NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the idealism reflected in resolutions such as "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles," "Sustainable Energy Sources," and the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act,"

FURTHER APPLAUDING the practicality of resolutions like the "Nuclear Energy Reduction Act,"

ACKNOWLEDGING the problems inherent in using fossil fuels to generate electrical power and to fuel engines,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the benefits of inexpensive electrical power and of inexpensive fuel sources can be found through alternatives to fossil fuels,

AFFIRMING the right of UN member nations to exchange scientific information on the application of alternative means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines,

NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,

BELIEVING the benefits of alternative means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines should be available to all UN member nations,

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of alternative means of producing electricity and fueling engines,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES the following terms, for the purposes of clarifying this resolution:
I - Alternative Energy: methods of generating electricity or fueling engines that do not primarily use fossil fuels, such as solar power, ethanol, nuclear power, or hydrogen.
II - Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for generating electricity or fueling vehicles.

2. ESTABLISHES the Alternative Energy Research Commission (AERC), mandated to:
I - Develop means of lessening the use of fossil fuels in generating ,
II - Coordinate research into alternative energy,
III - Support efforts to improve the efficiency of alternative energy;

3. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the AERC;

4. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of power generation through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

5. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of fueling vehicles through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

6. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of alternative energy technology and materials between UN nations;

7. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of alternative energy technology and equipment, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

8. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by alternative energy, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

9. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

10. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

The opening lines are my attempt to alter the way to deal with possible HoC violations by not recalling the specific resolutions so much as the idealism or practicality inherent in them; I had to remove alternative energy fuel, as I'm not requiring free trade of corn or other biofuels - or hydrogen, for that matter.

Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions/Critiques? Post.

Can you explain why bans on protectionist devices should be included under the title of "Alternative Energy Research Act"? Should not a "research act" comprise only clauses encouraging the research, and perhaps the freedom to research, alternative energies, and not its free trade? Perhaps, to avoid being misleading, some reference to free trade should be included in the title.

[Kicks the Jevian ambassador in the nuts.]

Silence, heathen!

Ahem. "Alternative energy" in clause 6 should be hyphenated.

[Grumbles.]

Mr. Clinton, Why weren't you around during the fossil-fuels hullabaloo? Had we had something like this on the agenda back then, we could have defeated that ridiculous and destructive Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. We sponsored a repeal of FFRA, which was defeated, not so much because the deputies from member states upon re-examining the legislation actually still liked it, but because conventional wisdom at the time dictated that something needed to be done to reduce fossil fuels, and while FFRA certainly was flawed (fatally so, in my opinion), it wasn't as bad as Promotion of Solar Panels, and at least it was something, wasn't it?

Something like this could have saved us a heck of a lot of trouble. [Continuing to grumble at the 90-percent reduction mandate over 45 years.]

Ahem. No, I'm not bitter. But this may well prove the precursor we need to repeal that useless lump of carbon-alternative on the books. And it has that sneaky little elimination-of-protectionist-devices line!

While I cannot offer many substantive recommendations to improve the text at this time, I can offer you my unconditional support. But I'm still not shaking your hand. :p

On a side-note, during the NERA debate our delegation offered you an award (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10823248&postcount=111) for your tireless efforts to promote the trade of nuclear-power technology, but as of yet you seem not to have accepted or even acknowledged it ....

Well?

[Kicks the Jevian ambassador in the nuts.]

Silence, heathen!

Ow! That really hurts. Though...OW, stop!...you still haven't answered our point raised as to the title not being representative of what the proposal is actually trying to do...

[Runs off to double tariffs on alternative energy in an attempt to make up all the profits that may (and probably will) be lost as a result of this proposals' possible passing]

To lessen the impact of the change two things should be included.

1) Both wind power and ethanol power are financially profitably currently. Hydroelectric power is as well. In concentrated areas of steam geothermal is another profitable option. Very little is needed to implement these power sources in a profitable manner. A technic energy base-- wind and water-- wave, OTEC, and hydroelectric power focused renewable energy in combination with biofuels is very viable right now. It could be built right now, not in some odd future. These need to be researched to improve them. They are already financially viable. Encouraging use is more important than research for these sources of energy.

2) Fuel cells are not profitable currently, neither is solar power in most instances. These are the two most touted sources of energy, a disingeneous falsehood perpetrated by our current leaders to extend oil. We need more research into solar and fuel cells, but they are not in the immediate future.

Good more sales for Cruon Commercial House-- RFS-- Registered Family Syndicate, We sell biorefineries, solar, solar glass, solar concentrators, wave, wind, geothermal, OTEC, landfill gas reclamation, bioshelter sewage treatment for production of methanol and fertilizer. For PMT we sell solar power satellites and sonofustion generators. Buy from us.

Can you explain why bans on protectionist devices should be included under the title of "Alternative Energy Research Act"? Should not a "research act" comprise only clauses encouraging the research, and perhaps the freedom to research, alternative energies, and not its free trade? Perhaps, to avoid being misleading, some reference to free trade should be included in the title.
Because by freeing up trade in alternative energy and sources of generation, research will be facilitated. Scientific exchange, and thus advances in research, are unlikely to come about by retreating to isolation of resources, or by the mistrust that protectionism gives rise to.

I share the Jey representative's concern regarding this little crusade against 'protectionist devices' that has been going on. As much as I approve of the concept of alternative energy research... that line gives me some reservations.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the idealism reflected in resolutions such as "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles," "Sustainable Energy Sources," and the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act,"

Concurred heartily by this delegate, who further applauds the defence of these resolutions, with the exception to a certain degree of the HPV example and with full enthusiam for the FFRA, irrespective of whatever invective the Kennynite ambassador hurls at it.

FURTHER APPLAUDING the practicality of resolutions like the "Nuclear Energy Reduction Act,"

Agreed.

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES the following terms, for the purposes of clarifying this resolution:
I - Alternative Energy: methods of generating electricity or fueling engines that do not primarily use fossil fuels, such as solar power, ethanol, nuclear power, or hydrogen.
II - Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for generating electricity or fueling vehicles.

Agreed.

2. ESTABLISHES the Alternative Energy Research Commission (AERC), mandated to:
I - Develop means of lessening the use of fossil fuels in generating ,
II - Coordinate research into alternative energy,
III - Support efforts to improve the efficiency of alternative energy;

Could I suggest the addition of a clause IV stating "pursuant to clause I, the AERC shall assist where requested in the transition of the power generation mechanisms of U.N. nations, from those reliant on fossil fuels to those using alternative energy sources".

3. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the AERC;

Would personally prefer 'mandates', but this is only a quibble.

4. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of power generation through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

Agreed.

5. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of fueling vehicles through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

Agreed.

6. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of alternative energy technology and materials between UN nations;

Would prefer 'strongly encourages', in keeping with the freedom of exchange spirit of this resolution, but again, this is a very minor quibble.

7. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of alternative energy technology and equipment, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

Whilst sharing some of the unease of my Jevian and Wyldtree'n friends concerning this provision, I am more or less supportive of it because it will, in my opinion, lead to the easing of transitions from fossil fuel power sources to alternative energy ones. Nations of a poorer economic and fiscal state shall now be able to buy and receive energy from richer more advanced ones, who will already to a great extent use reliable AE technology. This will prevent lapses into FF based power generation by poorer nations, since they will have no need to do so, ideally.

That said, we are deeply concerned about the use of "requires" when most of the remainder of the resolution is "encourages". Surely it should only be "encourages" when things such as AE research are only put at "encourages"? We must remember that this is an environmental proposal, not a stealth attempt to introduce free trade, which is sufficiently contentious that it requires an honest and open debate of its own in my opinion.

Therefore, I am at present still making my mind up about it.

8. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by alternative energy, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

Same as above.

9. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

Agreed.

10. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Agreed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Jey, Wyldtree - Protectionism is inherently isolationist; it acts to make collaboration more difficult. Further, note the time frame thing again; you have eleven years to make the most of collaborative research and protectionist policies, so your companies should have the kind of time needed to be able to be successful.

Communitalitarianism - This resolution is neutral towards all alternative means of producing electricity or of fueling cars; the material suggested would be useful for the potential AERC, but not for the AERA.

OMGTKK - Note the definition of alternative energy, pedant...
Also, see the NERA [passed] thread...

Everyone - Thoughts on anything else to add in?

We must remember that this is an environmental proposal, not a stealth attempt to introduce free trade, which is sufficiently contentious that it requires an honest and open debate of its own in my opinion.
Surely this will be in the Free Trade category?

To lessen the impact of the change two things should be included.

1) Both wind power and ethanol power are financially profitably currently. Hydroelectric power is as well. In concentrated areas of steam geothermal is another profitable option. Very little is needed to implement these power sources in a profitable manner. A technic energy base-- wind and water-- wave, OTEC, and hydroelectric power focused renewable energy in combination with biofuels is very viable right now. It could be built right now, not in some odd future. These need to be researched to improve them. They are already financially viable. Encouraging use is more important than research for these sources of energy.

2) Fuel cells are not profitable currently, neither is solar power in most instances. These are the two most touted sources of energy, a disingeneous falsehood perpetrated by our current leaders to extend oil. We need more research into solar and fuel cells, but they are not in the immediate future.

Good more sales for Cruon Commercial House-- RFS-- Registered Family Syndicate, We sell biorefineries, solar, solar glass, solar concentrators, wave, wind, geothermal, OTEC, landfill gas reclamation, bioshelter sewage treatment for production of methanol and fertilizer. For PMT we sell solar power satellites and sonofustion generators. Buy from us.

Unfortunately, for most countries none of these yet can possibly provide enough energy except perhaps Nuclear power, which strictly is not renewable energy. They are expensive to set up, require certain circumstances, etc.
If research can find alternatives to all the already accepted possibilities surely it can only be for the better?

My nation has the rather odd appearance from the air of wind turbines sticking up above the rainforest canopy, and as you can imagine they are extremely large and very expensive to build. Off-shore ones would cost even more and would damage our reef. In fact, to be more economic and ecological we stress that the people save it. A few long power cuts taught them that turning off the extra lightbulbs was worth it. It works, but is hardly convenient.

Compadria - Your proposed subclause IV of clause 2 sounds good; I'll probably add it in.
The AERC is meant to be more of a voluntary organization than one that nations are required to help; not every nation's good at science. Thus, clause 3 isn't likely to be mandatory. However, I could perhaps make clause 3 into "MANDATES UN member nations to provide assistance to the AERC to the best of their ability;" would that work?
Clause 6 could be made "strongly encourages..."

All - For clauses 7 and 8, I was actually considering just requiring existing tariffs to be cut in half and new tariffs to be limited to a max of 5%, with non-tariff protectionist measures being banned. Thoughts on that?

Surely this will be in the Free Trade category?

Would that be for political reasons or practical ones? (in other words, is it going to be called free trade to make it more attractive to voters, because I personally believe it's environmental more than anything else, even if it does have free trade elements).

Compadria - Your proposed subclause IV of clause 2 sounds good; I'll probably add it in.
The AERC is meant to be more of a voluntary organization than one that nations are required to help; not every nation's good at science. Thus, clause 3 isn't likely to be mandatory. However, I could perhaps make clause 3 into "MANDATES UN member nations to provide assistance to the AERC to the best of their ability;" would that work?
Clause 6 could be made "strongly encourages..."

I like the suggestion, it sounds good to me.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you both.

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

OOC: Compadriaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Would that be for political reasons or practical ones? (in other words, is it going to be called free trade to make it more attractive to voters, because I personally believe it's environmental more than anything else, even if it does have free trade elements).
Well, I can't speak for Mr Clinton, but given this has the exact same structure as NERA, I can't see why it wouldn't be free trade.

Bear in mind the nature of the categories. "Doing something good for the environment" is not necessary Environmental. A program to educate people about trees would be in the Education category; a proposal to ban the use of Environmental Modification Technology in a military capacity would be Global Disarmament. A proposal is only Environmental when its environmental benefits come at the expense of industry. Is this the case here? No. Here, alternative energy businesses will benefit: barriers to commerce are being reduced. So it's Free Trade.

Or at least, that's the logic I used with UN Recycling Commission.

OOC: Yeah, I'm just bored.

Please make this free trade. It would greatly benefit our industries. Cars are a very small part of the energy industry. Most money is made from large fixed installations. We are already environmentally clean. A bill for the environment was just passed. It will destroy our economic base if this is not free trade. There is a weird idea that trade in environmental products cannot be profitable.

As far as your problem with poorer countries not being able to produce their own fuel, we can offer a few solutions not listed. We are after all an alternative energy company. A few technologies being used India which were developed are methanol digesters that use waste and compost in small sized vats to produce methanol and fertilizer. Another option with your abundance of trees is wood chip ethanol, or biomass digesters. We will also adopt Brazilian style biomass production from sugar cane for your needs. Brazil has a huge amount of their economy invested in ethanol. They even have ethanol propeller planes. We can build river turbines, a form of distributed energy generation-- that does not block off entire rivers. The blade systems can be designed to avoid intake of fish and other critters. These can all be done at affordable prices. In addition we would build some wind generation on the edges of the rivers.

We will also offer a small city integrated system, consisting of solar glass for windows, pvc panels, and small scale wind generators. Combined with digesters for compost/refuse--producing methanol and fertilizer, this will lower energy dependence but not solve it completely.

By the way ethanol is cheaper than gasoline for developing countries.

In Brazil, by law, all gasoline contains a minimum of 25 percent alcohol. Yet ethanol is so popular it actually accounts for 40 percent of all vehicle fuel.

By 2007, 100 percent of all new Brazilian cars may be able to run on 100 percent ethanol. Brazilian sugar-cane-fed biorefineries will be capable of producing sufficient ethanol to allow the entire fleet, new and old cars alike, to do so.

In Brazil, ethanol is now being used in aviation. Small planes, like crop dusters, are switching to ethanol because it is a superior fuel and is more widely available, even in remote parts of the country, than conventional aviation fuel.

Its stunning success with ethanol has encouraged Brazil to begin displacing diesel fuel with vegetable oils from its vast soybean crop. Within 15 years it expects to substitute biodiesel for 20 percent of its conventional diesel.

One more detail. Back in the mid 1990s, Brazil ended its ethanol subsidies. Nevertheless, with world oil prices hovering around $55 a barrel, the price of ethanol today is only half that of gasoline. Since its inception, Brazil's ethanol program has displaced imported oil worth $120 billion. This is comparable to a savings of almost $2 trillion for a U.S.-sized economy.

Well, I can't speak for Mr Clinton, but given this has the exact same structure as NERA, I can't see why it wouldn't be free trade.

Bear in mind the nature of the categories. "Doing something good for the environment" is not necessary Environmental. A program to educate people about trees would be in the Education category; a proposal to ban the use of Environmental Modification Technology in a military capacity would be Global Disarmament. A proposal is only Environmental when its environmental benefits come at the expense of industry. Is this the case here? No. Here, alternative energy businesses will benefit: barriers to commerce are being reduced. So it's Free Trade.

Or at least, that's the logic I used with UN Recycling Commission.

Fair enough, I can't find anything to disagree with in all that.

OOC: Yeah, I'm just bored.

OOC: I wish I could do something similarly creative with 'Gruenberg', but other than 'Gruey' I can't think of anything.

OOC: I wish I could do something similarly creative with 'Gruenberg', but other than 'Gruey' I can't think of anything.
OOC: Gruel Burger? That's what I think of when I see the name.

OOC: Gruel Burger? That's what I think of when I see the name.

:D

My nation has the rather odd appearance from the air of wind turbines sticking up above the rainforest canopy, and as you can imagine they are extremely large and very expensive to build. Off-shore ones would cost even more and would damage our reef. In fact, to be more economic and ecological we stress that the people save it. A few long power cuts taught them that turning off the extra lightbulbs was worth it. It works, but is hardly convenient.

Have you considered building some 'Ocean Thermal' generating plants, such as St Edmund used (OOC: and which have been tested successfully, although not put into commercial use yet as far as I know...), which use the temperature difference between the ocean's surface and the colder waters of the depths to turn turbines? Your references to rainforest & reefs seeem to suggest that your nation is in a location where the surface waters would be warm enough for these to work, although admittedly you'd probably have to position them so that the cold water they bring to the surface flowed away from those reefs...

We will also adopt Brazilian style biomass production from sugar cane for your needs. Brazil has a huge amount of their economy invested in ethanol.
countries.

In Brazil, by law, all gasoline contains a minimum of 25 percent alcohol. Yet ethanol is so popular it actually accounts for 40 percent of all vehicle fuel.

By 2007, 100 percent of all new Brazilian cars may be able to run on 100 percent ethanol. Brazilian sugar-cane-fed biorefineries will be capable of producing sufficient ethanol to allow the entire fleet, new and old cars alike, to do so.

In Brazil, ethanol is now being used in aviation. Small planes, like crop dusters, are switching to ethanol because it is a superior fuel and is more widely available, even in remote parts of the country, than conventional aviation fuel.

Its stunning success with ethanol has encouraged Brazil to begin displacing diesel fuel with vegetable oils from its vast soybean crop. Within 15 years it expects to substitute biodiesel for 20 percent of its conventional diesel.

One more detail. Back in the mid 1990s, Brazil ended its ethanol subsidies. Nevertheless, with world oil prices hovering around $55 a barrel, the price of ethanol today is only half that of gasoline. Since its inception, Brazil's ethanol program has displaced imported oil worth $120 billion. This is comparable to a savings of almost $2 trillion for a U.S.-sized economy.

St Edmund, whose territories on one of the Earths where it has a presence include the lands that form 'Brazil' on some other Earths, has similar policies although we haven't done much work on ethanol-fuelled aircraft yet...

Have you considered building some 'Ocean Thermal' generating plants, such as St Edmund used (OOC: and which have been tested successfully, although not put into commercial use yet as far as I know...), which use the temperature difference between the ocean's surface and the colder waters of the depths to turn turbines? Your references to rainforest & reefs seeem to suggest that your nation is in a location where the surface waters would be warm enough for these to work, although admittedly you'd probably have to position them so that the cold water they bring to the surface flowed away from those reefs...

That is very interesting. Perhaps you could send an expert to explain the concept and give advice to our electricity board?

That is very interesting. Perhaps you could send an expert to explain the concept and give advice to our electricity board?

I'll relay your request back home to the Outsidestuff-Firstthanehall, and am fairly confident that they'll be willing to arrange such a visit.


OOC: try looking at this site (http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html)...

Surely this will be in the Free Trade category?

An argument could be made for the Education and Creativity category.

Greetings,

I support your efforts to maintain a clean environment by pushing energy sources other than fossil fuels. But there are two other factors I ask you to consider:

1) Remove the ban on protectionist devices. Every nation is capable of producing some kind of energy and this would cause the world energy market to be dominated by any large nation with an energy surplus. An energy surplus is not hard to achieve with a strong economy.

2) Reduction in nuclear fuels is a one-sided goal. Ideally someone could develop a cold fusion reactor so that nuclear waste can be recycled. But, cold fusion is not the only option. A magnetic heat furnace could be developed to fuse nuclear waste back into reusable hydrogen or helium. The power put into this furnace is much less than the energy output of a nuclear fission reactor.

-Brandon Burum

1) Remove the ban on protectionist devices. Every nation is capable of producing some kind of energy and this would cause the world energy market to be dominated by any large nation with an energy surplus. An energy surplus is not hard to achieve with a strong economy.
So get a strong economy and invest in these fuels yourself; that's what the resolution's for.

Robert Bobson
Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs and International Ping-Pong
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana
"Tariffs Stink"

Too many errors...Reject. lol

Too many errors...Reject. lol
Please elaborate. Errors in what sense?

Please elaborate. Errors in what sense?

In his cerebral synapses.

FURTHER APPLAUDING the practicality of resolutions like the "Nuclear Energy Reduction Act,"
The what?
Did I miss something? :confused:

No, you didn't. I can't even identify my own resolution correctly...
Yeesh.

I've made some suggestions. First, though, can I suggest you rename the whole thing? I think "Renewable Energy Research Act" would be preferable, with furthermore mentions of "alternative energy" changed to "renewable energy". My reasoning is that I had thought nuclear energy was alternate, but not renewable.

APPLAUDING the idealism reflected in resolutions such as "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles," "Sustainable Energy Sources," and the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act,"

FURTHER APPLAUDING the practicality of resolutions like the "Nuclear Energy Reduction Act,"
To be honest, this sounds a little bit like you're pulling ribs out. I think it could be phrased in a better way. Perhaps:

"APPLAUDING the many commitments of member nations to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and to developing sustainable alternatives to their use,

RECALLING the success of "Nuclear Energy Research Act" in promoting international energy cooperation,"

How's that sound?

ACKNOWLEDGING the problems inherent in using fossil fuels to generate electrical power and to fuel engines,
...maybe you should mention them? Throw in something about global warming, climate change, etc.

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of alternative means of producing electricity and fueling engines,
You use this "producing...fueling" phrase several times. I don't have an alternative, but said over and over, it comes across as a little bulky.

1. DEFINES the following terms, for the purposes of clarifying this resolution:
Shouldn't this just be "DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:"? Otherwise it looks a little awkward.

I - Alternative Energy: methods of generating electricity or fueling engines that do not primarily use fossil fuels, such as solar power, ethanol, nuclear power, or hydrogen.
A grammarian is welcome to correct me, but to me this looks like you're identifying all the items in the subordinate clause as being fossil fuels. Furthermore, I dislike the concentration on a solely negative definition, although I understand it given the varying tech levels in the NSUN.

I - Develop means of lessening the use of fossil fuels in generating ,
???????????

4. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of power generation through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;
I don't see why you can't make this mandatory - "REQUIRES". Because you're not actually specifying that this research has to be time or resource-intensive: in fact, they could quite easily loophole their way out of it. But in the interests of promoting strong action, it should be clear what the UN's position is. Besides, UN members are already obliged to conduct such research, and further are going to need to do so anyway if they're to meet the requirements of other conventions.

5. ENCOURAGES UN member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of fueling vehicles through alternative energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;
See above note. Perhaps, though, this should be less of a national obligation, given it's essentially dealing with private transport: it could be "stimulate research", rather than "conduct research", as the most effective agents for this might be auto companies.

7. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of alternative energy technology and equipment, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

8. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by alternative energy, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
Why not simply merge these two? It would make it more concise:

"REQUIRES the elimination of all protectionist devices, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, restricting the trade of alternative technology and equipment, and of electrical power generated by alternative energy, within eleven years;"

10. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.
There is no point adding the (UNFTC) bit here, as you only reference them once. It should simply be "AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate..."

I also think you should have an extra operative clause, to the effect of promoting international scientific and commercial collaboration. It's sort of there already, but not quite.

So, were you to take my suggestions, this would be a redraft:

Renewable Energy Research Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant/Strong

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the many commitments of member nations to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and to developing sustainable alternatives to their use,

RECALLING the success of "Nuclear Energy Research Act" in promoting international energy cooperation,

ACKNOWLEDGING that continued overdependence on fossil fuels is likely to contribute significantly to global climate change, and to lead to crises when reserves run low,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the benefits of inexpensive electrical power and of inexpensive fuel sources can be found through alternatives to fossil fuels,

AFFIRMING the right of UN member nations to exchange scientific information on the application of renewable means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines,

NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,

BELIEVING the benefits of renewable means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines should be available to all UN member nations,

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of renewable means of producing electricity and fueling engines,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
I - 'renewable energy' as energy generated by natural or other sustainable processes, and that does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels;
II - 'fossil fuels' as hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for generating electricity or fueling vehicles;

2. ESTABLISHES the Renewable Energy Research Commission (RERC), mandated to:
I - Develop means of lessening the use of fossil fuels in generating energy;
II - Coordinate research into renewable energy;
III - Support efforts to improve the efficiency of renewable energy;

3. STRONGLY URGES all nations to provide assistance to the RERC;

4. REQUIRES member nations to conduct research into more efficient methods of power generation through renewable energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

5. REQUIRES member nations to stimulate research into more efficient methods of fueling vehicles through renewable energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

6. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of renewable energy technology and materials between UN nations;

7. PROMOTES all efforts at international scientific and commercial cooperation in the research and development of renewable energy;

8. REQUIRES the elimination of all protectionist devices, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, restricting the trade of renewable technology and equipment, and of electrical power generated by renewable energy, within eleven years;

9. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

10.. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Nice. In retrospect, including examples will only lead to argument over those examples.
Perhaps we should change clause 3 to "MANDATES nations to assist the RERC to the best of their ability."
Use the phrase "stimulate, to the best of their ability, " in place of "conduct" and "stimulate" in clauses 4 and 5; not every nation has the capability to conduct or stimulate research very well.
Add a co-author credit, with Sheknu as co-author.

Perhaps we should change clause 3 to "MANDATES nations to assist the RERC to the best of their ability."
Yes, that sounds fine.

Use the phrase "stimulate, to the best of their ability, " in place of "conduct" and "stimulate" in clauses 4 and 5; not every nation has the capability to conduct or stimulate research very well.
Good suggestion.

Add a co-author credit, with Sheknu as co-author.
Well, thanks, but keep an eye on the character count.

I would be willing to help with TGing for this.

*SNIP!*

OOC: Bloody fluffy puppet... :p

Excellent. Care to post the final draft, so that I can let others give it a once-over at Reclamation, UNOG, and GTT?
I think that we could submit by next week at the latest...

Alright:

Renewable Energy Research Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant/Strong

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the many commitments of member nations to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and to developing sustainable alternatives to their use,

RECALLING the success of "Nuclear Energy Research Act" in promoting international energy cooperation,

ACKNOWLEDGING that continued overdependence on fossil fuels is likely to contribute significantly to global climate change, and to lead to crises when reserves run low,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the benefits of inexpensive electrical power and of inexpensive fuel sources can be found through alternatives to fossil fuels,

AFFIRMING the right of UN member nations to exchange scientific information on the application of renewable means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines,

NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,

BELIEVING the benefits of renewable means of producing electrical power and of fueling engines should be available to all UN member nations,

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of renewable means of producing electricity and fueling engines,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
I - 'renewable energy' as energy generated by natural or other sustainable processes, and that does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels;
II - 'fossil fuels' as hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for generating electricity or fueling vehicles;

2. ESTABLISHES the Renewable Energy Research Commission (RERC), mandated to:
I - Develop means of lessening the use of fossil fuels in generating energy;
II - Coordinate research into renewable energy;
III - Support efforts to improve the efficiency of renewable energy;

3. STRONGLY URGES nations to assist the RERC to the best of their ability;

4. REQUIRES member nations to stimulate to the best of their ability research into more efficient methods of power generation through renewable energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

5. REQUIRES member nations to stimulate to the best of their ability research into more efficient methods of fueling vehicles through renewable energy, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

6. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of renewable energy technology and materials between UN nations;

7. PROMOTES all efforts at international scientific and commercial cooperation in the research and development of renewable energy;

8. REQUIRES the elimination of all protectionist devices, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, restricting the trade of renewable technology and equipment, and of electrical power generated by renewable energy, within eleven years;

9. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

10.. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

I left 3 as "STRONGLY URGES", because I remembered why I changed that: by making it "nations", not "member nations", it can be read as encouraging non-members to join in; that obviously can't be mandated. If you think it should be mandatory, change it to "member nations".

Leave it as nations and as strongly urges. I want non-UN nations to cooperate...

I'm supporting it. If it doesn't make queue and you do plan on rewriting and resubmitting it (I hope you do). Please add a small section regarding Biodiesel.

We need to diversify our energy source as much as we can for both the environment and the economy.