NationStates Jolt Archive

It's just something that could easily be implemented in most countries and does not damage transport. It's not too extreme either. All I ask is that you may look.

Description: Delegates, Members and Visitors:

1. All Member States must cut Carbon emissions by 25% by 2025.
2. All Member States are to set personal limits on energy usage and thus promote energy efficiency.
3. All Member States are to have at least 25% of their energy demand supplied by renewable sources. Notably wind, solar and wave energy.
4. All Member States are allowed no more than 50% of their energy demand supplied by Nuclear Energy.
5. All Member States are allowed no more than 25% of their energy demand supplied by ‘fossil fuels.’
6. Any Member State that does not abide by these rules will suffer trade embargoes to be agreed in the NS Forum.
7. This act will create a 'NSUN Energy Trust' which will act to ensure this act is followed.
8. Points 3,4 and 5 will come into affect by 2025. All Member States should recognise this gives significant time to install the necessary equipment to reach these targets.

This act believies this is not an unfair proposal but a serious proposal to tackle climate change without damaging all manufacturing to a serious extent.


Delegates and Members,

Thank you.

Should be around page seven by now...

The last time we had one of these, the quickest repeal in UN history followed.

NO.

(Also, submitting a proposal on the 17th December and putting '2005' in the title strikes me as a tad presumptive.)

(Also, submitting a proposal on the 17th December and putting '2005' in the title strikes me as a tad presumptive.)
i have to ask by whom's callender are we going by here? certainly not ours, for we are in the year 3022.

6. Any Member State that does not abide by these rules will suffer trade embargoes to be agreed in the NS Forum.Illegal: Metagaming.

although Kirisubo is a green nation I have serious problems with this.

Description: Delegates, Members and Visitors:

1. All Member States must cut Carbon emissions by 25% by 2025.

theres already a resolution to cut greenhouse gases in effect.

2. All Member States are to set personal limits on energy usage and thus promote energy efficiency.

Energy efficency I can agree with but not limits on energy usage. that is just fluff.

3. All Member States are to have at least 25% of their energy demand supplied by renewable sources. Notably wind, solar and wave energy.

we've covered this ground already with the thrice cursed FFRA. We have all these in place already but theres no way they could make up 25% or more of total energy production in 20 years time.

4. All Member States are allowed no more than 50% of their energy demand supplied by Nuclear Energy.

With the FFRA in place nuclear power is the main option for nations who now have to cut down on fossil fuel use.

5. All Member States are allowed no more than 25% of their energy demand supplied by ‘fossil fuels.’

This point clashes head on with the FFRA.

6. Any Member State that does not abide by these rules will suffer trade embargoes to be agreed in the NS Forum.

all this will achieve is to push nations towards the big 'resign' button.

7. This act will create a 'NSUN Energy Trust' which will act to ensure this act is followed.

yet another useless commitee.


8. Points 3,4 and 5 will come into affect by 2025. All Member States should recognise this gives significant time to install the necessary equipment to reach these targets.

again you clash head on with the FFRA.

This act believies this is not an unfair proposal but a serious proposal to tackle climate change without damaging all manufacturing to a serious extent.

I believe in the idea's that you are expressing but still feel that with nations having the burden of cuting greenhouse gases and having to implement the FFRA this will be too much for them to cope with.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

i have to ask by whom's callender are we going by here? certainly not ours, for we are in the year 3022.

Yes, it's The 732nd Year in Gruenberg, so we weren't too bothered about meeting any requirements by 2025.

1. All Member States must cut Carbon emissions by 25% by 2025.

I think this has been legislated. Also, what year is it now? It would be better to cut emissions "in the next 20 years," but even that might be debatable.

2. All Member States are to set personal limits on energy usage and thus promote energy efficiency.

Empty. Every member state has a limit now, even if it is infinity.

3. All Member States are to have at least 25% of their energy demand supplied by renewable sources. Notably wind, solar and wave energy.

Again, I might be wrong, but I think this has been legislated.

4. All Member States are allowed no more than 50% of their energy demand supplied by Nuclear Energy.

Uh? Why? Nuclear is clean, does not contribute to climate change. And the dangers of it blowing up, well, makes no difference if they have 50% or 100% nuclear.

5. All Member States are allowed no more than 25% of their energy demand supplied by ‘fossil fuels.’

Done, I think.

6. Any Member State that does not abide by these rules will suffer trade embargoes to be agreed in the NS Forum.

Compliance is automatic.

7. This act will create a 'NSUN Energy Trust' which will act to ensure this act is followed.

Ditto.

8. Points 3,4 and 5 will come into affect by 2025. All Member States should recognise this gives significant time to install the necessary equipment to reach these targets.

Again, time issues.

This act believies this is not an unfair proposal but a serious proposal to tackle climate change without damaging all manufacturing to a serious extent.

Allow me to disagree, this act does not believe anything... you might. ;)

By using the RL year in the title I assume you are using an RL timespan.

Even if all the other points presented about the timeline weren't valid, an RL timespan means that this will be done twenty-five years from now.

How many people will be playing NationStates then?

Therefore, you should not specify a date and say "20 years" with the assumption that you are using a faster game time.

Of course, I completely agree with all other points presented, namely that this has been done and should not be part of UN law.

Sorry to be so negative. ;)

By using the RL year in the title I assume you are using an RL timespan.

Even if all the other points presented about the timeline weren't valid, an RL timespan means that this will be done twenty-five years from now.

How many people will be playing NationStates then?

Therefore, you should not specify a date and say "20 years" with the assumption that you are using a faster game time.

Of course, I completely agree with all other points presented, namely that this has been done and should not be part of UN law.

Sorry to be so negative. ;)
taken from that point of view...
it is generally assumed that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, so that would mean if that is to be done by the RL year 2025, that means we have 7305 NS years in which to implament it

taken from that point of view...
it is generally assumed that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, so that would mean if that is to be done by the RL year 2025, that means we have 7305 NS years in which to implament it

And if it is to be RL year 2025, it's illegal on those grounds, as well as the meta-gaming reason Hack already noted.

Why should nuclear energy be limited? Our nation has an abundance of uranium and obviously get more than 50% of our power from nuclear sources.

Why should nuclear energy be limited? Our nation has an abundance of uranium and obviously get more than 50% of our power from nuclear sources.

Apparently, simply because the proposal author says so.

taken from that point of view...
it is generally assumed that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, so that would mean if that is to be done by the RL year 2025, that means we have 7305 NS years in which to implament it
But since the current year is used in the title, it is assumed that what is generally assumed is not assumed, and that the author is saying that this must be implemented on an RL timespan, with 1 RL year = 1 NS year.

taken from that point of view...
it is generally assumed that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, so that would mean if that is to be done by the RL year 2025, that means we have 7305 NS years in which to implament it

You've suggested this assumption about the time ratio before, and when I questioned it back then one of the Mods said that there was nothing official about it which means that every nation's player is free to choose what rate time passes at locally... Which means that if any resolution has a date attached to its targets we can just "pause" our nations indefinitely at a few days before that date if we so choose...

As a nation which relies upon Nuclear power for 80% of our energy requirements, we reject this proposal. Indeed, it will mean our carbon emissions will increase.

It's just something that could easily be implemented in most countries and does not damage transport. It's not too extreme either. All I ask is that you may look.Looked, disagreed with, and rejected by Hirota.

Plus....
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/environment.jpg
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

This takes the biscuit. It'll cost more to produce 25% of renewable energy, than it will to produce 50% of nuclear energy. Restrictions on nuclear energy makes cheap fossil fuel alternatives harder to get.
See you at your solar power plant. The one on your roof.

Any such proposal would have to distinguish between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, and be a lot more tolerant of the latter than many people are of the former, before I would even consider accepting it.

It would be more acceptable in Optischer's eyes if nuclear fission could provide no more than 75% of energy. That way we could slowly replace fossil fueled stations with renewable ones. Nuclear fusion would be welcomed however.