NationStates Jolt Archive

Submitted:


Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution,

RECOGNISES that effort needs to be made to reduce dependency on non-renewable energy sources,

NOTES that many economically developing nations do not use polluting vehicles on a large scale,

OBSERVES that such nations are therefore unlikely to significantly contribute to air pollution through vehicle emissions,

FURTHERMORE NOTES that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is technically difficult and expensive,

OBSERVES that Resolution #18 requires economically developing nations to duplicate the effort made and expense incurred by nations that are in a much better technological position to conduct the research,

REASONS that such funds would be spent more effectively elsewhere,

CONCLUDES that the funding of expensive duplicate technologies by economically developing nations is illogical and unnecessary,

and REPEALS UN Resolution #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

Thu Mar 30 2006

Original resolution:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #18

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing
Proposed by: Kibombwe

Description: We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars. We have polluted the air for too long -- it needs to stop. By passing this resolution we will be able to accompish these three things.

1. Less acid rain. Acid rain a problem that we feel should be stopped. It is especially a problem in the Northeast corner of the U.S.A. The Northeast is a place rich in historical buildings which acid rain damages. We passed a "PROTECT HISTORICAL SITES." This would only furthermore protect historical sites.

2. We wouldn't have to use as much oil. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we only have so much of. By passing this resolution we would only prolong the time that we have oil on earth.

3. We would have cleaner air. Does anyone remember the days when "fresh air" was actually fresh? When it was a pure thing, without chemicals and other junk mixing in the air. With cleaner air, everyone would live longer, happier lives.

I hope that anyone and everyone who reads this agrees with us. PLEASE MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!

Votes For: 12,533
Votes Against: 3,280

Implemented: Mon Jun 16 2003


This repeal seeks to end the inequity and injustice of forcing impoverished nations to fund development of Hydrogen technology.

It can be found here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hydrogen

Thank you for your support!

Great job. This is actually one of 5 other resolutions that Jey was considering repealing next. We will certainly endorse.

You have the support of Wyldtree. I've supported this one's repeal in the past. Too narrow in it's scope.

Removing another badly written, badly thought out resolution that really does nothing? All for it!

Hell yes!

We've been trying to research hyrdogen powered vehicles. The best we've come up with so far is a waterwheel powered fenicular railway...

Hell yes!

We've been trying to research hyrdogen powered vehicles. The best we've come up with so far is a waterwheel powered fenicular railway...
:D This resolution is hell for those past-tech nations.

:D This resolution is hell for those past-tech nations.

In my reading, the requirement that "every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars" is perfectly well satisfied by inventing the wheel. So past tech nations are safe. :p

Ok, afew comments on some improvement:

Perhaps you can add on to the arguments to repeal this resolution, and not just on the fact that some countries may not be able to afford it.

You may want to include that Resolutions #39: Alternative Fuels, and #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (even though we feel that also should be repealed) covers many things #18 was trying to do. Here's 2 clauses that you may want to add if this submission does not work out.

CONSIDERING that with the passage of Resolutions #39, Alternative Fuels, and #126, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, the goals and objectives mentioned in Resolution #18 are accomplished,

REALIZING that with its purpose reached in other legislation, Resolution #18 becomes an irrelevant and unnecessary resolution,

Yah, this resolution is poorly written, does very little and is redundant. As well as the negative economic impacts (which I beleive are exaggerated)...the point is, Dancing Bananaland supports this repeal (for once).

I cannot endorse unless there is mention of a.....bias towards hydrogen power over other potential renewable/alternate fuel sources. However, if it reaches the floor, I will vote for in its current form, provided I don't see something glaring that bugs me when I'm a bit more conscious tomorrow.

"Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" is awful. Burn it.

Hell yes!

We've been trying to research hyrdogen powered vehicles. The best we've come up with so far is a waterwheel powered fenicular railway...
Hey, that closer than we've gotten, of course our hydrogen powered vehicles research team consists of a 2 year old and a monkey and they have no budget which could explain their lack of progress.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I cannot endorse unless there is mention of a.....bias towards hydrogen power over other potential renewable/alternate fuel sources. However, if it reaches the floor, I will vote for in its current form, provided I don't see something glaring that bugs me when I'm a bit more conscious tomorrow.
That is the strongest reason I'd like to see it repealed as well, but I'm fine with the repeal as is. Basically... anything that get's rid of this proposal is ok by me.

One of my citizens came to me the other day and said, "Hydrogen power ... it's a gas man!" Somehow I think his head's full of helium. I'm going to have to agree on the repeal. Cold fusion was some joke someone submitted to get more government funding. And everyone knows hydrogen is not a fuel ... you don't get pure H2 comming from the ground, you have to extract it from organic compounds and water, requiring energy.

I much perfer the power of NiMH as a energy storage medium.

Thank you all for your positive comments!

Just to address these points:

Ok, afew comments on some improvement:

Perhaps you can add on to the arguments to repeal this resolution, and not just on the fact that some countries may not be able to afford it.

You may want to include that Resolutions #39: Alternative Fuels, and #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (even though we feel that also should be repealed) covers many things #18 was trying to do. Here's 2 clauses that you may want to add if this submission does not work out.

CONSIDERING that with the passage of Resolutions #39, Alternative Fuels, and #126, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, the goals and objectives mentioned in Resolution #18 are accomplished,

REALIZING that with its purpose reached in other legislation, Resolution #18 becomes an irrelevant and unnecessary resolution,

I cannot endorse unless there is mention of a.....bias towards hydrogen power over other potential renewable/alternate fuel sources. However, if it reaches the floor, I will vote for in its current form, provided I don't see something glaring that bugs me when I'm a bit more conscious tomorrow.

Both arguments here are perfectly valid and I agree with them. The first drafts of the repeal tended to touch upon every possible argument for repealling the resolution but it was thought best concentrate on the whole inequity and injustice of it. Especially as some repeals have gone down the road of "the original is redundant" and haven't succeeded. If it fails this time then I'll consider adding in more points.

Thanks to all for your time and support.

Wegason wholeheartedly endorses this repeal

The resolution is bad, it must be repealed.

i agree!
great!

there are better ways of powering a vehicle than by using a hydrogen engine and these should be encouraged instead.

you need energy to tap hydrogen in the first place and the question is how do you generate the electricity to create hydrogen power in the first place?

if its a renewable source then all is good but if its not you're exchanging one glutonous form of engine for another.

Therefore the Empire supports this repeal.

The Palentine supports this repeal, because it will p*ss off treehuggers, and because we feel that the only good use of hydrogen is to make water, make bombs, and fuel zeppelins.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congrats!

Well done Leg-ends!

Sweet! Now let's nuke that bloody resolution! http://67.15.129.139/5999/196/emo/ausser.gif

Well I guess it's halfway there, and judging by the reaction on here so far there should be no problem with the second half!

Sweet! Now let's nuke that bloody resolution!
Isn't that somewhat dangerous? Being hydrogen it might contribute to the explosion. :p

Isn't that somewhat dangerous? Being hydrogen it might contribute to the explosion. :p

As if I hadn't already thought of that... ;)

It's on the floor now, vote FOR!

It's on the floor now, vote FOR!


I've done so.

Voted for too. I really want to see the back of this pile of doodoo

Tzorsland is officially abstaining, at least for the first half of the resolution debate. Quite frankly, with the failure of free trade for autos, we aremore than happy to stick it to those nations wishing to destroy their economies by investing in multiple attempts to develop a useless technology.

Voted for; also, don't be discouraged by the current voting turnout, my repeal was down as much as 500, and eventually passed by nearly 1000.

Ausserland has voted for the repeal. Resolution #18 forces nations to invest in developing a specific technology when the money might be better spent researching other solutions to the problem.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm voting against, because I like the environment.

I'm voting against, because I like the environment.

Yes, and anyone voting for the repeal must hate the environment. :rolleyes:

Obviously. :)

With regard to the repeal of UN Resolution #18, the Federation of Zorinia strongly encourages the development of cleaner automotive and other technologies, and will continue to fund its own domestic programs for its development. However, Zorinia believes that the wording of the original Resolution #18 is too vague and not concrete - which initially suggests supporting this repeal. Holding hydrogen power's potential in high respects and wishing not to deter any progress of its implementation on an international level, as well as considering the results of this past Automotive Resolution, Zorinia will abstain from this current vote.

Quite frankly, with the failure of free trade for autos, we are more than happy to stick it to those nations wishing to destroy their economies by investing in multiple attempts to develop a useless technology.We happily join with the people of Tzorsland and their (insane) leadership. We will be voting against this article in protest of the ATFA defeat. Vote to hurt our (puppet's) economy, we'll vote to hurt yours. Burn in hell, fluffy scum!

(Wow, I'm actually in the forum.)

Yeah, Mainstream USA votes no. This sort of policy is exactly what pro-business individuals use to argue against hydrogen cars, and it's a crappy argument at that.

We happily join with the people of Tzorsland and their (insane) leadership. We will be voting against this article in protest of the ATFA defeat. Vote to hurt our (puppet's) economy, we'll vote to hurt yours. Burn in hell, fluffy scum!

Um...don't you mean vote for the repeal?

Um...don't you mean vote for the repeal?No. Voting in favor removes this legislation, which would help their economies. I want to hurt them.

Aw, screw it. I should have just drawn up invasion plans as usual.

No. Voting in favor removes this legislation, which would help their economies. I want to hurt them.

Aw, screw it. I should have just drawn up invasion plans as usual.

Ah, gotcha. And yeah, invasion is always the better option, unless, of course, you've got CPESL -- I mean, the CIS.

>.>
<.<

No. Voting in favor removes this legislation, which would help their economies. I want to hurt them.

Aw, screw it. I should have just drawn up invasion plans as usual.
We are on the same wavelength today, Kenny. Yeldan UN Mission has voted against.

No. Voting in favor removes this legislation, which would help their economies. I want to hurt them.

Aw, screw it. I should have just drawn up invasion plans as usual.

Fluffies usually don't care about the economy, so wouldn't this just be a shot in the foot, without doing any damage to the Fluffies themselves.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Voted for... and yes we are obviously known environmental haters ;)

(Wow, I'm actually in the forum.)

Yeah, Mainstream USA votes no. This sort of policy is exactly what pro-business individuals use to argue against hydrogen cars, and it's a crappy argument at that.

The Beltway votes yes, and wishes to note that a repeal of a resolution that by definition will create duplication of effort and will ruin the economies of nations that actually have poor economies, of which there are obvious examples in the UN, is not inherently pro-business. We personally feel that research into alternative forms of energy is good; however, we feel that such research is best done by nations that can afford to, and should be coordinated in order to ensure results.
Signed,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations from The Beltway

Fluffies usually don't care about the economy, so wouldn't this just be a shot in the foot, without doing any damage to the Fluffies themselves.Um, no, not a shot in the foot, at least not for us, because we're not a member of the United Nations anymore ...

May the fate of our Kennys be upon you-- <grmph!> Did I say "fate"? I meant "blessings." Blessings. *fate*

Figured you really meant "curse." :p

[OOC: Nope. Fate. Think: what happens to Kenny in every episode? ... Now get back to work, ya lazy sod!]

[OOC: Nope. Fate. Think: what happens to Kenny in every episode? ... Now get back to work, ya lazy sod!]

And curse would be false because....?

2. We wouldn't have to use as much oil. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we only have so much of. By passing this resolution we would only prolong the time that we have oil on earth.

This is not exactally ture.The problem is that producing hydorgen using water is highly un efficent because it reguires alot of energy to speart the hydrogen form the oxyegen.The more efficent way to manufactor hydrogen that is more(and the majority way of manfurticing) efficent is to use steam reforming of natural gas which is fossile fuel so it does have a negtive effect on the enviroment.
Unnamend supports this resoultion.

The Beltway votes yes, and wishes to note that a repeal of a resolution that by definition will create duplication of effort and will ruin the economies of nations that actually have poor economies, of which there are obvious examples in the UN, is not inherently pro-business. We personally feel that research into alternative forms of energy is good; however, we feel that such research is best done by nations that can afford to, and should be coordinated in order to ensure results.
Signed,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations from The Beltway

Although your intentions for the economy are at best Clinton, I protest against you. First of all, if a countries economy is too poor that this resolution will destroy their economy, one nation is affected. However, if one nation decides to destroy the enviroment by driving around these huge cars everywhere that can only go 4 miles per gallon, than our entire oil supply will be gone, while the quality of are air is in ruined. Whose going to be affected by this, the entire world in general, not just one nation, only because some stupid retarded nation wants to be an asshole. Most nations won't create alternative energy forms until they're forced, because they are willing to live cheaper lives now, while they screw the environment for future generations, and sooner or later, new forms of energy will have to be formed, so why not prepare now, instead of panic 10 years from now. If a couple of nation's economy will have to suffer because of this, than it is worth it because of the reason's stated above.

If this isn't repealed I'll be mad. Using hydrogen cars are polluting the envoirnment and as someone said before causes acid rain. Acid rain kill plants trees fish and pollutes water sources. Plus Hhydrogen cars are very expensive when we could use hybrids, or have the UN put more money into hiring scientists to find a renewable source of energy for cars, and other types of energy. Do what is right for your nation and do not let ths pollutant into your nation and do not let your nation waste money on buying hydrogen for cars when there is an easy and inexpenive way to power cars.


The Rouge Nation of Farrell States

Although your intentions for the economy are at best Clinton, I protest against you. First of all, if a countries economy is too poor that this resolution will destroy their economy, one nation is affected. However, if one nation decides to destroy the enviroment by driving around these huge cars everywhere that can only go 4 miles per gallon, than our entire oil supply will be gone, while the quality of are air is in ruined. Whose going to be affected by this, the entire world in general, not just one nation, only because some stupid retarded nation wants to be an asshole. Most nations won't create alternative energy forms until they're forced, because they are willing to live cheaper lives now, while they screw the environment for future generations, and sooner or later, new forms of energy will have to be formed, so why not prepare now, instead of panic 10 years from now. If a couple of nation's economy will have to suffer because of this, than it is worth it because of the reason's stated above.

First off, you underestimate the amount of poverty in the world and fail to give the environmental lobbies of the better-off nations of the world enough credit. Second, in a world of thousands of nations, there are also massive reserves of oil, by definition. NS Earth =/= RL Earth. Third, a more effective means of supporting alternative energy research would be to set up an international organization to coordinate research efforts and to create free trade for alternative energy, not to force alternative energy research in one particular area on all UN nations, whether they can afford to help or not. Research is a matter of motivation, time, persistence, knowledge, and money; not all UN nations will be motivated to research hydrogen-powered vehicles. Finally, hydrogen-powered vehicles may not even pan out, and have impracticalities of their own, such as the issues of transporting hydrogen and of handling a colorless, incredibly flammable, potentially lethal fuel. I understand your concern for the world's environment; however, we must also take care of the world's economies as well, and we must look into all forms of alternative energy, not just hydrogen.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations from The Beltway

We cast our vote for the repeal as our hydrogen powered vehicle research team consists of a two-year old and a monkey and the two-year old's diaper needs to be changed badly and the monkey won't let anyone into the lab until they have sucessfully completed their task. And considering that the two-year old is completely useless and the monkey has yet to fully grasp the concept of the wheel, I don't think that that's goint to happen anytime soon.

So, think of the children, vote FOR the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I decided to vote against the resolution because environment cannot be sacrificed easily and beside that the environment's clean up can takes more money than produce hydrogen car.

I'm voting against, because I like the environment.

We like the environment, too. We do not like NSUN resolutions that require countries to invest in one specific alternative technology when those monies might be better spent in other avenues of environmental research. We also do not like resolutions which, by their very nature, promote wasteful duplication of development efforts. And we are particularly adverse to resolutions that attempt to force-fit one-size-fits-all solutions on the environmental problems of more than 30,000 very diverse nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

At least in our small region, we are not prepared to develop such technology, plus many of our citizens do not know the meaning of the word -hydrogen-, that's why we cast our vote for the repeal.

Dr Encephatalis.
Ambassador for the The Dictatorship of Desinformatic.

We have better things to spend money on. Hydrogen cells are expensive and ideological. You can't replace good old gasoline without investing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Kaigan Miromuta, the Kirisuban ambassador takes the podium.

"The Empire of Kirisubo has given this matter a great deal of thought and will vote for the repeal.

A one size fits all resolution is no good for anyone and especially one which pushes a flawed technology.

there are more efficent engines already out there and vehicle engines can be made even more fuel efficent saving oil.

We use nothing but bio-diesel engines in Kirisuban vehicles and are trying to get more public transport into our towns and cities. If you've ever tried to drive in my capital you'll know why i usually take a tram.

Some nations can't afford the research for hydrogen but they can resarch other things like building a better petrol engine which will make their oil go further. steps like this are the way forward. not UNR #18"

Hell yes!

We've been trying to research hyrdogen powered vehicles. The best we've come up with so far is a waterwheel powered fenicular railway...

We've come up with a hydrogen powered vehicle. It runs on a fusion generator. Unfortuanatly, it is currently the size of a small skyscraper and requires it to be plugged for long periods of time and takes in for more power than you get out

Although your intentions for the economy are at best Clinton, I protest against you. First of all, if a countries economy is too poor that this resolution will destroy their economy, one nation is affected. However, if one nation decides to destroy the enviroment by driving around these huge cars everywhere that can only go 4 miles per gallon, than our entire oil supply will be gone, while the quality of are air is in ruined.

Forgive me for sounding a little pedantic perhaps, honourable delegate, yet if a nation is too poor to implement hydrogen technology and their economy is destroyed, they will certainly resort to cheaper, (read "more polluting") means of generating energy and powering modes of transportation. Therefore, this would be a waste of legislative effort. Hydrogen cells are unreliable anyway and require vast quantities of fossil fuels just to get started, let alone continue to produce energy. As a final point on this matter, I would note that destroying a nation's economy in the interests of the environment is not only counter-productive, but cruel and inhumane.

Whose going to be affected by this, the entire world in general, not just one nation, only because some stupid retarded nation wants to be an asshole. Most nations won't create alternative energy forms until they're forced, because they are willing to live cheaper lives now, while they screw the environment for future generations, and sooner or later, new forms of energy will have to be formed, so why not prepare now, instead of panic 10 years from now. If a couple of nation's economy will have to suffer because of this, than it is worth it because of the reason's stated above.

Yes, but isn't it better that we stay in a position to reform and change rather than kill our economies in a breakneck attempt to change immediately. We need sustainable, implementable methods of energy production, with a scheme along the lines of the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. Sensible, pragmatic and yet effective and radical at the same time. Therefore, rather than promoting panic, we are promoting sustainability and common sense.

We've come up with a hydrogen powered vehicle. It runs on a fusion generator. Unfortuanatly, it is currently the size of a small skyscraper and requires it to be plugged for long periods of time and takes in for more power than you get out.

You did better than us, our version tended to disintegrate after 20 km of drive time, though it was somewhat more energy efficient.

May the fate of our Kennys be upon you-- <grmph!> Did I say "fate"? I meant "blessings." Blessings.

Ah Kenny, veiled threats will be met with only one thing - otterly curses.;)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Ecopoeia supports repeal of this hopeless resolution on the grounds that the presence of three exclamation marks in the text is at least three too many.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Ironically I will probably vote for the repeal, but I really feel like raising general objections to the argument for repeal at the moment. In the end this was a blah resolution that is equally blah in its repeal.

FURTHERMORE NOTES that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is technically difficult and expensive

Objection: Nowhere does the resolution specifically mention "fuel cells."

We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars.

An example from the fictional real world although not hydrogen occured in China. There natural gas from salt mines was used to power busses. Unfortunately, they had not perfected the art of compressing gas (nor did they seem to be interested in doing it) so instead they simply had this gigantic bladder on the top of the bus. As the natural gas was used the bladder would flop over the sides of the bus. This system was used in the local province until fairly recently. Read "A History of Salt" for the technical details.

Now there are more technical problems with hydrogen bladders, especially since hydrogen is a smaller molecule than natural gas and can escape easier. But people did build hydrogen blimps so it's possible to create a bladder for the containment of hydrogen fuel. I'm sure at this point everyone is going to mention the Hindenburg, but I will point out two things. Number one is that the Hindenburg was coated with a stiffiner which is the exact same formula used in the external rockets of the space shuttle and that a sister ship to the Hindenburg, in American hands being used to carry freight and filled with helium crashed and burned in the same way, albeit discretely. Number two is that the Hindenburg burnt down. The average petrolium car when it gets on fire near the gas tank EXPLODES! Most of the force is directed sideways, while the lighter than air hydrogen always burns up up and away!

Now having said that, and having proven that it is possible for a low tech nation to develop hydrogen busses (although probably easier to develop natural gas busses if they have natural salt dome formations with natural gas deposits) it still reamins that it's a silly vechicle and the UN should not mandate silly vechicles.

We need sustainable, implementable methods of energy production, with a scheme along the lines of the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. Sensible, pragmatic and yet effective and radical at the same time.Sustainable? Implementable? Sensible? Pragmatic? Effective? FFRA is none of those things. All these newbish nations speaking of using fossil fuels, and really taking it for granted, fail to realize that as they are assumed to be compliance with FFRA, they will thus be forced to replace maybe 75 percent of the portion of their energy regimes run on fossil fuels and replace it ... well, nothing, exactly. FFRA never does give us any funding, research, assistance or incentive to develop alternative forms of energy. Rather like telling us to burn our houses down, and when we ask, "But where will we live?", they just shrug their shoulders and say, "That's your problem, not ours."

Sustainable? Implementable? Sensible? Pragmatic? Effective? FFRA is none of those things. All these newbish nations speaking of using fossil fuels, and really taking it for granted, fail to realize that as they are assumed to be compliance with FFRA, they will thus be forced to replace maybe 75 percent of the portion of their energy regimes run on fossil fuels and replace it ... well, nothing, exactly. FFRA never does give us any funding, research, assistance or incentive to develop alternative forms of energy. Rather like telling us to burn our houses down, and when we ask, "But where will we live?", they just shrug their shoulders and say, "That's your problem, not ours."
Interesting resolution, FFRA. When I'm feeling uncharitable, I enjoy making the point that Ecopoeia is already in compliance and, frankly, we've made the effort so why the hell shouldn't other nations. The economic stranglehold of more economically powerful nations will thankfully be loosened by the FFRA's strictures.

However, in less cynical moods I acknowledge that many people's lives will be adversely affected. Not because the intent of the resolution is bad, but because of inadequacies in government and the private sector.

And as for the nations that are already poor... extremely worrying.

Apologies for the derailment. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

Sustainable? Implementable? Sensible? Pragmatic? Effective? FFRA is none of those things. All these newbish nations speaking of using fossil fuels, and really taking it for granted, fail to realize that as they are assumed to be compliance with FFRA, they will thus be forced to replace maybe 75 percent of the portion of their energy regimes run on fossil fuels and replace it ... well, nothing, exactly. FFRA never does give us any funding, research, assistance or incentive to develop alternative forms of energy. Rather like telling us to burn our houses down, and when we ask, "But where will we live?", they just shrug their shoulders and say, "That's your problem, not ours."

Oh please, I just love it when NatSov fanatics complain endlessly about micro-managing in U.N. resolutions and then when a resolution actually tries to be open-ended and leave solutions up to the discretion of individuals nations, they start banging on about how 'vague' the resolution in question is. You just can't win can you?

And to be honest, I found FFRA reasonable, because the time-scale was written with a basic understanding of the time it would take to change over to eco-friendly energy production and there wasn't a reliance on a panacea-esque replacement for fossil fuels. I know die-hard reactionaries like the good people of Omigodtheykilledkenny would probably find the resolution unpalatable anyway, but that's something the fluffy-minded, commie-sympathising people of Compadria will have to put up with for the time being.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you (and your corporate sponsors).

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

Well, it is poorly written, and I dislike the notion of enforcing change with only one specific alternative in mind.

Intangelon votes for the repeal.

Ecopoeia supports repeal of this hopeless resolution on the grounds that the presence of three exclamation marks in the text is at least three too many.Quite possibly the best reason to support this Repeal. I would like to award Deputy Speaker Vergniaud honorary ownership of "teh internets". Congratulations.

- Dargan Zaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Oh please, I just love it when NatSov fanatics complain endlessly about micro-managing in U.N. resolutions and then when a resolution actually tries to be open-ended and leave solutions up to the discretion of individuals nations, they start banging on about how 'vague' the resolution in question is. You just can't win can you?Er, I wasn't asking for micromanagement. I wasn't asking for a fossil-fuel reduction dealy at all; it was the banning of fossil fuels that was micromanagement in the first place. I was simply stating, you're gonna force us to burn our houses down, give us someplace to live.

And no, you cannot win. We will employ all means necessary to get what we want. Including threadjacking.

And to be honest, I found FFRA reasonable, because the time-scale was written with a basic understanding of the time it would take to change over to eco-friendly energy production and there wasn't a reliance on a panacea-esque replacement for fossil fuels.Oh, requiring smaller nations to replace 75% of their fossil-fuel market in just 10-20 years?! You call that "reasonable"?!

I know die-hard reactionaries like the good people of Omigodtheykilledkenny would probably find the resolution unpalatable anyway, but that's something the fluffy-minded, commie-sympathising people of Compadria will have to put up with for the time being.Not just "die-hard reactionaries." UNOG was near-unanimous in its support for the FFRA repeal.

Quite possibly the best reason to support this Repeal. I would like to award Deputy Speaker Vergniaud honorary ownership of "teh internets". Congratulations.

- Dargan Zaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Many thanks - this is a proud moment for me.

MV

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
You must vote yes for this repeal, this law will have dire effect on young nations, many of which will choose to leave the UN before being forced to pay such grand amounts of money just to make this technology available , how this was accepted in the first place is beyond me, but now is the time to fix it, do what is right and repeal this to make the world more economically available for everyone.

------The North South-West Making life easier for dictators

Aigelior voted for the Repeal as cars are outlawed in our proud nation anyway.

The reolution forces us to develop hydrogen powered cars although no one uses a car. How does that protect the environment?

Antholgia, we as a proud and strong nation would like to declare our support to this ruling, the us of hydrogen powered cars would benefit, my region of Europa immensly, please join Europa!

Continuing on the matter above, the use of Hydrogen powered cars will benefit not only europa but the world as a tall, proud group of regions we need to stand together and unite as one and back the bid as it were!

Do you want a world of Acid Rain, polluted air?

If your answer is yes, you do not deserve your place in the UN!

If your answer is no, then you will vote and pass this ruling, we will have hydrogren powered cars, we will benefit, your region will be clean, and better off, BACK THE BID!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Antholgia, we as a proud and strong nation would like to declare our support to this ruling, the us of hydrogen powered cars would benefit, my region of Europa immensly, please join Europa!

Continuing on the matter above, the use of Hydrogen powered cars will benefit not only europa but the world as a tall, proud group of regions we need to stand together and unite as one and back the bid as it were!

Do you want a world of Acid Rain, polluted air?

If your answer is yes, you do not deserve your place in the UN!

If your answer is no, then you will vote and pass this ruling, we will have hydrogren powered cars, we will benefit, your region will be clean, and better off, BACK THE BID!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

1) Regional advertising is illegal here.
2) You clearly don't understand what "repeal" means.
3) No message can be so nice you must post it twice.
4) Idiot.

Respected UN Members,

The original resolution promotes one Hydrogen power without regard to alternative forms that could be more efficient.

No consideration was given to biofuels, natural gas, solar, electric, or heat(stirling-engine), or other forms of alternative power.

A more open-ended resolution that promotes development of alternative transport fuels would be a significant improvement to the current 'Hydrogen powered vehicles' resolution.

In fact, a resolution promoting the use of public transport and encouraging the development of the public transportation infrastructure (integrating and enhancing sea-rail-air and road networks, such as bullet trains, etc.) is much more preferred.

Please vote FOR the repeal.

Windurst disagrees with this repeal and such votes no. The enviroment isn't harmed by Hydrogen powered Vehicles and is my gas powered ones. I vote we keep things the way they are. Also you mention fuel cells. Resloution 18 does not mention them. This line states something that isn't ture thus making yourself look like a fool Leg-ends.

"NOTES that many economically developing nations do not use polluting vehicles on a large scale,

OBSERVES that such nations are therefore unlikely to significantly contribute to air pollution through vehicle emissions, "

These lines are patently incorrect. Many developing nations are environmental disaster zones, and in particular, unregulated auto emissions in developing economies contribute to horrendous air pollution, resulting in elevated cancer and asthma rates, straining already weak health care systems.

Badly written statements or factual inaccuracies in a repeal is as bad as a badly written resolution in the first place. Strike these lines and Naitha would consider supporting the repeal, but with these lines, we must register a vote against.

"NOTES that many economically developing nations do not use polluting vehicles on a large scale,

OBSERVES that such nations are therefore unlikely to significantly contribute to air pollution through vehicle emissions, "

These lines are patently incorrect. Many developing nations are environmental disaster zones, and in particular, unregulated auto emissions in developing economies contribute to horrendous air pollution, resulting in elevated cancer and asthma rates, straining already weak health care systems.

Badly written statements or factual inaccuracies in a repeal is as bad as a badly written resolution in the first place. Strike these lines and Naitha would consider supporting the repeal, but with these lines, we must register a vote against.

What you say is may or may not be entirely true either. The point is is that there aren't many vehicles there so any environmental impact is small. Especially when you compare it to the environmental impact caused by factories and other large scale polluters. Res #18 does nothing to stop factories polluting on a huge scale. Instead the UN resolutions #39, Alternative Fuels, and #126, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, do far more than "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" to stop pollution, including regulating emissions from vehicles, and virtually make res #18 redundant.

I don't see why the UN, which has already clamped down on emissions, force poor countries to develop Hydrogen technology, especially when the nations don't even have to use such technology - they could develop it and then leave it to rot! You only need to look at the distinguished voices, from across the political spectrum, on this forum all agreeing that "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles is a terrible resolution.

Once again I urge people to vote FOR the repeal!

Oh, requiring smaller nations to replace 75% of their fossil-fuel market in just 10-20 years?! You call that "reasonable"?!

Well I call it a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, which is better than nothing.

Not just "die-hard reactionaries." UNOG was near-unanimous in its support for the FFRA repeal.

Maybe reactionary was a little dramatic. Then again the term is quite relative to each nation's political position.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

After commending the good intentions of Kibombwe I must say that my government has reservations about voting to uphold the Resolution. First, the language in Resolution 18 is a bit ambiguous. How much effort in "start[ing]" to develop hydrogen powered vehicles is satisfactory? What are the consequences for nations who do not, or in the third world cannot, afford the research? I would hardly think official UN sanctions would be levied against economically struggling nations for simply not having the money. Second, I think that it would be better to offer incentives for all nations, especially struggling ones, to pursue this research as well as direct UN assistance if requested, instead of legislating UN morality and assuming that what's good for the goose is always good for the gander.

Grace and Peace,

The Ambassador for the Holy Empire of Westopotamia to the UN

The prospects for this repeal is dismal. The deligate from Tzorsland will take a desperate act, get on his knees, touch the ground and say ...

"Who the hell is responsible for cleaning this floor? It's a disgrace! It's dusty, there are footprints everywhere. I demand an inquiry."

Getting up and dusting off his trousers he turns and says, "Oh and please vote YES for this repeal. Think of the ... er think of the ... oh yes, think of the hydrogen atoms!"

With that the honorable representative leaves the chamber, flipping the bird to the empty seat of the Niftonian Regional Deligate. The pelican lands on the seat and continues to argue against the resolution. Fortunately few understand the language of pelicans.

First off, you underestimate the amount of poverty in the world and fail to give the environmental lobbies of the better-off nations of the world enough credit. Second, in a world of thousands of nations, there are also massive reserves of oil, by definition. NS Earth =/= RL Earth. Third, a more effective means of supporting alternative energy research would be to set up an international organization to coordinate research efforts and to create free trade for alternative energy, not to force alternative energy research in one particular area on all UN nations, whether they can afford to help or not. Research is a matter of motivation, time, persistence, knowledge, and money; not all UN nations will be motivated to research hydrogen-powered vehicles. Finally, hydrogen-powered vehicles may not even pan out, and have impracticalities of their own, such as the issues of transporting hydrogen and of handling a colorless, incredibly flammable, potentially lethal fuel. I understand your concern for the world's environment; however, we must also take care of the world's economies as well, and we must look into all forms of alternative energy, not just hydrogen.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations from The Beltway


Actually, i tend to agree with you there. There is a resolution already made called the "Alternative Fuels" and "Fossil Fuel Reduction act" that also tries to reduce fossil fuel. Therefore having the hydrogen act passed would only ruin the economy and be very unaffeciente. Anyways, an international research center seems like a good idea. If you are a regional delegate, than maybe you should make this a proposal.

OOC:
To TSA -
I might just create an Alternative Energy Research Act; promoting research into alternative energy is probably the best way to go.

I would certainly support an alternative energy sources research initiative. As far as the hydrogen-powered vehicles resolution goes, it should be repealed. The original resolution was ambiguous at best, and hydrogen power is not actually an alternative energy source. It's just an alternative method of energy storage.

The prospects for this repeal is dismal. The deligate from Tzorsland will take a desperate act, get on his knees, touch the ground and say ...

"Who the hell is responsible for cleaning this floor? It's a disgrace! It's dusty, there are footprints everywhere. I demand an inquiry."
http://tulsatvmemories.com/uhf/stanley8.jpg
These floors are dirty as Hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

The prospects for this repeal is dismal. The deligate from Tzorsland will take a desperate act, get on his knees, touch the ground and say ...

"Who the hell is responsible for cleaning this floor? It's a disgrace! It's dusty, there are footprints everywhere. I demand an inquiry."
Give us a break. Our MO when it comes to cleaning is to do it when the room is unoccupied by any UN ambassadors. And so far the only way we've found to get the General Assembly room empty is to pull the fire alarm, and the last time we did that the fire department came and chewed us out because while they were checking on our situtation, three other buildings burned down.

Pamela Richards
Janitorial Services Department
UN Building Management

Give us a break. Our MO when it comes to cleaning is to do it when the room is unoccupied by any UN ambassadors. And so far the only way we've found to get the General Assembly room empty is to pull the fire alarm, and the last time we did that the fire department came and chewed us out because while they were checking on our situtation, three other buildings burned down.

Pamela Richards
Janitorial Services Department
UN Building Management

Ermm, there is an easier way. Just announce free booze in the bar. I can guarantee that room will be empty within 10 seconds.

As for the repeal. I voted against.

While I'd love to see this resolution gone, I don't like the way this paticular repeal is worded. Not to mention the fact it has ACCEL's name on it, and I won't support anything that comes from them.

Voting for the repeal for much the same reasons that have been mentioned throughout the thread - I simply don't like the blanket requirements/intentions of the original resolution.
Hopefully, if it's successful, it'll pave the way for a more carefully worded and pragmatic solution to vehicle emitions.

While I'd love to see this resolution gone, I don't like the way this paticular repeal is worded. Not to mention the fact it has ACCEL's name on it, and I won't support anything that comes from them.

Well, good to see you can look at a proposal rationally and not be blinded by petty things like who gets credit for it. :rolleyes:

Our fledging democratic theocracy does not have automobiles precisely because they damage the environment. However, we have not researched other forms of transport because we think our money is better spent elsewhere e.g. on education and health.

For this reason, right now, the resolution does not affect us. However, it may in the future and as it stands we would be penalised for trying to find a better way. For this reason we must support the repeal but on the belief that the UN will pass a better thought-out resolution that supports alternative environmentally-friendly transport that creates the right incentives to make it happen.

It is not the time it takes to get from A to B that matters, it is what we learn on the journey that counts.

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

Well, good to see you can look at a proposal rationally and not be blinded by petty things like who gets credit for it. :rolleyes:
*coughahemloveandesterel?spluttercough*

Hydrogen cars just pass on their pollution to other sources, such as generating the massive amounts of electricity to make the hydrogen in the first place. The storage is problematic to say the least, there was a thread someone did about various fuels and energy sources... I've got it tagged somewhere.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344081

Slightly dated, the above thread, as solar panels now pay themselves off within a few years, but otherwise pretty good.
Anyways, forget the economic disadvantages of making countries develop a tech, focus on the fact that the hydrogen economy is false!

*coughahemloveandesterel?spluttercough*

I look at all proposals rationally, thank you. Yes, even L&E's. :p

OOC: Joking aside, I think there are good political reasons for not voting for resolutions/repeals that come from ideological 'enemies'. It's a means of denying them 'bragging rights'. It's a little cynical, but it's politics. And what's a large part of this game about?

i just dont understand why we wouldn't do this. i mean over 80% of our galaxy is made up of hydrogen. Its easily found and the exaugen from such cars is...WATER. its just about the perfect this

ooc:if it were easily done in real life i know id have one

i mean over 80% of our galaxy is made up of hydrogen....which is bound to other elements which means energy must be expended to extract the hydrogen. With current (RL) technology, it takes more energy to free the hydrogen than using the hydrogen generates. It operates at a loss.

Where's that catgirl card?

Haven't you seen that south park episode? Sure hydrogen powered cars might get rid of the smog...but what about the smug clouds! Think of the children!!! Oh yea...and the whole it being expensive thing...that sucks too...

Anyone remember the names or have even heard of Dennis Lee and Stanley Meyers?

Probably not.

I have rare footage in my blog right now on http://blog.myspace.com/thegenocydalempyre that clearly shows that Hydrogen Feul cells are not as large and problematic as they are made out to be.

Stanley was an inventor. During the oil embargo of the 1970s, he took the initiative and built a small hydrogen feul cell that created what's known as "overunity." In layman's terms it means the energy output was greater than it's consumption. He worked on this thing with Dennis Lee and modified his dune buggy by taking the gas tank off and installing the feul cell.

It worked. The footage in my blog will show you that. He also made this "water powered car" run from California to New York using a grand total of, ready to be sick? 28 gallons of water.

Why isn't this marketed now?

The Pentagon fishnetted Stanley Meyers in the being sworn to secrecy "for reasons of national security." Dennis Lee tried to tell him time and again that the U.S. Federal Government was not his ally and that they were not at all willing to support him. Still, Stanley Meyers walked hand-in-hand with them anyway.

Still, why isn't this marketed?

Stanley Meyers is dead now.

The Government seemed to support his research by building for him an Institute For The Research of Water Power Technology. Stanley died mysteriously at the institute dinner commemoration event.

No investigation/autopsy was launched. The Hydrogen Feul Cell? Nothing. Now lost in some government warehouse possibly. Possibly being developed at the Pentagon for military use. Who Knows?

A Cross-Country trip on 28 gallons of water. A clean-burning feul. An inexhaustable resource. Two men made it work.

Think what you will.

Ok, one more thing

Let's say that you're worried about cost. Short term costs...possibly astronomical, true. Long term costs once the new infrastructure is in place...fractions of your currency. Furthermore, pollution becomes a thing of the past. What does that mean? Have you ever seen brochures of Venice, Italy? The waters and sky are blue, everything looks clean, nice. Nice place to visit.

I've seen actual photos and did the comparisons myself and it's amazing what a commercial program like photoshop can do to touch up pictures or make them seem as if no pollution actually exists.

Speaking of the environment. What happens when fossil feuls run out? Your power infrastructure that was designed as a quick fix is gone and the entire economy collapses anyway from the strain of mass-production freight alone not being able to be shipped. Mass production will collapse along with it all. This is only if the environment doesn't become unsuitable to sustain human life for habitation of the planet first. Imagine trying to maintain your economy on a hostile planet.

I think the best possible route is to let the money be spent on this technology before you have to worry about survival in one of the harshest environments imaginable. I don't think you'll really be worried about an economy too much after that happens.

Annoying big font... :mad:

...which is bound to other elements which means energy must be expended to extract the hydrogen. With current (RL) technology, it takes more energy to free the hydrogen than using the hydrogen generates. It operates at a loss.

Where's that catgirl card?

Ask and ye shall receive. ;)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/catgirls4hn.jpg

One of the most requested of the cards I've made. :cool:

i just dont understand why we wouldn't do this. i mean over 80% of our galaxy is made up of hydrogen. Its easily found and the exaugen from such cars is...WATER.

And carbon is found in the armosphere as CO2. So what does CO2 and H2O have in common? Both are the byproducts of combustion. Even fuel cells are the result of taking H2 and O2 and converting them to H2O and vice versa.

Fuel cell technology is good, but it is a battery system, it's not a fuel. Unless you are going to mine the atmosphere of jupiter there isn't a very large source of H2 out there.

Now I hear you saying, "Well OK so it's a battery system, we can make power from solar and wind and use that to power up the fuel cells." Now we are getting somewhere. Unfortunately, we already have something better. NiMH battery technology can easily beat fuel cell technology in terms of cost, efficiency, and even long life. The NiMH batteries on the Toyota Prius have an estimated shelf life equal to the estimated shelf life of the engine itself.

"Yea," you would probably rebut. "But if that were so why don't we see them everywhere?" Chevron/Texaco holds the pattent to this battery technology. There is no way in hell they are going to give up their potential oil revenue to a flood of EV cars using NiMH. They gave Toyota a unique permission to use them in Hybrid cars only. Note well that their pattent expires in 2010 ... FOUR MORE YEARS!

I'm going to object to the notion that this is "bad science." Instead I think this is misdirected science. By replacing a fuel system with a battery system you have to shift your question from the car (which was the source of the power) to the external source of your energy. I had a discussion with a person who is very pro EV and "plug in" hybrid technology. He claimed that he was running his car for free. When I pointed out this important point he replied that he had installed solar palens on his Califorina rooftop decades ago and the money he gets from the power company has already paid the cost of his initial investment. In his case he really was running his EV for NOTHING.

Even hydrogen burning cars are only batteries. H2 has to be made from H2O which requires a power source.

Personally I think the best solution is to kill this resolution and to adopt a more tech friendly proposal to replace carbon combusting automobile systems with EV systems (personal or public ... electric trollys are a very low tech solution) depending on local population density or other natural conditions where smog and polution effects can generally accumulate above normal levels.

Of coruse even if this stupid resolution remains we can still try to pass a more reasonable one.

If I had more poor sods...err...guinea pigs...err...test subjects...err...selfless volenteers for helping expand scientific knowlage available(Damned Free Prisoners of Conscience Resolution:p ),the Palentine would be more inclined to vote against this resolution. However as it stands now, my Mad Scientists are running short on subjects to test this technology, so We support this repeal.

It failed:

5 minutes ago: The resolution "Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"" was defeated 7,077 votes to 4,732.

That was 40% to 60% in percentage terms. Resolution #18 passed by 80% to 20%, this repeal has managed to half that gap, but it was no-where near enough.

If you look through all the replies on this thread there must have only been 5 or 6 posts in favour of keeping the resolution with everyone else agreeing with the repeal. I'm not sure quite why there was this vast difference between this forum and the actual vote tally but my best guess is that people on here are far more informed and aware of the issues surrounding proposals. A lot of the vote may just of come down to looking at the title thinking it wasn't environmentally friendly. I will say this about the original, not matter how badly worded or poor a resolution it was, the title was excellent!

I'd just like to end by thanking everyone who voted in favour of the repeal - thank you all!

We encourage the representative of Leg-ends to try to repeal this ridiculous resolution again in the near future.

I think legg-ends conclusion is a bit too one-sided, I don't think those who voted against the repeal were those who were not interested. I think there are at least three OTHER reasons why there wasn't much comment against the repeal on the forum. First of all, all arguments against it were already known, namely those in favour of the original resolution. Secondly, that the argument was rather simple, namely "save the environment" and thus no need for further explanation (I agree that those in favour of the repeal will think quite differently about this). And especially third, if you see that a lot more than the majority of the votes is going to your point of view, namely against the repeal, then why should you try to convince people and use the forum?
Let's be fair and consider this case closed, right? I don't think it is very healthy if a minority tries again and again to get a certain resolution, ie repeal, voted. We already voted twice on this subject, let's move on to other things, perhaps of even greater importance.

brunoi