Clever, and some might fall for it, but I won't.

Sorry, exactly what part of what I said do you dispute? I certainly wasn't making a conscious effort to be misleading, and want to correct anything false I've said. Right now, I really can't see what's wrong with the point I made.

Odd. If you're concerned about the consequences for your children, then why do you support a repeal that will make their situation worse?

Vote against the repeal! Choose economy, choose environment!

i do care about the future of ny nation and i would support a reasonable proposal that wouldn't implode every economy in the nation states which the FFRA will do.

i've always said as the prices of fossil fuels rise nations will seek solutions. at the moment in my country petrol is 4 obans a gallon. we had a deputation at our parliment from concerned citizens and our governments response was to go even further than planned on a public transport act.

there will be now be less vehicles in Kirisubo's roads and since our trains and trams run on electricty there is no polution from them.

if you want to know more about what we've done even before this act passed send me a telegram.

the attitude expressed by the honourable delegate disgusts me. defending mother earth is all fair and good but letting this act continue without the technology and alternative energy in place is just criminal.

think on that!

(Whispers)**Be careful, I see the capatilist sharks circling. You see, they hide behind two statements... one: "this is the NS world and there is no impending disaster". This proves they have no foresight concerning anything except the stock markets. And two: "the legislation is harmful to younger nations' economies", while at the same time they pull in the benefits of cheap, dirty fuel for their own economically corrupt societies. So don't give them anything to go on, they'll twist your words quicker than they can pick up a dollar from a distracted child.**

I was reading through the forum and came across this...I resent that! I am a capitalist and that is not how I act, I certainly don't steal dollars from children, rather I give them dollars and teach them to be good investors (unlike you socialists who give them twentyy-dollar bills letting them buy all the candy in the world, and then calling them underprivillegged). In either case you can't classify all of us as being of low character or uninsightful simply because we believe in running our economies different. I infact agree that we need to look into alternative fuels and stop the use of fossil fuels, but not by force. We could let the free market do this, maybe even by giving tax incentives to high-tech industries, and industries that market alternate energy sources. Compettetition, supply and demand, and all these other things will by itself make our businesses have it in their best interest to find some other fuel. Another way to reduce dependance on fossil fuels, which I think you'll agree, is to eliminate all oil subsidies, the rising price of gasoline as a result(even if only temporary) will motivate consumers to use mass transit, buy more fuel efficient cars, and of course look into alternative sources of fuel.
See? Were not opposed to each others goals...we simply want to accomplish them differently.

I urge all nations who have not yet considered Cobdenia's replacement, which the resolution author Ateelatay has said he would support if the repeal is successful, to do so. We are not simply spouting hot air: we genuinely want effective environmental legislation.

Yes it is true, I do support the potential replacement, but I want to make it clear that I still stand by FFRA and do not support its repeal.

The representative from Gruenberg repeatedly and furiously smashes the damn UN page into a wall until it loads.

The TG campaigning continues. I didn't mean to suggest you supported the replacement over your own, of course: just that it is a viable alternative, and not 'toothless', as was predicted.

I am a capitalist and that is not how I act, I certainly don't steal dollars from children, rather I give them dollars and teach them to be good investors
Merely a rant on a steriotype. All part of the game! :D

SqR

Congragulations.

Votes For: 4,689

Votes Against: 6,432

It turns out the UN does care, they are no longer lemmings. They actually think for themseleves!

I'm wondering...if the theory is true that this resolution will destroy the economies of nations everywhere, then why is it that no nation ever had that bad economy? No nation here admits to having their econ ruined because of this resolution. Maybe it's a lie spread by "omgikilledkenny"?

I'm wondering...if the theory is true that this resolution will destroy the economies of nations everywhere, then why is it that no nation ever had that bad economy? No nation here admits to having their econ ruined because of this resolution. Maybe it's a lie spread by "omgikilledkenny"?

We're talking about a 45 year period. Excuse us for having some forethought: funny, isn't it, that opponents of the repeal accuse us of not 'thinking of the children', when they aren't willing to extend their progeny that same courtesy.

We're talking about a 45 year period. Excuse us for having some forethought: funny, isn't it, that opponents of the repeal accuse us of not 'thinking of the children', when they aren't willing to extend their progeny that same courtesy.

Ah. In that case, you're right. I don't want my childern to go beg on the streets for some lost credits.

I also doesn't want my childern to die from acid rain.

Both are sad endings.

How about this? Those UN memberes that support the resolution will comply with it very much, saving the envoriment. Meanwhile, those UN members that do not support the resolution can not comply with it, like I plotted to do against the WEA. Those members will save the economy.

After the UN nations who saved the enviroment end their party celeberating their crusade against polluters, and the speeches of how the UN saved the world from global warming stops, then those UN nations with imploded ecomonies can easily run to those UN nations who does not comply with the resolution and get to live in their good economy. All beniefts, especially Mother Earth.

It turns out the UN does care, they are no longer lemmings. They actually think for themseleves!
Or perhaps they simply don't realize the full extent of damage dealt by Reduction of Fossil Fuels. Many continue to labor under the impression that it only calls for a ten percent reduction from peak rates, not a reduction to ten percent of peak rates.

I'm wondering...if the theory is true that this resolution will destroy the economies of nations everywhere, then why is it that no nation ever had that bad economy? No nation here admits to having their econ ruined because of this resolution. Maybe it's a lie spread by "omgikilledkenny"?
From a simple mechanics perspective, single resolutions generally don't cause major stat changes. Apparently the worst so far was due to "40 Hour Work Week." Roleplayed effects, on the other hand, probably represent more accurately the full consequences of UN resolutions.


In any event, Greater Boblandia has voted in support of the repeal. It seems unreasonable for Fossil Fuel Reduction Act to apply such flat rates for fuel reductions and spending increases across all nations with no account taken for actual rate and distribution of fossil fuel consumption, as well as current spending for environmental research. We find these flaws to be absolutely unredeemable.

Until the repeal passes (which it proberly doesn't, with most people voting against the repeal)...it is best you follow my suggestion and do not comply with the resolution. Those that wish to comply with the resolution and save the enviroment will be honored, but those that do not wish to comply with the resolution doesn't have to. Use lawyers to find loopholes and use them to get out of it. Save your ecomony so that when the enviroment is saved, then we can go to your nation and enjoy their economy!

EDIT: By the way, isn't the resolution in question actually illegal?

ARTICLE I, 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, 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.

Both violate game mechanians?

No, that's not GM. Aid and trade are RPed.

My region has voted to repel it. We are small with inly a few countries and are still developing. We don't have enough money to waste on "saving the envyronment." We still have our own problems and have no time or money to comply with this resolution.

Can you show me where oil is a finite resource in NS? And considering that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has developed a process for creating a synthetic version of crude oil that has all the same uses as the real thing, obviously oil is not a finite resource for us.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Unless Oil in NationStates takes less than a million years to make...then YES, it's finite.


I will not debate a topic IF your way of "winning" is moving the Goal posts.






"Oh you can't use finite as a reason because Oil in NS forms in 4 years and not 1,000,000."


OOC: Just ignore questions you don't have answers for, DON'T TRY TO REFRAM THE QUESTION WHERE YOU CAN'T NEVER LOSE.

"well Oil is a renewable resource in NationStates..."

Bull.



IC: Thank you for helping me make up my mind.

I am Voting AGAINST the repeal.

Unless Oil in NationStates takes less than a million years to make...then YES, it's finite.


But there are an increasing number of nations - the number is going up a lot of the time - so obviously there will be an increasing amount of oil.

My region has voted to repel it. We are small with inly a few countries and are still developing. We don't have enough money to waste on "saving the envyronment." We still have our own problems and have no time or money to comply with this resolution.

And yet if you go down the path of not saving the environment now, you are never going to do it - it will get to the point where you are too far down the road and it will cost a lot, lot more to retool all your factories and so forth to be environmentaly friendly.

It is much better to build in safeguards at the start, rather than try to futz then in a lot later.

It is much better to build in safeguards at the start, rather than try to futz then in a lot later.

I agree. I just think this is the wrong safeguard.

OOC: OK, funny poll ... but I don't think it is Wiki-able. Also this is a well worded repeal ... just I would have rathered the earlier air quality resolutions been targeted instead. :/

IC:
The Confederated City States feels that some of the other fossil fuel reduction resolutions could have stood to be revisited before this particular resolution, and would rather see that this body come up with some consensus on which resolutions are effective and which ones are not, before rushing to repeal what we consider a well written resolution. Naturally we've voted against this repeal, though we would like to state that we find the language straight forward and completely legal ... thus we'll honor whatever decision this body makes.

There are nations of over 6 billion people and I've never heard a single one complain about a shortage of any resource.


OOC: Do bear in mind that the argument:

Nations States is large, [X] is not limited.

can apply to things beyond resources. Human rights can be said to not be worthy of UN consideration for the same reason. "Do you really think this resolution is going to improve conditions in our already STELLAR nations?" ;)

Nothing is every wrong, nothing is every right in this game, because you can invent a new story, problem, solution and it happens. That is largely why I'm less active here, things are too open ended to really interest me.

I agree. I just think this is the wrong safeguard.

I agree - and voted for the repeal (maybe the first repeal I have ever voted for) but I disagree that developing nations should not be urged/forced in to making sure they are protecting the environment. It should be the duty of all nations, not just those that cause the most pollution.

OOC: OK, funny poll ... but I don't think it is Wiki-able. Also this is a well worded repeal ... just I would have rathered the earlier air quality resolutions been targeted instead. :/

IC:
The Confederated City States feels that some of the other fossil fuel reduction resolutions could have stood to be revisited before this particular resolution, and would rather see that this body come up with some consensus on which resolutions are effective and which ones are not, before rushing to repeal what we consider a well written resolution. Naturally we've voted against this repeal, though we would like to state that we find the language straight forward and completely legal ... thus we'll honor whatever decision this body makes.

OOC: We can try to use the poll. And I think FFRA is bad in and of itself, regardless of the merits of prior legislation.

IC: We find this sort of attitude - and we hope the honourable delegate from Mikitivity appreciates the respect with which we hold him - to be infuriating. It requires a good deal of effort to bring a proposal to quorum; to then dismiss it simply because there are other useless resolutions ignores that entirely. We agree earlier resolutions are poorer; we do not believe that in any way negates the criminal short-sightedness of the FFRA.

here is an argument I dont know if many have considered:
When the larger countries are allowed to use more fossil fuels, and driving up the cost on the global market, does it not impact the economy of a developing nation as well?

The way the PDS has interpreted the resolution #126 is simple: Reduce demand, and reduce costs. The larger countries when reducing fossil fuel usage under 126, each country is held to a 2% rate in reduction from the previous reduction. This means that countries that use more oil will reduce consumption in higher quantity then those with smaller consumption.

Is it logical to assume a country with 10 million people will use more fuel then a country with 5 billion people?

An Example:

Say country X uses 600 gallons of gas per person reducing the fuel rate at 2% means that country X reduces fuel consumption by 12 gallons per person.

If country Y is smaller, and only uses 200 gallons of gas per person their decrease would amount to 4 gallons per person.

With more fossil fuel on the market thanks to country X, country Y is able to purchase fuel at a cheaper cost to them, thus the economic impact of fuel reduction is offset by the savings on fuel costs.

That's an interesting point...but it would only hold up if you could a much bigger sample.

Until the repeal passes (which it proberly doesn't, with most people voting against the repeal)...it is best you follow my suggestion and do not comply with the resolution. Those that wish to comply with the resolution and save the enviroment will be honored, but those that do not wish to comply with the resolution doesn't have to. Use lawyers to find loopholes and use them to get out of it. Save your ecomony so that when the enviroment is saved, then we can go to your nation and enjoy their economy!

EDIT: By the way, isn't the resolution in question actually illegal?

ARTICLE I, 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, 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.

Both violate game mechanians?

I may be needing some more trading partners, because I plan on basically ignoring the resolution(unless it does get repealed.). Personally I plan on shutting my borders to those not in my region who destroy their economy with this resolution. I mostly use nuke power for electricity anyway. So I only burn coal to fire the blast furnaces that make steel for weapons, and Coke plants that help make steel.

The logical thing is going to be to establish a trading bloc of non-compliant nations to negate the problems caused by sanctions.

I agree - and voted for the repeal (maybe the first repeal I have ever voted for) but I disagree that developing nations should not be urged/forced in to making sure they are protecting the environment. It should be the duty of all nations, not just those that cause the most pollution.

The difference being that mandating that developing nations reduce their use of fossil fules hinders their development, while developed countries that can afford alternative energy sources can at least maintain their economies, if not continue to grow. Mandating a blanket reduction, without considering the levels of development of individual nations (which the FFRA does not), merely serves to preserve the economic status quo -- keeping the rich nations rich and the poor nations poor.

I may be needing some more trading partners, because I plan on basically ignoring the resolution(unless it does get repealed.). Personally I plan on shutting my borders to those not in my region who destroy their economy with this resolution.
Sour grapes?

Sour grapes?

No, I think his point is that given the resolution is completely unfeasible, he may as well prepare himself to take full advantage of that "oh, shit" moment in 45 years' time.

But there are an increasing number of nations - the number is going up a lot of the time - so obviously there will be an increasing amount of oil.


Yes but if it does not form in a human's lifetime...then the resource is Finite.


Unless you're arguing that NationStates has 1,000 years supply. I mean come on, my nation has over 2 billion people. Talking lots of energy consumption.

Flanagania has looked at a number of the arguments for and against this repeal and we, as a nation that lobbied our region in favour of the current resolution, can see absolutely no reason why this repeal should go through.

Most of the arguments are around peripheral matters and are pointless. The existing legislation was argued over ad finitum, after a very poorly written piece had to be repealed. This proposal is just someone's ego trip. There is nothing wrong with the original.

Stavros Niconpompolou
Flanaganian Minister for External Affairs

The difference being that mandating that developing nations reduce their use of fossil fules hinders their development, while developed countries that can afford alternative energy sources can at least maintain their economies, if not continue to grow. Mandating a blanket reduction, without considering the levels of development of individual nations (which the FFRA does not), merely serves to preserve the economic status quo -- keeping the rich nations rich and the poor nations poor.

But if you don't take at least some steps to force developing nations in to line, they will become developed nations and be polluting the same as all the other nations who are being forced in to line. The best way to fix the problem is to start at the very beginning - make sure it's done the right way and not fixed up halfway through in a half-assed manner.

Yes but if it does not form in a human's lifetime...then the resource is Finite.


Unless you're arguing that NationStates has 1,000 years supply. I mean come on, my nation has over 2 billion people. Talking lots of energy consumption.

But if five new nations join every day, and each of them has 10 years supply, that's another fifty years worth - they can't all be using it. And further more if you work that out for a year thats around 15,000 years supply, which can not all be being used by the nations in question (there will be varying needs).

Something a little closer to being proportionate to their population, perhaps (and I guess, given the special circumstances of the NS world, modulated by technological development)?

Perhaps. Or something proportionate to their current use. That's just as fair.

There are certain things that we can't really do without fossil fuels given current technology.

Exactly. And that's where you are going wrong. Because we shouldn't look at curreny technology, but future technology. Did our grandparents know how the world would look now 45 years ago?

For instance, how would you propose we extract iron from its ore without carbon reduction, which requires coke? What are planes supposed to run on (both nuclear and solar solutions, I am told, are at present impractical)?

Invest in R&D, I'd say. Not only will you need it, it will also be stimulating for your economy as your scientists are inventing lots of usefull stuff, and improving other energy sources.

Some nations might have already cut their use down to this bare minimum, replacing all electricity generation and transportation with environmentally friendly methods. You're then asking them to cut down further into this bare minimum level, which means not just tightening belts but actually cutting off supplies of iron and other things. Meanwhile, other nations, due to their gross excesses in previous years, get to enjoy a mere tightening of belts. They'll probably still have enough of a ration to continue all the essential uses as well as maintaining at least some fossil fuel powered electricity generation and/or transportation.

How on Earth is that fair?

A bare minimum now might not be a bare minimum in 45 years time. A 90% reduction could well be feasible then. When the current reduction is achieved, we can start on the abolute usage and reduce that, targeting the most-using nations. But it wouldn't be fair to them to ask more reduction now, because that would mean too great a change.

If you mean that it would be harder to achieve a fairer reduction - then maybe that's only fair. The onus should be on wasteful nations to cut down drastically. Why should nations like _Myopia_, already suffering poverty and undergoing hardship in the name of resource and environment conservation, have to take up the slack on behalf of more wasteful, polluting rich nations who can't be bothered to make the same effort we have?

If you're already doing that, you can sell your expertise and technology to those other nations and make lots of Novas.

The way I see it is this. It's like if a group of people were stranded on a desert island or something, with quite a large, but finite, food supply that they need to make last until they are rescued (i.e. until technology produces alternatives for every use of fossil fuels). At first, it's something of a free-for-all, and quite a lot of people gorge themselves, taking far more than what they need. Meanwhile, a few people, realising the reality of the situation, ensure they limit themselves to only what they need to survive healthily. Eventually, everyone on the island comes round to the realisation that they need to ration the food. Surely it only makes sense that the greatest reductions are asked of the over-eaters, and an equitable ration implemented, rather than asking everyone to cut their food by the same proportion, so the responsible ones begin to starve, while the gluttons are still eating more than the minimum they need for health.

But that is a very hypothetical situation. Very few nations will actually be on a comparable level of environmental care, because that amount of care simply doesn't pay off because other nations aren't doing their best. It's like eating little food but getting fat anyway because other people are eating even more food. At some point well before being really environmentally friendly it just doesn't pay off anymore because your neighbouring country is polluting water and air coming into your nation.

Sorry, exactly what part of what I said do you dispute? I certainly wasn't making a conscious effort to be misleading, and want to correct anything false I've said. Right now, I really can't see what's wrong with the point I made.

I dispute the use of statistics merely to prove your point, while other interpretations and uses are just as correct. Statistics are there to be mistrusted.

But there are an increasing number of nations - the number is going up a lot of the time - so obviously there will be an increasing amount of oil.

About 4-5000 less than August, in fact. I don't know how much oil they had.

The number of NS nations is steadily decreasing, as is UN membership.
NS: ~115.000 - ~111.000
UN: ~33.000 - ~ 30.000

As you can see, UN membership is even going relatively faster down since August than NS as a whole.

OOC Edit: I decided to calculate it.
Since august, UN membership has declined 7.6% (33,294 to 30,763).
NS nations have declined 3.1% (115,332 to 111,791)
That's data taken around midday CEST since August 7 this year.

About 4-5000 less than August, in fact. I don't know how much oil they had.

The number of NS nations is steadily decreasing, as is UN membership.
NS: ~115.000 - ~111.000
UN: ~33.000 - ~ 30.000

As you can see, UN membership is even going relatively faster down since August than NS as a whole.

OOC Edit: I decided to calculate it.
Since august, UN membership has declined 7.6% (33,294 to 30,763).
NS nations have declined 3.1% (115,332 to 111,791)
That's data taken around midday CEST since August 7 this year.

(smirk) So my arguement isn't perfect.

But hey - three years ago there were three nations, so it's increased since then :}

But if you don't take at least some steps to force developing nations in to line, they will become developed nations and be polluting the same as all the other nations who are being forced in to line. The best way to fix the problem is to start at the very beginning - make sure it's done the right way and not fixed up halfway through in a half-assed manner.

But since the "right" way is too expensive and inefficient for a developing nation, its economy gets stuck where it is.

I dispute the use of statistics merely to prove your point, while other interpretations and uses are just as correct. Statistics are there to be mistrusted.

I'm not speaking for _Myopia_ in any way.

What are you talking about? You have just conceeded that he has in fact proved that this resolution is unfair and damaging to poorer nations, and you rule it out, not because of any flaws in his logic, but because he has used 'statistics'? The numbers he is using are no more statistical than the calculation base expressed in the resolution itself. You seem to be arguing that yes, the resolution calculation is flawed, and yes, it will fuck over developing nations, but that since that deduction comes from application of numbers, it's wildly invalid.

What are these other interpretations and uses? _Myopia_'s sums are correct. The only way around them is hollow rhetoric. Because words are always more accurate than numbers. You know, that little bastard Disraeli has a lot to answer for.

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 FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

I dispute the use of statistics merely to prove your point, while other interpretations and uses are just as correct. Statistics are there to be mistrusted.

Well, there's no debating that -- not because the honorable delegate is correct, but because his argument is wildly illogical.

Most of the arguments are around peripheral matters and are pointless. The existing legislation was argued over ad finitum, after a very poorly written piece had to be repealed. This proposal is just someone's ego trip. There is nothing wrong with the original.[soothing voice:] "Let me assure you that your fears are groundless, and your complaints moronic." [/Lindsay Nagel]

But since the "right" way is too expensive and inefficient for a developing nation, its economy gets stuck where it is.

Other nations can help out. Share technology through the world to save the world, rather than one little corner of it.

Most of the arguments are around peripheral matters and are pointless. The existing legislation was argued over ad finitum, after a very poorly written piece had to be repealed. This proposal is just someone's ego trip. There is nothing wrong with the original.
(Bold added.)

They were argued "to finity"?

*snip*Why do you keep arguing against the repeal if you've already voted for it?

Other nations can help out. Share technology through the world to save the world, rather than one little corner of it.

"Share"? As in, "give"? Now you're placing the burden on developed nations to simply provide, say, nuclear reactors to developing nations?

Why do you keep arguing against the repeal if you've already voted for it?

Because I disagree with one *tiny* portion of the original resolution, and not the idea that developing nations should be required to become as environmentally friendly as possible as soon as possible.

And if it wasn't for the "ceiling rate" I would be voting against the repeal.

"Share"? As in, "give"? Now you're placing the burden on developed nations to simply provide, say, nuclear reactors to developing nations?

Share as in educate, share as in teach. Share as in show nations how to convert to solar power or wind power and not just keep it all for ourselves.

We are either concerned with the environment, or we aren't. But if we are, we have to be concerned about it everywhere, and not just in our own backyards. Otherwise by the time the developing nations get to being developed, they will be poisoning us as much as we are poisoning them now.

Share as in educate, share as in teach. Share as in show nations how to convert to solar power or wind power and not just keep it all for ourselves.


Still not addressing how developing nations would pay for it...

Still not addressing how developing nations would pay for it...

How about all the money they are not spending on refineries and the like?

I don't have all the answers, but even I can see that fixing a problem before it becomes a problem is a lot better than trying to fix it afterwards.

However the original resolution was not the way to fix it - there is probably a better one.

OOC: I just want to point out that the level of response to certain options in this poll is rather disturbing on many levels.

How about all the money they are not spending on refineries and the like?


Oh, right, because a nuclear reactor costs no more than an oil refinery...

:headbang:

(OOC: And dammit, whether this proposal passes or not, I'm invading Chechnya!)

I've voted in favor of this Repeal. Though however we reserve the right to invade Chechnya as we do not wish to close any of our options.

Major Maxwell Marshall, Deputy Minister of Forieign Affairs
The People's Socialist Republic of Bolshikstan, The East Pacific





;) :)

OOC: I just want to point out that the level of response to certain options in this poll is rather disturbing on many levels.
OOC: Would you be referring to the 14 ambassadors trying to sleep in this thread?

Well, five ambassadors have cursed me with their otters; that's never good.

Well, five ambassadors have cursed me with their otters; that's never good.
and there's eight who thought that we were still talking about dolphins.

The resolution "Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act"" was defeated 8,232 votes to 5,386.Honorable delegates, you are to be commended for this day’s decision. You by your votes have acted to prevent a disaster of monumental proportions and elected to stop it now rather than wait for the inevitable.

You have averted a mass invasion of Chechnya.

The final vote, however, does give us the distinction of now having authored two defeated proposals, two defeated repeals, no less. ... (Hey, stop laughing. None of you have authored two defeated proposals!) And we fully intend to continue to submit more UN proposals, again and again and again, until you fools actually pass one of them.

On an unrelated note, the Federal Republic has just recognized Susan Lucci as an honorary citizen.

On a totally unrelated note, I would like to thank a certain UN nation for this post on the South Pacific forum:

I think I'm quitting the UN.

Vote it in
Vote it out

Newest trend is stupid.Since then, I’ve had “Disco Lady” stuck in my head for some reason -- and I can think of no better anthem to give this repeal a proper send off. Com'on, everybody; help me out here:

Move it in, move it out,
Vote it in, vote it out,
Disco Lady!

[Discos from the hall as the General Assembly continues to sing]

Jack Riley
UN Ambassador

This defeated repeal brought to you by:
Arrogant Bastard Oil
“Blatantly violating UN resolutions since 2005”

Everybody, git down!
http://media.g4tv.com/images/ttv/graphics/internettonight/disco.2131883.gif

OOC: We can try to use the poll. And I think FFRA is bad in and of itself, regardless of the merits of prior legislation.

IC: We find this sort of attitude - and we hope the honourable delegate from Mikitivity appreciates the respect with which we hold him - to be infuriating. It requires a good deal of effort to bring a proposal to quorum; to then dismiss it simply because there are other useless resolutions ignores that entirely. We agree earlier resolutions are poorer; we do not believe that in any way negates the criminal short-sightedness of the FFRA.

No offense is taken. The mistake, in my government's position, is in starting the repeal on this resolution and not focusing on one of the earlier *worse* resolutions. As you pointed out, there is a good deal of effort involved in bringing a proposal to quorum. But long before that process should begin, even more work should be done researching all resolutions and finding which ones really should be addressed. I like to personally call this a bit of political triage ... find the existing resolutions that are most in need of repeal and focus on them first.

Simply because a matter is at vote, doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what we'd be left with. In this particular case, my government thought that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act was a responsible resolution and superior to other resolutions. Had the motion been to repeal say the old "Alternative Fules" resolution (#39), we'd have agreed with the motion.

Ultimately I think we all can recognize that our governments will likely build different priority lists ... thus the key really is to find where the largest agreement rests and focus our work in that direction.

Once again, the proud nubian people of Shaftistheman have been undermined by Whitey and his establishment in his eternal quest to seize power from the people.

Once again, the poor little white brutha in the orange coat has been sacrificed in the name of TV ratings, check that: environmental safety.

You Bastards.....


Shaftistheman will fight on and will overcome.:mp5:

Feel The Love!

Exactly. And that's where you are going wrong. Because we shouldn't look at curreny technology, but future technology. Did our grandparents know how the world would look now 45 years ago?

But we have to start making cuts right now (and that's while our population, as a developing nation, is still growing quite fast), not only in 45 years.

Invest in R&D, I'd say. Not only will you need it, it will also be stimulating for your economy as your scientists are inventing lots of usefull stuff, and improving other energy sources.

We aren't exactly a rich nation, and what we do have is going to have to be channelled into completing the switchover in our transport to ethanol fuels. Our R&D budget is already fairly extravagant for an economy in the state ours is in.

A bare minimum now might not be a bare minimum in 45 years time. A 90% reduction could well be feasible then. When the current reduction is achieved, we can start on the abolute usage and reduce that, targeting the most-using nations. But it wouldn't be fair to them to ask more reduction now, because that would mean too great a change.

This would be vaguely reasonable (though still not preferable to targetting the worst offenders in the first place), if the reduction was less, say to 75% over a shorter time period.

If you're already doing that, you can sell your expertise and technology to those other nations and make lots of Novas.

Technological advantage is not really the source of our low usage. We are, after all, a developing nation. Industry is not really big enough to be spouting huge amounts of emissions, and private cars are not easily affordable for most people. What transport we do have runs at least partially on ethanol and ethanol-petrol mixes, and most of out electricity is generated via nuclear (technology roughly analogous to that of India). Whilst we might have some expertise to offer in the area of nuclear and ethanol fuels, it isn't anything particularly special.

But that is a very hypothetical situation. Very few nations will actually be on a comparable level of environmental care, because that amount of care simply doesn't pay off because other nations aren't doing their best. It's like eating little food but getting fat anyway because other people are eating even more food. At some point well before being really environmentally friendly it just doesn't pay off anymore because your neighbouring country is polluting water and air coming into your nation.

In NS, far more nations are prepared to be idealistic and protect the environment to this extent anyway. Plus, many nations will be approaching this level, if not going the whole way.

I dispute the use of statistics merely to prove your point, while other interpretations and uses are just as correct. Statistics are there to be mistrusted.

I haven't even made any major or controversial manipulations of the data - all I've done is looked at oil consumption and divided it by population, then found 10% of that. There's very little room for interpretation of that data.

Do things normally get labelled as passed when they failed miserably?

Do things normally get labelled as passed when they failed miserably?No, just when I fuck up and misread the UN page. Fixed.

Honorable delegates, you are to be commended for this day’s decision. You by your votes have acted to prevent a disaster of monumental proportions and elected to stop it now rather than wait for the inevitable.

You have averted a mass invasion of Chechnya.
You know what, to hell with what the poll choice said. I'm invading Chechnya anyway. Who's with me!

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

The Cluichstani Armed Forces are with you!

You know what, to hell with what the poll choice said. I'm invading Chechnya anyway. Who's with me!

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Meh. We've already invaded Chechnya once today.

There can never be too many invasions of Chechnya.

We'll have to pass on invasion sorry. Its our nations annual "Praise the batter" week and our soldiers would riot if we tried to force them away from all the free donuts and beer.

Are we talking about the NS [region of] Chechnya here, or the RW one? ;-)

Are we talking about the NS [region of] Chechnya here, or the RW one? ;-)

There are only 2 nations in Chechnya region (with no delegate as neither is a UN member), so i suppose it can be very easy to become Chechnya UN delegate and then to have invaded Chechnya :p

someone interested in?

How many coalition already did it in history?

WIKIFIED (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Fossil_Fuel_Reduction_Act%22) BUMP!!!

WIKIFIED (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Fossil_Fuel_Reduction_Act%22) BUMP!!!

The delegates should bring all of your proposals to quorum, if only for the wiki articles. Nice job.

So we should keep poor legislation on the books solely because of planning, regardless of how that translated into actual administrative efficiency? I find that to be a very curious approach to governance. We would rather remove any and all damaging resolutions than worry about the feelings of those who planned them.

Well I'm aware that this is far gone (and the repeal has been defeated, thank goodness for the people who care about the environment and people's health), and I was too pre-occupied with school to view this for awhile, I don't know why you find compassion a curious approach to governance? Maybe the word compassion is foreign to you? And keeping the environment is the most efficient means to keep humanity safe. I would have liked to see the solar panel bill passed, but people don't think efficiently and give worst case scenarios (which if they were thinking practically would be avoided), and think with their pocketbooks over the health of the people and the effect their greed has on the environment.

Well I'm aware that this is far gone (and the repeal has been defeated, thank goodness for the people who care about the environment and people's health), and I was too pre-occupied with school to view this for awhile, I don't know why you find compassion a curious approach to governance? Maybe the word compassion is foreign to you? And keeping the environment is the most efficient means to keep humanity safe. I would have liked to see the solar panel bill passed, but people don't think efficiently and give worst case scenarios (which if they were thinking practically would be avoided), and think with their pocketbooks over the health of the people and the effect their greed has on the environment.

You haven't remotely addressed my question. So I'll ask it again.

Why should we keep poor legislation on the books solely because someone put some effort into planning it, regardless of its actual effectiveness?

*snip*Heh. I was wondering what had happened to you. True to form, however: baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks (they "think with their pocketbooks," "their greed," etc.) against posters who have advocated nothing more than sane UN environmental policy. I would refer forum regulars to past debates on this topic in order to absorb the full brunt of your demagogy.

Tell me, in truth: Is destroying the economies of smaller nations and imposing hardship on millions of workers the world over a matter of "compassion" for you??

WIKIFIED (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Fossil_Fuel_Reduction_Act%22) BUMP!!!

I chose # 7 on the poll, but voted for it. Great article though. My 'ats off to you Gov!

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office(new nation,same policies)

WIKIFIED (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Fossil_Fuel_Reduction_Act%22) BUMP!!!
And I chose option 5 and voted for it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What did I say would be the penalty for trying to analyze the poll results?! :mad:

You haven't remotely addressed my question. So I'll ask it again.

Why should we keep poor legislation on the books solely because someone put some effort into planning it, regardless of its actual effectiveness?

perhaps the majority felt that it wasn't poor legislation? Your one opinion, if I remember correctly, there were 13,618 opinions given to the repeal, 8,232 of which believe that the original resolution is good legislation.

So what's your point? Being in the majority never made anyone automatically correct.

What did I say would be the penalty for trying to analyze the poll results?! :mad:
I wasn't analyzing anything, I was simply stating that your analysis was slightly flawed as you assumed that those people who voted for the invade Chechnya option voted aganist the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

perhaps the majority felt that it wasn't poor legislation? Your one opinion, if I remember correctly, there were 13,618 opinions given to the repeal, 8,232 of which believe that the original resolution is good legislation.

I know the majority didn't feel it was poor legislation...that would be why it failed. What's your point? I'm not entitled to my opinion because more people happen to agree with you? That's pretty sick.

Not to mention the fact that many nations voted against the repeal not necessarily because they considered FFRA "good"; they voted on the basis that even though the original resolution was flawed, they just wanted something on the books, and something's better than nothing. Moreover, fully 1,100 of those 8,232 votes against the repeal came from just four nations: two feeder delegates and the delegates from NationStates and Europe, who knee-jerkingly favor left-wing causes on the floor.

And Flib: Go easy on me, man; I've already been cursed by the otters of six nations. :p

I know the majority didn't feel it was poor legislation...that would be why it failed. What's your point? I'm not entitled to my opinion because more people happen to agree with you? That's pretty sick.

I've been given the same argument when I was in the minority, why should it be any different? I am not saying your not entitled to your opinion, but that perhaps you need to look at why the repeal failed, and not criticize and demean people who arent in agreement with your opinion.

I've been given the same argument when I was in the minority, why should it be any different? I am not saying your not entitled to your opinion, but that perhaps you need to look at why the repeal failed, and not criticize and demean people who arent in agreement with your opinion.

The repeal failed because more people voted against than for it. To judge from the responses I got from my TG campaign, this was variously because:
1. I'm a Nazi;
2. we must save the trees!!!!!!!!!;
3. we shouldn't care if poor nations are unable to meet the demands of FFRA and are crippled in the process...so long as we can still afford to buy "Smug and proud of it" bumper stickers for our chronically breakdown-prone electric cars, hydrogen powered vehicles, and general crapmobiles;
4. it's, sigh, it's just so much bother to have to repeal another one.

Oh, and I don't criticise and demean people because they don't agree with me; I criticise and demean people because they're wrong.

And Flib: Go easy on me, man; I've already been cursed by the otters of six nations. :p
That was going easy on you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Make that seven otters and an additional, non-listed curse for mocking our national salutation. ;) :D

May the curses of our otters be upon you Kenny (evil laughter and squeaking from various otters).

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