NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: This Global Environmental Pact (GEP) creates and authorizes a council to oversee any companies using harmful chemicals/re-agents,

DESIRING to keep the Earth a safe and habitable place to live; without fear of cosmic radiation irradiating the inhabitants of the Earth and causing genetic defects,

BELIEVING that most industry uses too many devices whose contents have a detrimental effect to the atmosphere, ozone layer, etc...,

1. FOUNDS the Global Environmental Council (GEC), which establishes regulations against detrimental chemicals/re-agents previously manufactured or that will be manufactured in the future,

2. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, inspect any industry thought to be using harmful chemicals/re-agents in their business ventures,

3. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, raid said industry and claim the harmful chemicals/re-agents in the name of the UN

4. MANDATES that all research of possibly harmful chemicals/re-agents are properly documented and submitted to the GEC to be put on file

5. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to set the standards of the written information necessary to be submitted to them in cases of harmful research

6. DESIGNATES the GEC the sole environmental UN council on environmental protection on chemicals/re-agents used in businesses,

7. STRONGLY URGES any use of cfc's (Chloro-Floro-Carbons) in industry be banned

8. FORBIDS further use of aerosol as a propellant

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry

*claps* very good job. But make sure you define all the harmful stuff, or this could be either oppressive or useless.

Thank you,pythagoria... Hmm.. make a huge list of everything I consider harmful to the enviroment? heh 10 pages long... heh

Well, there is a character limit on proposals. 3500, to be exact.

*Starts singing*

"It's the End of the World as we know it; I feel fine."

Seriously

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry

These resolutions go into effect immediately, without any transition period, and without any room for consideration. What you just said there is:
1) All coal and oil power plants must be shut down.
2) All cars, etc - which has interesting side effects including....well....the only thing that would be able to be moved is (ironically) oil through pipelines. All trucking services, trains, busses, freighters, jeeps, motorbikes, dune buggies, snowmobiles, airplanes, Ford Trucks, and Honda Civics can no longer be used - ending mobility to the level of "Can I bike/walk/ski/snowboard/skate/hopscotch there?"
3) Tractors also can't move so there goes all our food
4) Everything from production of steel to creating plastics is out, not that it matters since they can't get the materials needed to operate anyway
5) Cranes are shut down so most construction is over and done with. Not that it matters because you couldn't get construction materials out there - not that they could be produced in the first place, nor that the workers could get there nor.....
6) And the christmas fire is also out - which doesn't help things because your heating system was shut down already so you're freezing to death in your sweater.

If you want, I can go over the rest of the proposal......

Yeah, criticise the whole thing... it will help me make it better. Thanks. Anyone who wants to criticise the UN proposal is welcome too... that's why I posted it.

Well, here goes...

Description: This Global Environmental Pact (GEP) creates and authorizes a council to oversee any companies using harmful chemicals/re-agents, Move this out of the preamble; you don't need a summary at the start.

1. FOUNDS the Global Environmental Council (GEC), which establishes regulations against detrimental chemicals/re-agents previously manufactured or that will be manufactured in the future,Who is defining this "detrimental chemicals/re-agents"? I'm assuming the GEC, but this doesn't state it.

2. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, inspect any industry thought to be using harmful chemicals/re-agents in their business ventures,Fine, except you can't inspect industry not operating in UN member nations.

3. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, raid said industry and claim the harmful chemicals/re-agents in the name of the UNThis makes me really uncomfortable. What happens to said chemicals/re-agents when they are claimed. Furthermore, why is the GEC doing the raiding? It should be the job of the nation itself through laws created in accord with this legislation.

May I note further that no where here do you mandate that these chemicals must be banned, just that the GEC can raid industry using them. I'd add a clause like "MANDATES the use of harmful chemicals/re-agents shall be banned in all UN member nations", after defining "harmful chemicals/re-agents"

4. MANDATES that all research of possibly harmful chemicals/re-agents are properly documented and submitted to the GEC to be put on file Fine, but again, define, define, define.

5. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to set the standards of the written information necessary to be submitted to them in cases of harmful research "Harmful research" or "research of harmful chemicals"?

6. DESIGNATES the GEC the sole environmental UN council on environmental protection on chemicals/re-agents used in businesses,No, because some future resolution may dictate other agencies can be involved with other harmful chemicals/re-agents (Such as a resolution managing the disposal of harmful waste, right, Fonzo?)

7. STRONGLY URGES any use of cfc's (Chloro-Floro-Carbons) in industry be banned

8. FORBIDS further use of aerosol as a propellant Not sure why one is only URGES and the other FORBIDS... they both have the same aim. These could be combined into a single clause (perhaps with subclauses).

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry
See Forgottenlands comment... can't just faze out overnight.

My biggest recommendation: remember you can only affect nations within the UN, and make it clear in the resolution that you understand this. Also define your terms, especially "harmful chemicals/re-agents".

Perhaps you could expand on 'harmful research'?

I think you should give up the idea of having a leviathan council policing the entire UN. Write it in a way that urges or mandates nations to control these things. (I will complain about economic realism in a later stage.)

Description: This Global Environmental Pact (GEP) creates and authorizes a council to oversee any companies using harmful chemicals/re-agents,

You're writing a 3500 character (tops) document that HAS to (by the necessity of most legal systems) be the summary of a long legal document, and then you summarized it into two sentances? Why?

DESIRING to keep the Earth a safe and habitable place to live; without fear of cosmic radiation irradiating the inhabitants of the Earth and causing genetic defects,

Not to mention suffocating due to carbon mono/dioxide or melting from acid rain or thirst from over consumption of water or.....

BELIEVING that most industry uses too many devices whose contents have a detrimental effect to the atmosphere, ozone layer, etc...,

Detrimental.....interesting choice of words.

1. FOUNDS the Global Environmental Council (GEC), which establishes regulations against detrimental chemicals/re-agents previously manufactured or that will be manufactured in the future,

Fine

2. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, inspect any industry thought to be using harmful chemicals/re-agents in their business ventures,

Fine

3. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, raid said industry and claim the harmful chemicals/re-agents in the name of the UN

And a raid is different from an inspection because.....you can take chemicals?

4. MANDATES that all research of possibly harmful chemicals/re-agents are properly documented and submitted to the GEC to be put on file

What if they aren't expected to be harmful but the extra chlorine atom turns into a green vapor?

Also, there's an important question you must ask yourself - how will you fund this and where are all these personnell going to work? The UN is run completely on donations and the UN Building is 50 stories tall and has more people looking for offices than it has space to sit.

5. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to set the standards of the written information necessary to be submitted to them in cases of harmful research

Fine

6. DESIGNATES the GEC the sole environmental UN council on environmental protection on chemicals/re-agents used in businesses,

Likely metagaming infraction, illegal. Considering that the Green Think Tank already exists and does work on chemicals/re-agents from time-to-time and their effect upon the environment, such a claim is ludicrous.

7. STRONGLY URGES any use of cfc's (Chloro-Floro-Carbons) in industry be banned

...ok.

8. FORBIDS further use of aerosol as a propellant

Wait.....you banned aerosol but not CFCs?

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry

I've said enough on the matter above.....but you clamped down harder on fossil fuels than on CFCs, and you started this proposal about "atmosphere"? Fossil Fuels actually don't do that much to the atmosphere, they do a lot to the oxygen levels and have various other environmental impacts.

BTW - that makes you instantly nominated for a PoSP award.

so you're freezing to death in your sweater.
Freezing to death in the buff is more like it as how do you make a sweater and from what or of what? As some part of that process would violatet the proposal. Thus more like frozen bare bottoms here.

I suppose the obvious suggestion, then, would be to read the past (passed) resolutions to see which environmental aspects are not covered by previous legisoation, and after that, to consider the impact of a proposal's wording. What may seem, upon writing, to be an innocuous phrase ("FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry") can actually have much further-reaching consequences than originally intended ("no more industry, unless one is beyond the needs of fossil fuels").

Don't feel too discouraged, though. I have only submitted one proposal in my entire time on NS, and that failed to reach quorum due to immense unpopularity. I can almost guarantee that there is a larger audience for environmental protection resolutions than there was to repeal "Humanitarian Intervention"!

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry

By the mighty Pelican (Peace and Good) we cannnot accept this proposal as written. You can force us to use hydrogen, you can make us all go nuclear, but never, and I mean never, will you deprive us of the glorious technology of industrial dry cleaning of my fancy monk's robe! The right to use fossil fuels to dry clean our clothes should be an inalienable right!

And let's not forget coal tar shampoo. Plastic containers. The list goes ever on and on.

3. AUTHORIZES the GEC to be able to, at any time, raid said industry and claim the harmful chemicals/re-agents in the name of the UN

If it can "raid" like this then it's arguably a police force, albeit one with a jurisidiction limited to a very narrow range of offences, and the UN's basic rules say that resolutions can not create any 'UN police forces'...

8. FORBIDS further use of aerosol as a propellant


Aerosal is used as a propellant? I know it is/was used in hair spray and other pressurized containers, but as a propellant? Is this a misspelling or am I just misinformed...anyway, ban aerosol on all fronts, as I think it's on the way out anyway, and its not as important to the economy or difficult to phase out as fossil fuels (see below).

9. FORBIDS further use of fossil fuels in the fields of: Heating/Cooling, Transportation, and Industry

Ok, first and foremost, fossil fuels are not going anywhere. Although significant advances in technology reveal a potentially fossil-fuel free future, for most nations that is 20-50 years off. Not to mention the developing nations whom rely heavily on fossil fuels to develop their economies. If fossil fule is pulled away from these countries it will kill their economy overnight (not to mention most average nations). Transportation will be immediatly shut-down, power will go, so will heating, and a nation on the verge of industrializing will be thrown, literally, back into the dark ages. This doesn't inlcude nations whos entire economy rely on fossil fuel production. Now, I perhaps some restrictions on emissions, or some urges or something else would work, but the sudden removal of fossil fuels would destroy the economies of untold numbers of nations.

Ok, first and foremost, fossil fuels are not going anywhere.Say what (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875394&postcount=127)?!

Although significant advances in technology reveal a potentially fossil-fuel free future, for most nations that is 20-50 years off.Try 45.

Nuts... I really hit something big... He'res a complete revision after some in depth research... well, not TOO TOO much, but enough to figure out that just doing that won't work.

Description of the Global Energy Pact:

DESIRING to limit use of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, etc...),

BELIEVING that alternative energy sources would lead to a less pollutive enviroment for the future,

1. DEFINES OSHA as the current system of safety regulations

2. FOUNDS the Global Energy Council (GEC) as a subset of OSHA,

3. DEFINES the Global Energy Council (GEC) to have "power" over all restrictions and laws concerning safety and proper use of alternative energy sources,

4. DEFINES "power" as the ability to create/append said standards (from #3),

5. MANDATES that the UN appropriate funds to offset costs incurred by the GEC,

6. STRONGLY URGES any UN Members to change over from fossil fuels as a primary source of energy production to less pollutive means,

7. DEFINES "Alternative Energy Sources" as (Nuclear Fission, 1 to 1 Nuclear Fusion, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Tidal, Bio-Fuel, Ethanol, etc...)

8. MANDATES that the GEC is allowed to inspect any UN Member's energy production plants (Stations or substations) for safety standard infractions or otherwise,

9. MANDATES that the GEC can appropriate surplus funds to economically hurting UN members trying to change their power generation over to solely powered by alternative means,

10. STRONLY URGES any UN Member who doesn't have the economic standings to change over themselves to come to the GEC for financial assistance

I figured out I was being way too vague, or at least way too broad-minded...
Yeah you say.. the UN can't have police forces, but it'd be fun if I could say, well, you don't like it, meet my UN-funded sniper program... :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
heh heh heh... I appreciate the criticisms, fellow UN members, If you wouldn't be helping me make this better, I'd be doing this right about now... => :headbang:

Oh and by the way, what is a PoSP award?, as stated by ForgottenLands?

PoSP = Promotion of Solar Panels

"[T]he most disastrous resolution in the history of the UN" -- Frisbeeteria

In this case, the reference is about the bad science then the potential devestation such a resolution could cause. While it would be definitely more devestating economically (well.....on EVERY level), this proposal would have a hard time winning an award for most dangerous proposal. Maybe most dangerous proposal posted on the forums....but I think that's also a long shot.

The auto-nomination is because he had exactly the same bad science as PoSP. He puts in arguments about atmosphere depletion, then talks about limiting fossil fuel use. Arguments about CO2 and other by-products from fossil fuel use being destroyers of the atmosphere was the major scientific failing of PoSP.

PoSP holds the record for fastest repealed resolution, resolution with the shortest time before a successful repeal had been drafted (at 2 days before passing), and possibly most opposed by forum regulars (with only Mikivity, IIRC, siding with it - partly because his interpretation of it was different than the rest of ours). I THINK it also held second for most debated resolution in 2005, which is impressive considering there wasn't a draft thread for it.

OSHA? :confused:

DESIRING to limit use of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, etc...),

Gold? Stone?

BELIEVING that alternative energy sources would lead to a less pollutive enviroment for the future,

Ah, energy sources. Now you mention it. Anyway, you are mixing non-renewability with pollution. These are different problems.

1. DEFINES OSHA as the current system of safety regulations

Uh?

2. FOUNDS the Global Energy Council (GEC) as a subset of OSHA,

Uh? ^2

3. DEFINES the Global Energy Council (GEC) to have "power" over all restrictions and laws concerning safety and proper use of alternative energy sources,

Uh? ^3

4. DEFINES "power" as the ability to create/append said standards (from #3),

If you are talking about energy generation, maybe you don't want to redefine "power"...

5. MANDATES that the UN appropriate funds to offset costs incurred by the GEC,

U-oh, now I am worried... How? I would never give the UN the "power" (defined as ability) to appropriate unlimited funds for any committee. Especially a committee without a well defined mandate.

6. STRONGLY URGES any UN Members to change over from fossil fuels as a primary source of energy production to less pollutive means,

Good. But you should take into acount the availability of said means, namely the technological level of the country.

7. DEFINES "Alternative Energy Sources" as (Nuclear Fission, 1 to 1 Nuclear Fusion, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Tidal, Bio-Fuel, Ethanol, etc...)

Nonono. That is not a definition, that is an incomplete list. And I cannot find the clause where you use "Alternative Energy Sources." I guess it is above the definition again...

8. MANDATES that the GEC is allowed to inspect any UN Member's energy production plants (Stations or substations) for safety standard infractions or otherwise,

Grrrr... Uh? ^4

9. MANDATES that the GEC can appropriate surplus funds to economically hurting UN members trying to change their power generation over to solely powered by alternative means,

Here we go again... now the GEC is appropriating funds directly. This has to be illegal somehow. And you have a craving for blood, no? Hurting UN members?

10. STRONLY URGES any UN Member who doesn't have the economic standings to change over themselves to come to the GEC for financial assistance

Lovely. Because the GEC has collected all these funds against our will and without answering to anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dancing Bananland
Ok, first and foremost, fossil fuels are not going anywhere.

Say what?!


Ok, I'll give you that one, I didn't know about that resolution. However, even that way it will still be some time before their gone, its not like its only a year or two away.


Quote:
Although significant advances in technology reveal a potentially fossil-fuel free future, for most nations that is 20-50 years off.

Try 45.

Well, thats exactly what I said 20-50. It depends on how you classify that technology (we have efficient hybrid cars, electric cars are coming into their own, and some cities of hydrogen buses...not to mention futuretech nations) but others might define that technology as being here when it is cheap and widely used. 20-50 years.


OOC: BTW i thought PosP award meant "Peice of Sh*t Proposal award"

OSHA? :confused:Oh Shit, Heavy Artillary

Oh Shit, Heavy Artillary

Rolling it in now, sir!

The heart is in the right place but passion rules the heart. Passion thinks only 'I', not 'Us'.

We believe that the thinking behind this proposal is full of merit. However the means of 'enforcing' this motion leaves a lot to be desired. No state will ever sit and smile while independent bodies from alien cultures come charging in telling them how to behave and why they should be punished. The make-up of the comittee needs to be clearer and the powers of any such force must be tempered but yet remain effective.

Son of Zav.

We feel this is the right way, the spiritual way.

3. DEFINES the Global Energy Council (GEC) to have "power" over all restrictions and laws concerning safety and proper use of alternative energy sources,

4. DEFINES "power" as the ability to create/append said standards (from #3),

If that's supposed to include any other UN Resolutions about this topic then it's probably illegal, under the "No Amendments" rule: If it isn't supposed to include them then it should say so...

Here it is, for all you non-engineering folk...

"The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor. It was created by Congress under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon, on December 29, 1970. Its mission is to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths by issuing and enforcing rules (called standards) for workplace safety and health. This same act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as a research agency whose purpose is to determine the major types of hazards in the workplace and ways of controlling them. As of March 2006, the agency is headed by Assistant Secretary of Labor Edwin Foulke.

OSHA's statutory authority extends to most nongovernmental workplaces where there are employees. State and local government workers are excluded from Federal coverage, however, states operating their own state workplace safety and health programs under plans approved by the U.S. Department of Labor cover most private sector workers and are also required to extend their coverage to public sector (state and local government) workers in the state. Section 2 (11) of the OSH Act encourages states to develop and operate their own state OSH programs." (en/wikipedia.org)

Next:

In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B, if A is "contained" inside B. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion. Every set is a subset of itself.

More formally, If A and B are sets and every element of A is also an element of B, then:

A is a subset of (or is included in) B, denoted by A ⊆ B,
or equivalently

B is a superset of (or includes) A, denoted by B ⊇ A.

One more...

There are multiple definitions of power, and when I defined "power", Iwas alluding to the whole "power of creating/appending standards."

Yeah... I gotta go anyway... Stuff to do! Leave me a message. B4N!

*arrogant rant*

RL=/=NS. US=/=NS. Read the proposal rules before trying to be smart.

OSHA does not exist (empty set?). The only subset of an empty set is itself. Therefore, the GEC is the OSHA. Also, it doesn't exist.

Commissions do not have subsets. If you want our help in writing legislation, we can help you find proper language. But I doubt you are interested.

Bye. Please find a nice cozy spot in General, and brag about your wiki-knowledge there. We are not interested.

Uh huh

1) Let's ignore the real life reference for a second and the fact that the OSHA doesn't exist. You set up an International Agency to be a subset of a National Agency?

2) You decided to make an environmental resolution about alternative power sources (which is potentially duplication in itself) to be coupled with safety regulations from an act that was primarily about safety regulations?

3) You assumed that ONLY the US could have an Agency or document abbreviated "OSHA"?

And you decided to talk down to us?

Ok, in that case...

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to seem arrogant. Whatever the case, I'll keep working on this, and possibly refine it so it actually seems like it works for the UN.

OOC: I try to imagine that comments that appear narky or arrogant are being written with a wry smile - it helps me to not take offence.

Of course, I'm a sanctimonious fluffy treehugging pinko twat, so should probably be ignored and kept in a cage.

OOC: *snip*

Of course, I'm a sanctimonious fluffy treehugging pinko twat, so should probably be ignored and kept in a cage.

OOC: Agreed. :p

OOC: Agreed. :p
OOC: shoulda realised you'd be the first with a smart-arse reply [wry smile]

OOC: shoulda realised you'd be the first with a smart-arse reply [wry smile]

OOC: If I'm not, you should be worried about me. ;)

Ok, in that case...

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to seem arrogant. Whatever the case, I'll keep working on this, and possibly refine it so it actually seems like it works for the UN.

RL stuff is good for inspiration, but ultimately NS material has to be written from scratch. Also, be careful with the way your commission collects money. It can be a deal-breaker for many delegates.

*snip*
6) And the christmas fire is also out - which doesn't help things because your heating system was shut down already so you're freezing to death in your sweater.


...which better not be made of acrylic, polyester, etc....

Freezing to death in the buff is more like it as how do you make a sweater and from what or of what? As some part of that process would violatet the proposal. Thus more like frozen bare bottoms here.
Apparently they don't have sheep, spinners and weavers where you live.

8. FORBIDS further use of aerosol as a propellant


aer·o·sol
n.
A gaseous suspension of fine solid or liquid particles.

A substance, such as paint, detergent, or insecticide, packaged under pressure with a gaseous propellant for release as a spray of fine particles.
An aerosol bomb.

[aero- + sol(ution).]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


aer·o·sol

n.

A gaseous suspension of fine solid or liquid particles.
A substance, such as a drug containing therapeutically active ingredients, packaged under pressure with a gaseous propellant for release as a spray of fine particles.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Main Entry: aero·sol
Function: noun
1 : a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>
2 : a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this


Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


aerosol

n 1: a cloud of solid or liquid particles in a gas 2: a dispenser that forces a liquid out as a fine spray when a button is pressed [syn: aerosol container, aerosol can, aerosol bomb, spray can]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

And you want to ban this highly effective means of dispersing medicines, useful chemicals or other beneficial agents because...?

You're confusing the method of delivery with the chemical propellant doing the work. Chloroflouorocarbons were used as aerosol propellants -- the aerosol process/state itself is merely a delivery system. Banning aerosols is like banning lead containers because nuclear waste is stored in them (the container isn't the problem). An air-pumped hair gel is in an aerosol state, as is glass cleaner, and even the water some folks use in aerosol sprayers to discipline their cats. Shit, you'd even have pet owners on your ass about this clause!

It's more than research, it's looking closely at the words you choose to use.