NationStates Jolt Archive


[PROPOSAL] Repeal "Hydrogen Cars" Resolution

Karchozia
09-12-2005, 15:46
Greetings, fellow UN Members. I have come before you all to ask support for my proposal. I would ask that you read my arguement before deciding to give your approval. I believe my arguement is extremely justified, and it also proposes a more practical alternative.

Thank you,

Karchozia

Greetings fellow UN Delegate. I am proposing to repeal the "Hydrogen Cars" Resolution. I would ask that you read my arguement and support it.

Thank you,

Karchozia

*Link Removed*
Fonzoland
09-12-2005, 15:50
Greetings, fellow UN Members. I have come before you all to ask support for my proposal. I would ask that you read my arguement before deciding to give your approval. I believe my arguement is extremely justified, and it also proposes a more practical alternative.

Thank you,

Karchozia

Greetings fellow UN Delegate. I am proposing to repeal the "Hydrogen Cars" Resolution. I would ask that you read my arguement and support it.

Thank you,

Karchozia

http://www.nationstates.net/71011/page=UN_proposal/proposal=15/vote=for/start=15

I would appreciate it if you (or some higher power) removed that link. Most delegates wish to read the proposal before casting their vote. For this reason alone, I will neither read nor support your proposal.
The Black New World
09-12-2005, 16:55
I would appreciate it if you (or some higher power) removed that link. Most delegates wish to read the proposal before casting their vote. For this reason alone, I will neither read nor support your proposal.

Agreed.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG
Karchozia
10-12-2005, 03:55
I would appreciate it if you (or some higher power) removed that link. Most delegates wish to read the proposal before casting their vote. For this reason alone, I will neither read nor support your proposal.
Terribly sorry, that is my fault completely. I did not realize that that link would endorse the proposal. I shall fix the problem immediately.

I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention, however.
Karchozia
10-12-2005, 16:42
I would appreciate feedback on the proposal, to see if it is an acceptable arguement and help gain support for it.
Yelda
10-12-2005, 18:34
First, I support a repeal of this and don't care if it is ever replaced.
The resolution does not require us to build Hydrogen powered cars. It says: "every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars." So really it's just saying that "we think it would be nice if, you know, we all started building hydrogen cars". All it amounts to is a massive tax on our automobile industries which accomplishes nothing.
Kirisubo
10-12-2005, 18:58
Midori Kasigi, the young deputy ambassador sitting in at this debating session remembers this resolution as one of the useless ones that she looked over herself with a mind to repeal it.

She speaks up.

"The Empire of Kirisubo will support the repeal of 'Hydrogen cars' even although we've constructed a prototype engine for military use.

The act alone does nothing but start the development of these engines. It is better to put the money thats being used to research hydrogen engines into bio-diesel or other forms of vehicle engines which are practical and cost effective"
Yelda
10-12-2005, 19:09
Here's the repeal text, since it doesn't look like anyone else is going to take the initiative and post it:
UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALIZING that hydrogen powered vehicles would improve the environment and

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many other useful side effects by using hydrogen vehicles, we wish to

REPEAL this Resolution on the basis of practicality and cost.

PRACTICALLY speaking, hydrogen cars are not cost-effective enough to justify researching and building them. The immense

COST to develop and then mass-produce such vehicles would have an enormous strain on each nation’s economy, with no beneficial results to the environment.

REALIZING oil is a limited resource, we can instead use the money from hydrogen research to develop bio-diesel cars. The

COST would be much less, and we would be using materials that would have otherwise been wasted and potentially harmed the environment.

BIO-DIESEL is the far more productive and practical method, and one that should be funded, rather than the expensive hydrogen cars.
The Lynx Alliance
10-12-2005, 23:24
Here's the repeal text, since it doesn't look like anyone else is going to take the initiative and post it:
thats because it is up to the nation that has submitted it to post it. because they bypass the rules thread in a hurry to post the proposal/repeal, they dont always know that it is a rule to post the contents in the thread.

firstly, We would agree with repealing the resolution. to us, repealing it on cost effectiveness alone is not a good argument. research leads to a better, more efficient vehicle, which would both lower the price of the materials, and eventually repay what is spent. kinda like the 'it wont happen overnight' thing, in that expecting it too soon is just impatience on your behalf.
secondly, what is bio-diesel? it sounds like a fossil fuel to me, which could be harmful to the environment. please give us more details. also, with those points added in, it kind of sounds like an amendmant, which could be illegal. ask a mod for judgement on that one.
Karchozia
11-12-2005, 02:54
thats because it is up to the nation that has submitted it to post it. because they bypass the rules thread in a hurry to post the proposal/repeal, they dont always know that it is a rule to post the contents in the thread.
Ooh. Yeah, I didn't know that was rule... Thanks to Yelda for doing so, though!

Bio-Diesel does not involve the use of fossil fuels. It is just alters a diesel engine to accept other, natural substances such as cooking oils. You may have all heard of people taking the cooking oil from restaurant and turning it into bio-diesel for their cars. It creates a pretty tasty scent, depending on what the oil was used for.
The Lynx Alliance
11-12-2005, 05:25
by the sounds the same amount of time would need to be spent to feisably implament Bio-diesel. with the existence of this resolution having been around for so long, the effieciency and financial recovery would have been completed by most UN nations, with companies actually making a profit by now. the only ones that wouldnt be in this situation would be nations recently joining the UN, but even then, the research would have been shared anyway and they should be soon up to scratch. therein, scrapping this in favour of going through all that rigmoral, this time with bio-diesel, would not be cost worthy.
Yelda
11-12-2005, 07:54
Ooh. Yeah, I didn't know that was rule...
That's because it isn't a rule. It's just considered polite to do so.
Thanks to Yelda for doing so, though!
You're welcome.
The Lynx Alliance
11-12-2005, 08:44
That's because it isn't a rule. It's just considered polite to do so.
thats odd, i thought it was a rule.... ah well better check through the stickies...

if it isnt a rule, it should be, also the posting of the resolution in question for repeals...
The Black New World
11-12-2005, 11:14
if it isnt a rule, it should be, also the posting of the resolution in question for repeals...
OOC: Why? If the author doesn't remember the players always step in to remind them (nicely, preferably) or post the text for them. Why create work for the moderators by turning a minor breach of etiquette into a punishable offence?
Balsack
12-12-2005, 00:30
Greetings to the esteemed members of this body.

We in Balsack are in favor of alternate sources of energy research and development. If the resolution, as passed, was a bad one, then by all means it should be repealed. However, it seems to us that there is a lack of an overall attempt to address the energy issues that will face us in the future.

We realize that this thread is for discussing this particular proposal, and will not attempt to redirect its focus. We do wish to make our concerns known that something must be done very soon to vastly increase the effort to relieve ourselves of fossil fuel dependence.

With that being said, we will support this proposal (repeal of the former resolution) to be replaced by the much broader one which we will suggest in the near future. This proposed resolution will deal with mandatory involvement by all member nations, according to their size, in the development of permanent alternative energy sources.

If some other member nation would prefer to take the lead on this issue, we will be pleased to consider stepping aside in favor of them. We will begin a thread for this proposal after we complete our research into other passed resolutions and the effect thereon.

Thank you.
Propserina
12-12-2005, 16:35
Propserina is a collection of artificial habitats that are situated out in the Kuipier Belt. We don't have any use for cars, consequently object to being told that we have to research any particular variety of them, and consequently support this proposed repeal.
Compadria
12-12-2005, 21:30
UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALIZING that hydrogen powered vehicles would improve the environment and

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many other useful side effects by using hydrogen vehicles, we wish to

REPEAL this Resolution on the basis of practicality and cost.

I would dispute whether hydrogen powered vehicles would improve the environment. The process of creating hydrogen involves huge amounts of energy, much of which would probably have to come from environmentally un-friendly sources. Equally, the high fuel consumption of cars fitted with hydrogen motors, means they have to re-fuel more often than conventional vehicles, leading to more hydrogen needing to be produced, linking in with the matter raised previously.

Also, hydrogen powered vehicles emit water vapour as a by-product, a gas much more dangerous and greenhouse effect inducing, than carbon dioxide.

PRACTICALLY speaking, hydrogen cars are not cost-effective enough to justify researching and building them. The immense

COST to develop and then mass-produce such vehicles would have an enormous strain on each nation’s economy, with no beneficial results to the environment.

REALIZING oil is a limited resource, we can instead use the money from hydrogen research to develop bio-diesel cars. The

COST would be much less, and we would be using materials that would have otherwise been wasted and potentially harmed the environment.

Agreed, for those seeking more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car

BIO-DIESEL is the far more productive and practical method, and one that should be funded, rather than the expensive hydrogen cars.

Yet only, we might add, as a stop-gap measure on the way to finding even more efficient and cleaner fuels.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Tyndarus
13-12-2005, 15:10
The development of Hydrogen Cars falls under development of alternate fuels which is also a resolution in place in the UN. Hence, Hydrogen Cars should be repealed as it is already covered by another resolution.
Cluichstan
13-12-2005, 17:02
The development of Hydrogen Cars falls under development of alternate fuels which is also a resolution in place in the UN. Hence, Hydrogen Cars should be repealed as it is already covered by another resolution.

More importantly, it should be repealed because it's retarded.
Tyndarus
14-12-2005, 14:52
More importantly, it should be repealed because it's retarded.

Well, yes, but I don't think thats the sort of argument thats going to convince the rest of the UN, no offence.

It is unrealistic to expect developing nations to develop hydrogen cars, plsu the argument in favour of it is not exactly very detailed or persuasive.

Environmental Resolutions need to be more detailed with specific targets and methods of implementation. Conservation is not simply a process whereby a resolution is dictated upon every nation and an industry is quashed for the sake of minimal benefit to the environment.

Frankly, I believe more effort needs to be put into environmental resolutions before they are implemented. Resolutions should not merely require a vague plan of action and a passionate plea for support. If current human rights and free trade resolutions are held up to so much higher standards in their wording, then I see no reason why environmental resolutions should not be held up to similar standards.

Conservation is neccessary, yes, but innovative, practical and logical resolutions should be put in place rather than resolutions that are there simply for the sake of being there.
Cluichstan
14-12-2005, 16:48
Well, yes, but I don't think thats the sort of argument thats going to convince the rest of the UN, no offence.

None taken, and I don't expect it to, especially considering there were enough retarded delegates who voted for it in the first place. ;)
Bresnia
14-12-2005, 18:10
I'd suggest that you forgeto the specific mention of "bio-diesel" engines. For all you know, two days from now, a new engine type will be revealed to the world that's better than both Hydrogen and Bio-Diesel.

I'd definately use bio-diesel engines as an example in my arguments, but there's no need to mention it specifically in the proposal. After all, if it passes, and two days later a new type of engine is revealed, we have to go through this very process again, and as fun as it might sound, it'll get old quick.
The Lynx Alliance
14-12-2005, 23:07
I'd suggest that you forgeto the specific mention of "bio-diesel" engines. For all you know, two days from now, a new engine type will be revealed to the world that's better than both Hydrogen and Bio-Diesel.

I'd definately use bio-diesel engines as an example in my arguments, but there's no need to mention it specifically in the proposal. After all, if it passes, and two days later a new type of engine is revealed, we have to go through this very process again, and as fun as it might sound, it'll get old quick.
not to mention it could be seen as an amendmant (as pointed out before). whilst i defended the resolution before, it was purely on the basis that they had this part in. as i stated before, nations that have been in the UN would have a profitable Hydrogen Car market by now, and those who are new could either get the technology, or import cars from these countries. it was implimented on Jun 16 2003, some two years 6 months ago, meaning, if 1 day = 1 ns year, it has been in place for ~913 years. you cant tell me that it hasnt been researched enough to be efficient, reasonable costed and even turning over a profit in that time. if nations arent willing to share the technology with others, they are stingy, since quite a few nations would have the technology by now.

this resolution would be better repealed on redundancy, as it would be covered by alternative fuels.