NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, I have not submitted this resolution yet. I am submitting it tomorrow or Saturday, when I have enough time to contact delegates. At the moment I am placing it on the forum to give you an idea of it, and tell me your opinions.
Finally! After 4 drafts, 2 pages of notes, and plenty of typing, she's finally finished! Let's look at this proposal and see how it is, why don't we?

[ Considering that the fossil fuels of today are running dangerously low, and we must find a new source of power for the people of tomorrow, The issue has been raised on whether we should convert to Biofuel. This Resolution will help save the environment, and help save our people from living in the dark. The following is a list of the affects of the Biomass Energy Conversion Project. All UN Nation shall

1. Convert all but 15% (backup energy) of vehicle fuel to biomass, an efficient, cheap, and productive source of fuel. Made from vegetable starch, Biofuel is very commonly found in one’s average life. Potato Chips, French Fries, and other fairly well known potato-produced foods all carry the one simple ingredient, vegetable oil, for Biofuel. Since Biofuel burns and works just as easily as normal petroleum, it becomes even more efficient.

2. Accept the newly founded B.R.O. (Biofuel Research Organization) and “BioMaster” Biogas, Biodiesel, and Ethanol Incorporated.

3. Enforce laws that all shops and restaurants must donate excess vegetable oil to the two foundations previously listed, to be used for fuel and/or testing material.

4. Provide the B.R.O. with tax money for their special projects, which is currently testing organisms that can digest cellulose. Cellulose is much more abundant in plants than starch, and with these organisms, it too may provide us with liquid fuel. This project should be completed in less than two decades.

5. Remove all but 50% of oil drilling facilities to create room for farming switchgrass, and to help protect the environment. The remaining drilling areas must drill frequently, but not constantly. This will provide oil for backup fuel and fuel for power plants (If ones nation has oil plants, that is), just in case biogas runs too low.

6. Convert 50% of all crops to switchgrass, an efficient provider of starch (and cellulose) which grows faster than corn, needs less fertilizer, and is a next to flawless source of ethanol (Biofuel). Switchgrass has the ability to grow in terrain unfit of other crops like corn. This includes hilly and rocky soil. Switchgrass also is a source of animal food, with or without starch. That way, the UN can recycle the remains (until we can turn cellulose into fuel too).

7. Sell or donate (donating is a requirement if they run dangerously low) excess Biofuel to smaller (or occasionally larger) UN Nations when they are running low, as we must keep the oil storage for real emergencies.]

Tell me what you think. I anticipate your opinions.

Thank you,
Apocalypse

First of all, I'd suggest that you add a strict timeline for the changes that must be inplemented according to your resolution. You mentioned two decades, but was that only research, or the whole thing?

Other than that, the only real problem that we in Noreaster have with the resolution is the forced change of 50% of all crops to switchgrass. It should say crops that are to be mandated by the BRO, rather than switchgrass, to accomadate for potential new research. But more importantly than that, this could cripple those nations that are heavily agriculture-dependant. The Resolution focuses on development of a clean and efficient energy supply, which is commendable; however, what good is switchgrass if a small or poor nation cannot afford the rest of the infrastructure to produce and use ethanol and/or cellulose? And what about countries which rely on agricultural exports as a source of revenue?

This topic is well-enough covered by the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. I don't think we need another, more micromanaging one. I'm sure some others will have more to say on this.

I refuse to vote in the poll. Gruenberg does give a damn about the environment - we founded a fucking think-tank to brainstorm legislation for it - but we're not voting for this. In fact, we'd be compelled to resign if it passed; our industries can't sustain another hit like this.

[ Considering that the fossil fuels of today are running dangerously low, and we must find a new source of power for the people of tomorrow, The issue has been raised on whether we should convert to Biofuel. This Resolution will help save the environment, and help save our people from living in the dark. The following is a list of the affects of the Biomass Energy Conversion Project. All UN Nation shall
No, it won't: it will make our people live in the dark, because biofuel is such a generally shite energy source in certain conditions:
- there are extreme health risks caused by burning dung and other biomatter;
- the fuel for it is actually quite expensive;
- in industrial settings, it's very hard to get the fuel, and to store it hygienically;
- basically, biofuel is good for certain rural projects, but completely unsuitable for others.

1. Convert all but 15% (backup energy) of vehicle fuel to biomass, an efficient, cheap, and productive source of fuel. Made from vegetable starch, Biofuel is very commonly found in one’s average life. Potato Chips, French Fries, and other fairly well known potato-produced foods all carry the one simple ingredient, vegetable oil, for Biofuel. Since Biofuel burns and works just as easily as normal petroleum, it becomes even more efficient.
Fortunately there's no timeline for this, or else we'd be in real shit. If you do go ahead, I might consider reporting this one as "false", because biofuel does not "burn and work just as easily as normal petroleum".

2. Accept the newly founded B.R.O. (Biofuel Research Organization) and “BioMaster” Biogas, Biodiesel, and Ethanol Incorporated.
This provision is illegal, as it's a RL reference. What you have to instead do is set up the committee within this proposal, and explain what it does.

3. Enforce laws that all shops and restaurants must donate excess vegetable oil to the two foundations previously listed, to be used for fuel and/or testing material.
This is actually a good idea, and I'd support a proposal on it. However, I don't think it's efficient to donate to a large, centralised international agency. Much better to stimulate local or national projects. After all, we're after fuel efficiency. But this I admit is a good idea - perhaps you could make it the main focus of the proposal.

4. Provide the B.R.O. with tax money for their special projects, which is currently testing organisms that can digest cellulose. Cellulose is much more abundant in plants than starch, and with these organisms, it too may provide us with liquid fuel. This project should be completed in less than two decades.
I'd protest more vigorously at this if it weren't illegal (contradicts Representation in Taxation) and there was no amount of tax money specified (so we can donate about five opsts, total). Otherwise, it's a pretty silly idea; we're not going to give away our tax money to some international bureaucracy researching ideas largely inapplicable to us - it would be much better for us to use that money to fund local research, tailored to our needs.

5. Remove all but 50% of oil drilling facilities to create room for farming switchgrass, and to help protect the environment. The remaining drilling areas must drill frequently, but not constantly. This will provide oil for backup fuel and fuel for power plants (If ones nation has oil plants, that is), just in case biogas runs too low.
Yeah, and this is the killer one. 50% of all oil drilling facilities, and caps on drilling time for the others? No, just no.

6. Convert 50% of all crops to switchgrass, an efficient provider of starch (and cellulose) which grows faster than corn, needs less fertilizer, and is a next to flawless source of ethanol (Biofuel). Switchgrass has the ability to grow in terrain unfit of other crops like corn. This includes hilly and rocky soil. Switchgrass also is a source of animal food, with or without starch. That way, the UN can recycle the remains (until we can turn cellulose into fuel too).
50% of all crops? Are you out of your fucking mind? What the fuck are our people supposed to, you know, EAT?

7. Sell or donate (donating is a requirement if they run dangerously low) excess Biofuel to smaller (or occasionally larger) UN Nations when they are running low, as we must keep the oil storage for real emergencies.
This clause is terribly worded. I see what you're trying to do; this doesn't accomplish it. It would be better to set up some sort of BioBank, through which nations could donate biofuel, apply for biofuel donations, organize research grants, etc.

If I could expand: you're making the same mistakes the representatives of Starcra II made, in believing too strongly in a single fuel source. It ignores the fact that biofuel is not perfect, is not capable of being used in every needed application, and is not suitable for every nation's needs. Furthermore, you're not solving fuel dependency: you're transferring it, so that instead of being dependent on one fuel, we're dependent on another. What then, when other problems emerge? What if the problems caused by biofuel fumes turn out to be a major issue? We're fucked, that's what.

So, the thing to do isn't to force all nations into a new dependency. It's to encourage diversification of fuel sources. Biofuel is one, and can be a very good one in some circumstances. That's why I like the clause about collecting excess vegetable oil, and the idea of a system for donating, trading, and so on. I think the organization could be used to promote biofuel research. You need to increase the availability, affordability, and efficiency of biofuel research. If you do that, people will start using it anyway.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record with this thermal depolymerization stuff, but it seems that it could be an exceptable loophole. Drilling could be eliminated as nations could crack open their landfills, as well as use turkey offal and all that stuff.

Granted, the end result is still oil, but many real-world countries consider oil from TDP to be "biofuel"...

Not that it's my job to find loopholes... >_>

Finally! After 4 drafts, 2 pages of notes, and plenty of typing, she's finally finished! Let's look at this proposal and see how it is, why don't we?

You sure you want to do that? ;)

Considering that the fossil fuels of today are running dangerously low, and we must find a new source of power for the people of tomorrow,

NS is not the same as real life. Fossil fuels don't run out here in NationStates. So you don't have to worry. I'm sure you're quite relieved now that you know this proposal is unnecessary.

Tell me what you think. I anticipate your opinions.

Thank you,
Apocalypse

You're welcome.

-HotRod

NS is not the same as real life. Fossil fuels don't run out here in NationStates. So you don't have to worry. I'm sure you're quite relieved now that you know this proposal is unnecessary.
OOC: not sure I agree... depends on how closely you model the NSverse on reality, I guess.

Anyway, no support for this proposal. And we're treehuggers.

OOC: not sure I agree... depends on how closely you model the NSverse on reality, I guess.

Yeah, I'm one of those people who likes to model the NSverse on NS when it's convenient. Unlimited resources going by the fact that the issues keep coming up--a great thing to take advantage of if you need a lot of resources. :)

After reading this my first thought was (and still is) ...
Oh my god don't submit this! You have all your verbs wrong!

Considering that the fossil fuels of today are running dangerously low, and we must find a new source of power for the people of tomorrow, The issue has been raised on whether we should convert to Biofuel. This Resolution will help save the environment, and help save our people from living in the dark. The following is a list of the affects of the Biomass Energy Conversion Project. All UN Nation shall

Nice fluffy.

1. Convert all but 15% (backup energy) of vehicle fuel to biomass, an efficient, cheap, and productive source of fuel.

Right now my current vehicle fuel is petrolium. Why would I want to create a process to convert all my petrolium to biomass? Isn't that a waste of time? Don't you want to convert vehicles to use biomass, not vehicle fuel to biomass?

(You know ironically there is no "Oil" industry in NS? I've never figured out where all this Texas Tea comes from. Oh well.)

5. Remove all but 50% of oil drilling facilities to create room for farming switchgrass, and to help protect the environment.

Brilliant move! I'm not sure how off shore switchgrass farming is going to work.

6. Convert 50% of all crops to switchgrass, an efficient provider of starch (and cellulose) which grows faster than corn, needs less fertilizer, and is a next to flawless source of ethanol (Biofuel).

But I grow crops for people to eat. Won't people starve? Why do I think your some evil Euell Gibbons in disguise? My pelicans (Tzorsland's national animal and favorite food) loves a nice corn diet. Doesn't everyone?

Once again, we have a proposal which attempts to force-fit a one-size-fits-all energy policy on 30,000 nations with widely varying geographies, environments, and economies, whether it makes sense for particular nations or not. No support here.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations.

We are already relying mainly on ethanol for fuel. Further reductions in our remaining petroleum industry (beyond those mandated by the bloody FFRA) would be a serious problem.
Against.

Sithya is not really interested in this - we have an aggressive programme of energy independence and reducing carbon emissions through using nuclear power. We support this through uranium mining, one of our principal industries.

If the motion does diversify its message to include nuclear power, then we will gladly support it.

Hmmm...I think your poll might be a bit biased.

I refuse to vote in the poll. Gruenberg does give a damn about the environment - we founded a fucking think-tank to brainstorm legislation for it - but we're not voting for this. In fact, we'd be compelled to resign if it passed; our industries can't sustain another hit like this.


No, it won't: it will make our people live in the dark, because biofuel is such a generally shite energy source in certain conditions:
- there are extreme health risks caused by burning dung and other biomatter;
- the fuel for it is actually quite expensive;
- in industrial settings, it's very hard to get the fuel, and to store it hygienically;
- basically, biofuel is good for certain rural projects, but completely unsuitable for others.


Fortunately there's no timeline for this, or else we'd be in real shit. If you do go ahead, I might consider reporting this one as "false", because biofuel does not "burn and work just as easily as normal petroleum".


This provision is illegal, as it's a RL reference. What you have to instead do is set up the committee within this proposal, and explain what it does.


This is actually a good idea, and I'd support a proposal on it. However, I don't think it's efficient to donate to a large, centralised international agency. Much better to stimulate local or national projects. After all, we're after fuel efficiency. But this I admit is a good idea - perhaps you could make it the main focus of the proposal.


I'd protest more vigorously at this if it weren't illegal (contradicts Representation in Taxation) and there was no amount of tax money specified (so we can donate about five opsts, total). Otherwise, it's a pretty silly idea; we're not going to give away our tax money to some international bureaucracy researching ideas largely inapplicable to us - it would be much better for us to use that money to fund local research, tailored to our needs.


Yeah, and this is the killer one. 50% of all oil drilling facilities, and caps on drilling time for the others? No, just no.


50% of all crops? Are you out of your fucking mind? What the fuck are our people supposed to, you know, EAT?


This clause is terribly worded. I see what you're trying to do; this doesn't accomplish it. It would be better to set up some sort of BioBank, through which nations could donate biofuel, apply for biofuel donations, organize research grants, etc.



Fortunately there's no timeline for this, or else we'd be in real shit. If you do go ahead, I might consider reporting this one as "false", because biofuel does not "burn and work just as easily as normal petroleum".

In fact, biofuel does burn just as well as normal petroleum. If you would read such things like National Geographic, you would see for yourself. At the moment, I would advise you to say things you actually know. This shows how arrogant you can be, old friend.

50% of all crops? Are you out of your fucking mind? What the fuck are our people supposed to, you know, EAT?[QUOTE]

Meat. What is left of the vegetable produce. You swear in almost every message that you write, you know. As I said before, it is not acceptable in these forums. I will be reporting you.

[QUOTE=Gruenberg]This clause is terribly worded. I see what you're trying to do; this doesn't accomplish it. It would be better to set up some sort of BioBank, through which nations could donate biofuel, apply for biofuel donations, organize research grants, etc.

I will think of that. It is one of your few actual ideas, other than babbling about what I wrote.

No, it won't: it will make our people live in the dark, because biofuel is such a generally shite energy source in certain conditions:
- there are extreme health risks caused by burning dung and other biomatter;
- the fuel for it is actually quite expensive;
- in industrial settings, it's very hard to get the fuel, and to store it hygienically;
- basically, biofuel is good for certain rural projects, but completely unsuitable for others.

How will this make us live in the dark? This proposal only involves vehicle fuel. I say that it will help save us. Not that it will. If you were paying attention, I am not "burning dung". I believe you should read this again, and if you notice a difference, it is that the only thing that I am burning is vegetable oil.

Yeah, and this is the killer one. 50% of all oil drilling facilities, and caps on drilling time for the others? No, just no.

Fine. I can understand, so I will lower it. By 25%. If you aren't pleased with that, well, I can't say that I feel any sympathy.

Meat. What is left of the vegetable produce. You swear in almost every message that you write, you know. As I said before, it is not acceptable in these forums. I will be reporting you.

*snort* Report away. I'm quite familiar with the conventions here, and swearing is tolerated unless it's deemed excessive or flaming by a Mod.

Sithya is not really interested in this - we have an aggressive programme of energy independence and reducing carbon emissions through using nuclear power. We support this through uranium mining, one of our principal industries.

If the motion does diversify its message to include nuclear power, then we will gladly support it.

At the moment, this is my problem with nuclear power-- The waste cannot be removed. I wish to make a proposal after this on Nuclear Breeder Plants, which re-use the waste they create. Help me with this proposal, and I will help you get what you need.

*snort* Report away. I'm quite familiar with the conventions here, and swearing is tolerated unless it's deemed excessive or flaming by a Mod.

It is excessive, you use it all the time. And it just so happens I am friends with a moderator, so you better shut up and watch what you say.
By the way, you aint Gruenberg. If you are, and you are in the UN, I have yet another charge against you.

First of all, I'd suggest that you add a strict timeline for the changes that must be inplemented according to your resolution. You mentioned two decades, but was that only research, or the whole thing?

Other than that, the only real problem that we in Noreaster have with the resolution is the forced change of 50% of all crops to switchgrass. It should say crops that are to be mandated by the BRO, rather than switchgrass, to accomadate for potential new research. But more importantly than that, this could cripple those nations that are heavily agriculture-dependant. The Resolution focuses on development of a clean and efficient energy supply, which is commendable; however, what good is switchgrass if a small or poor nation cannot afford the rest of the infrastructure to produce and use ethanol and/or cellulose? And what about countries which rely on agricultural exports as a source of revenue?

This is actually a good idea, and I will think about it. For now, I need a few more answers to my thread.

You are much more considerate and civilized than Gruenberg. I thank you for not being an arrogant pig like he is at the moment.

This topic is well-enough covered by the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. I don't think we need another, more micromanaging one. I'm sure some others will have more to say on this.

Sometimes it is more helpful to have smaller "amendments", as I like to call them. That way, we are much more secure. We also know specifically what we are doing when we accept these resolutions.

It is excessive, you use it all the time. And it just so happens I am friends with a moderator, so you better shut up and watch what you say.

By the way, you aint Gruenberg. If you are, and you are in the UN, I have yet another charge against you.

Wow. You're friends with a Moderator. Somehow I'm not worried. But I am curious.

If I could expand: you're making the same mistakes the representatives of Starcra II made, in believing too strongly in a single fuel source. It ignores the fact that biofuel is not perfect, is not capable of being used in every needed application, and is not suitable for every nation's needs. Furthermore, you're not solving fuel dependency: you're transferring it, so that instead of being dependent on one fuel, we're dependent on another. What then, when other problems emerge? What if the problems caused by biofuel fumes turn out to be a major issue? We're fucked, that's what.

For one thing, you are going far beyond your actual knowledge here. Biofuel does not create deadly fumes, greenhouse gas, or any other such thing. I do not forget that biofuel is not perfect, which is why i added that nations may use oil and biofuel combinations (did I? I'm not sure now, but I thought I did...). I also plan on creating the new technology of nuclear breeders (see earlier messages), which will be incredibly helpful in this struggle.
You only add one problem about what could possibly happen. This does not satisfy me, for you are just bias on this proposal. You just don't want it to succeed. I can understand that, considering we have been enemies for a fairly long time.
If you have any reasonable problems, please post them. I would like to hear something sensible from you, as that seems to be lacking most of the time.

So, the thing to do isn't to force all nations into a new dependency. It's to encourage diversification of fuel sources. Biofuel is one, and can be a very good one in some circumstances. That's why I like the clause about collecting excess vegetable oil, and the idea of a system for donating, trading, and so on. I think the organization could be used to promote biofuel research. You need to increase the availability, affordability, and efficiency of biofuel research. If you do that, people will start using it anyway.

For the answer, see what I previously said here.

Wow. You're friends with a Moderator. Somehow I'm not worried. But I am curious.

I am not mentioning the moderator specifically, but he is pretty well known in NationStates. The rest can be said in personal telegrams, although I will not tell you what nation is his without his permission.

At the moment I am leaving to see another thread. I will contact anyone else tomorrow.

Wow. You're friends with a Moderator. Somehow I'm not worried. But I am curious.

I'm not curious. Apocalypston is my new hero. He's friends with a mod.

I'm not curious. Apocalypston is my new hero. He's friends with a mod.

Yeah. None of the rest of us could possibly be friends with a Mod (or several). And clearly, being friends with a Mod would give one a huge advantage and you could lord it over everyone else.

Was the sarcasm strong enough?

It is excessive, you use it all the time. And it just so happens I am friends with a moderator, so you better shut up and watch what you say.
By the way, you aint Gruenberg. If you are, and you are in the UN, I have yet another charge against you.Really? Has your mod-friend told you flaming is also illegal? :rolleyes:

Yeah. None of the rest of us could possibly be friends with a Mod (or several). And clearly, being friends with a Mod would give one a huge advantage and you could lord it over everyone else.

Of course. We call it the nanny-nanny-boo-boo factor.

And yeah, it was strong enough, but I'm a prick. What can I say?

Of course. We call it the nanny-nanny-boo-boo factor.

Ah. The nanny-nanny-boo-boo factor. Truly, a dangerous weapon.

Dude, do, like, any players on NS moderate or administer an off-site forum where NS mods are mere observers? Wouldn't that be, like, totally awesome?!? :gundge:

Dude, do, like, any players on NS moderate or administer an off-site forum where NS mods are mere observers? Wouldn't that be, like, totally awesome?!? :gundge:

OMG n00b!!11

But seriously, we should probably stop hijacking the topic.

It is excessive, you use it all the time. And it just so happens I am friends with a moderator, so you better shut up and watch what you say.
Hmm. I've never heard of you. And it just so happens I am friends with all the moderators, and I'm pretty sure none of our actual friends would ever think of using a line like that, as they know full well that such language would doom such friendships to failure. Your vague, uninformed hints will cease to be amusing if you play the threat card again.
By the way, you aint Gruenberg. If you are, and you are in the UN, I have yet another charge against you.
Not surprisingly, I ran a UN check on YOU following this line. You might want to be a bit more careful about sharing computers with regionmates. I know that Tex and Gruen are different people, but I'm not so sure about you and your buddy Joe.

Also, since you're so concerned about the evils of cursing and inappropriate behavior, anything special you want me to do with your puppet Juicy Poop Nuggets (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=juicy_poop_nuggets)? I'd hate for something that "really pisses me off" (to quote your post on your own RMB) to turn around and bite you on the ass. Let me know. Glad to be of service.

At the moment, this is my problem with nuclear power-- The waste cannot be removed. I wish to make a proposal after this on Nuclear Breeder Plants, which re-use the waste they create. Help me with this proposal, and I will help you get what you need.

Agreed. Sithya also proposes that nuclear power stations should be built according to a generic safety standard, to minimise the possibility of an accident which would have an impact on its neighbours.

The position of our government is that nuclear power is the way to go for the majority of power generation.

Agreed. Sithya also proposes that nuclear power stations should be built according to a generic safety standard, to minimise the possibility of an accident which would have an impact on its neighbours.

The position of our government is that nuclear power is the way to go for the majority of power generation.

Nuclear power may be great for your nation. Certainly, HotRodia thinks it's great. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it's the right fit for every nation. Some nations may work better with biofuel, solar power, hydroelectric, magic, or exploiting basic laws of the universe.

OOC: As I stated in the Moderation forum thread, you really need to take that stick out. I tried to be polite to you here, because whilst your proposal is utter garbage, you've expressed displeasure at my style before. If you can't take criticism, then I don't see what you're doing here, to be honest.

In fact, biofuel does burn just as well as normal petroleum. If you would read such things like National Geographic, you would see for yourself. At the moment, I would advise you to say things you actually know. This shows how arrogant you can be, old friend.
Well, it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide evidence.

Meat. What is left of the vegetable produce.
I'm going to assume you live in a first-world country. Meat is very expensive, and is not always available to eat at every meal for reasonable prices, in reasonable sanitary condition. Most of the world subsists chiefly off rice.

My point is, you don't need to kill every living thing (which removing 50% of all crops would do) to make this thing viable. Just ask that people use fallow ground to grow this grass stuff, and perhaps have things like tax breaks for farmers who grow it, encourage trade in it, that sort of thing. Furthermore, you yourself say switchgrass grows on areas other crops can't: so why would we need to remove any?

I will think of that. It is one of your few actual ideas, other than babbling about what I wrote.
Er...what? If you didn't want people to comment on what you wrote, why did you post it here?

How will this make us live in the dark? This proposal only involves vehicle fuel. I say that it will help save us. Not that it will. If you were paying attention, I am not "burning dung". I believe you should read this again, and if you notice a difference, it is that the only thing that I am burning is vegetable oil.
No, you started by saying "biomass". That includes manure.

Anyway, it will make us live in the dark because you're stopping so much oil drilling. Given the limits already imposed on us, we won't be able to subsist on that.

Fine. I can understand, so I will lower it. By 25%. If you aren't pleased with that, well, I can't say that I feel any sympathy.
Do you honestly think it reasonable for you to say that we must ban 37% of all current oil drilling operations, yet:
- you're only talking about vehicle fuel
- you say we're not going to be totally shafted by this?

Furthermore, switchgrass can't be grown on oil drill sites. It can, I know at some stage - but in the immediate moment drilling's stopped, you need to clean up the oil, remove the machinery, etc. I can't find any estimates for that, but I'm assuming at least a year. That's a long time with no energy replacement.

At the moment, this is my problem with nuclear power-- The waste cannot be removed. I wish to make a proposal after this on Nuclear Breeder Plants, which re-use the waste they create.
Good idea.

For one thing, you are going far beyond your actual knowledge here. Biofuel does not create deadly fumes, greenhouse gas, or any other such thing.
Its fumes killed 1.5 million people as of 2000, according to WHO estimates.

I do not forget that biofuel is not perfect, which is why i added that nations may use oil and biofuel combinations (did I? I'm not sure now, but I thought I did...). I also plan on creating the new technology of nuclear breeders (see earlier messages), which will be incredibly helpful in this struggle.
I agree. However, this proposal isn't flexible enough, with regards to the vehicle fuel, the crop switching, and the drilling halting requirements.

You only add one problem about what could possibly happen. This does not satisfy me, for you are just bias on this proposal. You just don't want it to succeed. I can understand that, considering we have been enemies for a fairly long time.
Don't kid yourself. I barely remembered your name: you were the whine who whine about me in some nuclear thread, right? I do try to judge a proposal on its merits, not its author tag; I'm afraid in this case, it's the proposal that's the problem.

This is a bad idea. We already have a diversified energy base. Making us use on form of energy is bad. We use OTEC, Wind, Wave, Biomass, and Solar in Modern Tech, In PMT we add sonofusion power plants and orbital solar power satellites, and in FT we have antimatter generators, and subspace energy collectors.

You sure you want to do that? ;)

Yes, and it is much more helpful now. I have lost an endorsement, because this idiot in my region who never contributed to anything just moved away. Thus leaving me with one endorsement.



NS is not the same as real life. Fossil fuels don't run out here in NationStates. So you don't have to worry. I'm sure you're quite relieved now that you know this proposal is unnecessary.

That may be true, but NS may have its problems later that must be fixed.

This is a bad idea. We already have a diversified energy base. Making us use on form of energy is bad. We use OTEC, Wind, Wave, Biomass, and Solar in Modern Tech, In PMT we add sonofusion power plants and orbital solar power satellites, and in FT we have antimatter generators, and subspace energy collectors.

WHICH Biofuel may be added to. I admit biofuel shouldn't be our prime source, I apologize for not thinking that through, but it can be added to our many power systems.

Hmm. I've never heard of you. And it just so happens I am friends with all the moderators, and I'm pretty sure none of our actual friends would ever think of using a line like that, as they know full well that such language would doom such friendships to failure. Your vague, uninformed hints will cease to be amusing if you play the threat card again.

Not surprisingly, I ran a UN check on YOU following this line. You might want to be a bit more careful about sharing computers with regionmates. I know that Tex and Gruen are different people, but I'm not so sure about you and your buddy Joe.

Also, since you're so concerned about the evils of cursing and inappropriate behavior, anything special you want me to do with your puppet Juicy Poop Nuggets (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=juicy_poop_nuggets)? I'd hate for something that "really pisses me off" (to quote your post on your own RMB) to turn around and bite you on the ass. Let me know. Glad to be of service.

And how would you know this?


Do Gruenberg's swears not bother you?

OOC: As I stated in the Moderation forum thread, you really need to take that stick out. I tried to be polite to you here, because whilst your proposal is utter garbage, you've expressed displeasure at my style before. If you can't take criticism, then I don't see what you're doing here, to be honest.

You can say as much as you want, but most of what you say is "utter garbage". I can take criticism, but not with all the fs and the ss. If I could boot you, you'd be outta here before another f left your lips.
You can also say that my proposal is trash, but you cannot change the fact that that is not true. You even admit that you agree with things, which does not support your case.


Well, it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide evidence.

Everyone is laughing.

I'm going to assume you live in a first-world country. Meat is very expensive, and is not always available to eat at every meal for reasonable prices, in reasonable sanitary condition. Most of the world subsists chiefly off rice.

If you live in such an unforgiving country, than how did you get internet access?
Meat can be farmed, hunted, and imported. In NS, that is not so hard to do.
By the way, there is no point in continuing this argument.

My point is, you don't need to kill every living thing (which removing 50% of all crops would do) to make this thing viable.

Oh, stop exaggerating!

Just ask that people use fallow ground to grow this grass stuff, and perhaps have things like tax breaks for farmers who grow it, encourage trade in it, that sort of thing. Furthermore, you yourself say switchgrass grows on areas other crops can't: so why would we need to remove any?

That will make room for more switchgrass, and thus more biofuel.


Er...what? If you didn't want people to comment on what you wrote, why did you post it here?[QUOTE]

Because it helps me understand what must be fixed. You give me all this trash which contains very little suggestions, and more ranting than advice.

[QUOTE=Gruenberg]No, you started by saying "biomass". That includes manure.

Notice there isn't anything in the proposal that includes manure.

Anyway, it will make us live in the dark because you're stopping so much oil drilling. Given the limits already imposed on us, we won't be able to subsist on that.

I can lower it, but our nations do not rely on mostly oil. As the other guy said, we have so many more power systems in NationStates.

Do you honestly think it reasonable for you to say that we must ban 37% of all current oil drilling operations, yet:
- you're only talking about vehicle fuel
- you say we're not going to be totally shafted by this?

See what I just said.

Furthermore, switchgrass can't be grown on oil drill sites. It can, I know at some stage - but in the immediate moment drilling's stopped, you need to clean up the oil, remove the machinery, etc. I can't find any estimates for that, but I'm assuming at least a year. That's a long time with no energy replacement.[QUOTE]

Tada! Yet another idea! Congratulations, Gruenberg!

[QUOTE=Gruenberg] Its fumes killed 1.5 million people as of 2000, according to WHO estimates.[QUOTE]

Where'd you learn this? FOX News?

[QUOTE=Gruenberg]I agree. However, this proposal isn't flexible enough, with regards to the vehicle fuel, the crop switching, and the drilling halting requirements.

Vehicle fuel will be taken care of with this resolution, I fixed most of the crop switching problems, drilling is not being ceased, and I still have time to make edits.

Don't kid yourself. I barely remembered your name: you were the whine who whine about me in some nuclear thread, right?

And that means what?

And how would you know this?
I'm a Game Moderator. It's my job to know these things.

Do Gruenberg's swears not bother you?
Apparently not.

I support it.

Everyone is laughing.
I'm not, because I asked you to provide evidence, and you didn't.

So: please provide one piece of evidence supporting this claim - "In fact, biofuel does burn just as well as normal petroleum" - or retract it.

Meat can be farmed, hunted, and imported. In NS, that is not so hard to do.
And guess what. In order to farm animals, they need to eat food. Food you've just abolished by turning 50% of all crops into switchgrass.

Oh, stop exaggerating!
Many parts of the world are still wracked by chronic famine. I'm amused you don't think halving the amount of food available wouldn't worsen this problem, significantly.

That will make room for more switchgrass, and thus more biofuel.
Ok, let's look at this mathematically. You say the biofuel is only needed for vehicles - for 85% of the world's vehicle fuel. And yet you say we need 50% of all crops to be removed to grow switchgrass? That strikes me as woefully inefficient.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim such removal of crops would be necessary, or are you simply blundering in the dark?

I can lower it, but our nations do not rely on mostly oil. As the other guy said, we have so many more power systems in NationStates.
Most nations still rely on oil in NS.

Where'd you learn this? FOX News?
No, I learned it from the ITDG (http://www.itdg.org/).

Vehicle fuel will be taken care of with this resolution, I fixed most of the crop switching problems, drilling is not being ceased, and I still have time to make edits.
You have still not provided one single bit of evidence that biofuel would be practical as a replacement for petroleum in cars. No, you have not taken care of vehicle fuel.

The proposal contains some good ideas, and we applaud its intent. However, we will not be supporting it, due to clause 6:


6. Convert 50% of all crops to switchgrass, an efficient provider of starch (and cellulose) which grows faster than corn, needs less fertilizer, and is a next to flawless source of ethanol (Biofuel).

The crops we grow are crops we need to feed our population. We do not produce excess crops. We have a quasi-subsistence economy, not a capitalist one. But I assume this clause would not be feasible even for capitalist nations.


50% of all crops? Are you out of your fucking mind? What the fuck are our people supposed to, you know, EAT?

Meat. What is left of the vegetable produce.

I would like to remind you that, if you're going to try and massively increase meat consumption, you'll need an enormous increase in crop productions to feed the animals. Which you've just made impossible. Remaining vegetable produce will not be nearly enough, and if you slash crop production by 50%, you'll have to stop producing meat almost completely. (Which we don't see as a bad thing, but you may.)


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We would like to remind Apocalypston that the use of the 'internet' is a non-essential part of the UN.
Many use the portals between the UN building and their governmental offices to confer directly with their executive. They then pass on hand-written messages to their secretaries who type the comments up and put them up on the UN-intranet.
Others use mind-reading techniques, telephones, pidgeon-mail etc.
All internet facilities available in the UN building are provided by donations to the UN by constituent nations.

ooc: ie. stop bringing rl references unless you are ooc.

Dear Nations,

I do not wish to hold this thread any longer. I have made required changes to my proposal and need no more advice. I should like Frisbeeteria or another moderator to shut down this thread.

Perhaps I do not understand the role of moderator in this forum, Frisbeeteria, but from what I see the moderator here is creating a disincentive to participation. You’re a professional at turning people away from your own online game.

Thank you,
Apocalypse

Perhaps I do not understand the role of moderator in this forumSure seems that way.