NationStates Jolt Archive

Love and esterel would like to introduce a new repeal of FFRA.
Please let us know about every suggestion, comments and critics.
Also, we like to co-author proposal with others nations, and we will be happy if a nation would like to (co-)author it with us and help us with the drafting.


Here is the new draft:

-----
The United Nations,

-A- Applauding the goals of Fossil Fuel Reduction Act and concerned by the damage caused by oil and coal worldwide

-B- Fully aware of many former resolutions by this body on the very same topic:
#18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
#39 Alternative Fuels
#71 Sustainable Energy Sources
#72 Reduction of greenhouse gases (implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years)

-C- Fully aware that “natural gas”, which is a fossil fuel, is a source of energy which can be relatively clean and that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act is without any reasons unfair with nations consuming or producing natural gas;

-D- Observing that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act is unfair for nations polluting less by capita or having polluted less in the past (in particular to many economically developing nations) by asking the same % of reduction of fossil fuel consumption to every nation without taking a little bit account of the ratio pollution/capita;

-E- Believing that every person in the world has the right to live in a nation encouraging sustainable economic growth;

- F- Convinced that “Fossil Fuel Reduction Act” goes against the principle described in [D], as fossil fuel consumption had historically been a factor of economic growth, and as economically developing nations, starting from low fossil fuel consumption, may obviously need increasing their consumption to sustain their economy and to later be able to invest in renewable energy sources.

- G- Concerned that this mandate is too tight for developing nations and may reduce significantly their economic growth without reaching severe economic depression - worrying situation were they will not qualify for time extension

-1- Repeals UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
-----


Here was the first draft

-----
Repeal "#126 Fossil Fuel Reduction Act"

The United Nations,

-A- Applauding the goals of Fossil Fuel Reduction Act and concerned by the damage caused by fossil fuel worldwide

-B- Fully aware of many former resolutions by this body on the very same topic:
#18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
#39 Alternative Fuels
#71 Sustainable Energy Sources
#72 Reduction of greenhouse gases (already implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years)

-C- Observing that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act is unfair for nations polluting less by capita or having polluted less in the past (in particular to many economically developing nations) by asking the same % of reduction of fossil fuel consumption to every nation without taking a little bit account of the ratio pollution/capita

-D- Believing that every person in the world has the right to live in a nation encouraging sustainable economic growth

-E- Concerned that the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act allows time extension for the mandated 10% reduction fossil fuel in 5 years only in case of “Natural disasters, War and Severe economic depression”

-F- Concerned that this mandate is too tight for developing nations and may induce for them less economic growth or negative economic growth without reaching severe economic depression - worrying situations were they will not qualify for time extension.

-1- Repeals UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
-----


UN #126 Fossil Fuel Reduction Act

Category: Environmental

Description: NOTING: that using fossil fuel as an energy source cannot continue indefinitely, because of damage to the environment and finite supply.

NOTING: that long-term energy sustainability requires drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels as energy sources and the eventual reliance on clean, renewable energy sources.

NOTING: that the current level of energy generation may itself be unsustainable in the long term and that programs that promote conservation and increased energy efficiency, as well as reassessing what are energy needs and what are unnecessary luxuries, will be key parts.

NOTING: that environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels is not localized to the country burning them but rather of global concern.

REALIZING: that the drastic reduction of the use of fossil fuels is a monumental task requiring the help, cooperation, and commitment of all UN nations.

DEFINITIONS

Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbon deposits, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time and used for fuel.

Clean, renewable energy sources: energy derived from sources that do not completely use up natural resources or do significant harm the environment in the long-term.

The UN hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Terms of the resolution

Section A: Each nation must calculate the average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their "ceiling consumption rate." Each nation is required to reduce consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that, after one year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate; after two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate; and so on.

Section B: Each nation must increase funding for research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs by a minimum of 1% per year, until Section A has been satisfied.

Section C: Nations may use energy sources that are ultimately not sustainable, such as nuclear fission, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.

Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help it comply with the requirements set out in Sections A through C.

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before the minimum required term of 45 years, implied in Section A, shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid they are receiving, until said 45 year term.

ARTICLE II: Special Cases

Section A: If a nation is trying to comply with the resolution, but having trouble, it may apply for a time extension, but must demonstrate significant need. Legitimate significant needs are extensive damage to infrastructure or economy because of:
Natural disasters
War
Severe economic depression
If significant need is established, an appropriate time extension relative to need will be granted.

Section B: If a nation refuses to comply with the resolution, the UN grants the right to UN member nations to impose trade sanctions on the offending nation, except for sanctions previously banned by the UN, until the nation comes into compliance.

Votes For: 9,136
Votes Against: 4,965
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fossil_Fuel_Reduction_Act

:eek:

I would unequivocally support a repeal of this resolution, and for the reasons stated, too - it's far too demanding on developing economies. The representative of _Myopia_ had a good example of two countries, comparing the obligations put on them, demonstrating how it was harsher on the poorer country.

I think your repeal contains the two main points: the unfair onus, and the overlap with #72. But I think it should spell them out more clearly. Perhaps you could emphasise that hindering the economic development of growing nations might actually prevent them from achieving environmental aims - such as restricting funds available for green projects.

You also have two clauses beginning -D-. Cut the former?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

12 words:

NO!
GOD NO!!
IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY NO!!!

<coughs apologetically>

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: Seriously can we just let this one lie. And considering "Hydrogen Fuels" is crap, do we really want to have to rely on it?

In a somewhat more nuanced reply, can I just state that I find the limits and targets set by the FFRA perfectly acceptable and phrased in such a manner as to minimise negative impacts upon economy and society.

To wit:

Section A: Each nation must calculate the average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years, this is their "ceiling consumption rate." Each nation is required to reduce consumption by a minimum of 2% of the ceiling rate every year, until rates are at or under 10% of ceiling consumption rate. This means that, after one year, rates should be at 98% of the ceiling consumption rate; after two years, at 96% of the ceiling consumption rate; and so on.

2% a year is not going to kill a nation's economy. It should be perfectly manageable and can be implemented through simple measures such as (for example) reduction in traffic levels, the fitting of carbon filters on industrial plants, the switching to renewable fuels, etc.

Section B: Each nation must increase funding for research, development, and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency and conservation programs by a minimum of 1% per year, until Section A has been satisfied.

To wit: 1% per annum. Don't tell me that's too difficult.

Section C: Nations may use energy sources that are ultimately not sustainable, such as nuclear fission, to supplement power until they are able to use clean renewable energy sources only.

So unless energy management is severely badly run (which isn't the fault of the FFRA) or conducted in a manner so that decomissioning of archaic power-generation methods is not supplemented by an immediate replacement with a better (even if marginally so) power source, it shouldn't pose too many problems.


Section D: Nations' governments are strongly encouraged to give incentives to the private and nonprofit sectors to help it comply with the requirements set out in Sections A through C.

So if the state's having trouble, ask those nice private-sector or NGO people. Or ask another government. Ask Compadria. We'd love to help and we're doing just fine in meeting our targets at present.

Section E: Nations that meet the requirements at least 5 years before the minimum required term of 45 years, implied in Section A, shall receive a 5% increase in any UN aid they are receiving, until said 45 year term.

So along with the stick, cometh the carrot. A nice incentive to the poorer nations out there as well.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Perhaps you could emphasise that hindering the economic development of growing nations might actually prevent them from achieving environmental aims - such as restricting funds available for green projects.

You also have two clauses beginning -D-. Cut the former?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Thanks will try to include that

In a somewhat more nuanced reply, can I just state that I find the limits and targets set by the FFRA perfectly acceptable and phrased in such a manner as to minimise negative impacts upon economy and society.

To wit:



2% a year is not going to kill a nation's economy. It should be perfectly manageable and can be implemented through simple measures such as (for example) reduction in traffic levels, the fitting of carbon filters on industrial plants, the switching to renewable fuels, etc.



To wit: 1% per annum. Don't tell me that's too difficult.



So unless energy management is severely badly run (which isn't the fault of the FFRA) or conducted in a manner so that decomissioning of archaic power-generation methods is not supplemented by an immediate replacement with a better (even if marginally so) power source, it shouldn't pose too many problems.

I would like to answer you with this graph:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40784000/gif/_40784269_china_oil_gra203.gif

from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4191683.stm

This means China oil consumption had grow 5%/year from 1980 to 2004
(2million X 1.05^24 = 6.5million)
FFRA ask China to decrease by 2%/year, a difference of 7 points/year with the current trend (even without taking account that the decrease is based from the "average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years"; I will let the graph comment...)

Now that China economy is stronger, they are more interested in ecology and they begin to invest massively in renewable energy source:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13938365/

A couple points:

1) Compadria still doesn't get it;
2) Is there anything in this repeal that the General Assembly didn't already reject last November? Or are you merely thinking the UN is more amenable to green repeals now? Now, on the heels of the rejection of the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles and Single-Hilled Tankers repeals, the passage of WDC and UNRC, etc.?

Is there anything in this repeal that the General Assembly didn't already reject last November? Or are you merely thinking the UN is more amenable to green repeals now? Now, on the heels of the rejection of the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles and Single-Hilled Tankers repeals, the passage of WDC and UNRC, etc.?

I was just thinking to it again (as I had already wrote a previous draft about it last year), redrafted it just like that and just wanted to try, also I realized that the repeal in november didn't include reference to the numerous passed similar resolutions. And also adding an argument about pollution/capita in the present time. Also, as I have already some resolution passed and some others failed, I don't care, I'm just playing.

Another argument I wanted to add and then forgotten, will do it: is that "natural gas" is fossil fuel but can be used in a relatively clean manner.

Another argument I wanted to add and then forgotten, will do it: is that "natural gas" is fossil fuel but can be used in a relatively clean manner.
It's still nonrenewable. That kills it as a viable long-term source of energy.

In Ceorana's opinion, FFRA should be kept. The fact of the matter is, the total fossil fuels in existence are, for all practical purposes, finite. That means that they will eventually have to be phased out and replaced with renewable sources of energy. This resolution doesn't operate too fast, and we think the FFRA is a good way to lower dependence on fossil fuels worldwide.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

(OOC postscript: the China graph is a good argument, but I'm not convinced that consumption going up 5% a year is a "natural" trend: if conservation of fossil fuels and especially new renewable technologies became socially normal and infrastructurally viable, 5% might not be the trend that needs to be countered)

Do the math.

Small developing nations need to reduce their consumption rate too, but they will have to reduce consumption faster to comply with this mandate, since it's a single flat nonflexible ceiling rate -- so as nations develop (assuming they are able to under the draconian terms of this proposal) they have to constantly reduce fossil fuels down from a level created back when they were teeny teeny tiny piddling little nothing nations. In a highly reasonable scenario a small developing nation would have to reduce its fossil fuel intake by 70-80 percent in the first 10-15 years of this mandate. Unacceptable.

I get tired of explaining this to people, and frankly, I expect better from you, Ceorana.

I was just thinking to it again (as I had already wrote a previous draft about it last year), redrafted it just like that and just wanted to try, also I realized that the repeal in november didn't include reference to the numerous passed similar resolutions. And also adding an argument about pollution/capita in the present time. Also, as I have already some resolution passed and some others failed, I don't care, I'm just playing.

Another argument I wanted to add and then forgotten, will do it: is that "natural gas" is fossil fuel but can be used in a relatively clean manner.Alright, let me amend my initial question: Are there any good arguments here that were not already rejected back in November? The first repeal attempt was maybe the best argument you could find to tear apart the original proposal (at least it was the best argument I could find), and it was roundly defeated.

What else you got?

Thanks will try to include that



I would like to answer you with this graph:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40784000/gif/_40784269_china_oil_gra203.gif

from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4191683.stm

This means China oil consumption had grow 5%/year from 1980 to 2004
(2million X 1.05^24 = 6.5million)
FFRA ask China to decrease by 2%/year, a difference of 7 points/year with the current trend (even without taking account that the decrease is based from the "average amount of fossil fuel consumed per year over the last 3 years"; I will let the graph comment...)

Now that China economy is stronger, they are more interested in ecology and they begin to invest massively in renewable energy source:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13938365/


OOC: I think China is the most extreme example possible.

Yeah, Otterby doesn't get it. However, he's a good barometer of what the average reaction might be, so on the face of it, the arguments will need to be more convincing.

OOC: I think China is the most extreme example possible.


OOC: for RL, maybe... but for NS, where national populations increase so much faster than in RL? For example _
St Edmundan Antarctic has a current population of 304 million, but it hasn't even existed for three months yet let alone for three years: What is its "ceiling level" supposed to be?

Using China as an example is rather extreme to say the least, particularly given that the Chinese have made no significant efforts to introduce renewables or environmentally friendly energy sources into their power grid. Even the new damn project (5 Gorges), which could qualify as a renewable, is viewed as environmentally damaging and could, due to population growth over the next 20-40 years, become inadequate for the purpose it was originally constructed for.

And as for "not getting it", if that means trying to protect the environment, an asset sensitive and largely irraplaceable, at the cost of temporary and alleviable pains to the national economy, which when set against the larger costs of future environmental damage and reduction in overall resources due to rising demand (should non-renewables continue to be used), then I'd say that I'm proud not to get it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And as for "not getting it", if that means trying to protect the environment, an asset sensitive and largely irraplaceable, at the cost of temporary and alleviable pains to the national economy, which when set against the larger costs of future environmental damage and reduction in overall resources due to rising demand (should non-renewables continue to be used), then I'd say that I'm proud not to get it.
There is a difference between protecting the environment, and protecting everything passed in the Environmental category.

That's an unfair comment. I've spoken in favour of eliminating useless environmental resolutions before and I contributed actively to the debate over repealing the FFRA's predecessor, speaking in favour of the repeal in strong terms. As such, I don't just blindly defend environmentally categorised resolutions, I do apply a critical thought process to them.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Even the new damn project (5 Gorges),

OOC: How apt! ;)

OOC: I think China is the most extreme example possible.

Using China as an example is rather extreme to say the least, particularly given that the Chinese have made no significant efforts to introduce renewables or environmentally friendly energy sources into their power grid. Even the new damn project (5 Gorges), which could qualify as a renewable, is viewed as environmentally damaging and could, due to population growth over the next 20-40 years, become inadequate for the purpose it was originally constructed for.

I will personnaly not qualify as "an extreme exemple" a place where are living around 20% of human beings ;)

Anyway, this is absolutly not an extreme case:

Here is an excel sheet with oil consuption in most nations in the world between 1980 and 2004, provided by the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee2.xls

I did an extract for the 40 1st nations in the world for their growth in petroleum consumption between 1980 and 2004

http://test256.free.fr/oil.jpg

About efforts of China, I would like to invite you to consider that china is an economically developping nations and i provided a link in this thread about new massive projects for renewable energy.

Why are we bringin Real Life Examples into this debate?


REAL LIFE =/= NATIONSTATES

Do the math.

Small developing nations need to reduce their consumption rate too, but they will have to reduce consumption faster to comply with this mandate, since it's a single flat nonflexible ceiling rate -- so as nations develop (assuming they are able to under the draconian terms of this proposal) they have to constantly reduce fossil fuels down from a level created back when they were teeny teeny tiny piddling little nothing nations. In a highly reasonable scenario a small developing nation would have to reduce its fossil fuel intake by 70-80 percent in the first 10-15 years of this mandate. Unacceptable.

I get tired of explaining this to people, and frankly, I expect better from you, Ceorana.

You're making the assumption that the only way to develop is through use of fossil fuels. It is the position of Ceorana that it is not. Unless we're seriously missing something, it is possible for a nation's energy infrastructure to be based on things other than fossil fuels. In other words, further development is fueled by non-fossil fuels. You are looking at the situation from a viewpoint of compliance through simple conservation while keeping infrastructure based on fossil fuels. We believe that the best way to comply with the resolution is to slowly shift to an infrastructure based on other fuels, and slowly reduce fossil fuel consumption to below fossil fuel production. (I mean the rate of natural production of fuels, not the rate at which they are pumped out of the ground.)

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Why are we bringin Real Life Examples into this debate?


REAL LIFE =/= NATIONSTATES
But both worlds are assumed to operate on the same basic principles in many cases, so RL examples are of some significance.

Alright, let me amend my initial question: Are there any good arguments here that were not already rejected back in November? The first repeal attempt was maybe the best argument you could find to tear apart the original proposal (at least it was the best argument I could find), and it was roundly defeated.

What else you got?

I think i have answered you in my previous post (others resolutions reference, ratio pollution/capita, natural gas). I wrote a reapeal also last year, I approved and supported your repeal. I would like to give another chance.

It's still nonrenewable. That kills it as a viable long-term source of energy.

In Ceorana's opinion, FFRA should be kept. The fact of the matter is, the total fossil fuels in existence are, for all practical purposes, finite. That means that they will eventually have to be phased out and replaced with renewable sources of energy. This resolution doesn't operate too fast, and we think the FFRA is a good way to lower dependence on fossil fuels worldwide.

Our view is that the danger of fossil fuel is pollution. The reserve of natural gas are confortable, not renewable you right, but confortable.

Also the "end" of oil reserve is somehow a recurrent myth since decades, as oil reserves grow with oil price. Only profitable reserves are added, (oil reserves at 20$ are far below oil reserve at 75$)

In the first oil peak, raising price made european north sea oil profitable.
Now that oil is >50$:
Alberta oil sands (Canada) (http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp) are very profitable, as its production cost is around 30-40$; they are now the 3rd biggest reseve in the world
Venezuelan extra-heavy oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm) is also very profitable and are even a bigger reserve than Saudi-Arabia, its production cost is around 20-40$.

Our view is that the danger of fossil fuel is pollution. The reserve of natural gas are confortable, not renewable you right, but confortable.
We believe that natural gas just passes the buck onto future generations, who will inevitably at some point run out of it.

Also the "end" of oil reserve is somehow a recurrent myth since decades, as oil reserves growth with oil price. Only profitable reserves are added, (oil reserves at 20$ are far below oil reserve at 75$)

In the first oil peak, raising price made european north sea oil profitable.
Now that oil is >50$:
Alberta oil sands (http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp) are very profitable, as its production cost is around 30-40$ and the 3rd biggest reseve in the world and
Venezuelan extra-heavy oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm) is also very profitable and are even bigger reserve than Saudi-Arabia, as their production cost is around 20-40$.
But the total existing reserves are finite for all practical purposes. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will need to be totally reliant on other fuels.

We believe that natural gas just passes the buck onto future generations, who will inevitably at some point run out of it.


But the total existing reserves are finite for all practical purposes. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will need to be totally reliant on other fuels.

You right, but we have some time left to avoid to shake economically nations (Vietnam, India, China, pakistan ... nations in the chart)

The main problem is pollution, but my argument is that developped nations had polluted a lot, so it's too much easy to say to developping nations "you have not the right to polute as we did" ... do what we say, not what we did.

You right, but we have some time left to avoid to shake economically nations (Vietnam, India, China, pakistan ... nations in the chart)

The main problem is pollution, but my argument is that developped nations had polluted a lot, so it's too much easy to say to developping nations "you have not the right to polute as we did" ... do what we say, not what we did.
So what do you propose as a replacement for FFRA?

So what do you propose as a replacement for FFRA?

It seems to me there are already several replacement in implementation:
#18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
#39 Alternative Fuels
#71 Sustainable Energy Sources
#72 Reduction of greenhouse gases (already implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years)

It seems to me there are already several replacement in implementation:
#18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
#39 Alternative Fuels
#71 Sustainable Energy Sources
#72 Reduction of greenhouse gases (already implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years)
#18 has a loophole rendering it ineffective. #39 mandates that auto manufactures work towards methods of more efficient fuels, but doesn't mandate any coherence in these efforts, and doesn't mandate that the research should be towards renewable fuels. #71 doesn't actually mandate any less reliance on fossil fuels, just more non-fossil fuels, which is OK, but not what FFRA does. #72 does mandate a reduction in fossil fuels, but stops after 10 years, leaving nations free to bring their usage back up.

Although, now that I think about it, FFRA isn't a whole lot better...this is an interesting problem.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

You're making the assumption that the only way to develop is through use of fossil fuels. It is the position of Ceorana that it is not. Unless we're seriously missing something, it is possible for a nation's energy infrastructure to be based on things other than fossil fuels. In other words, further development is fueled by non-fossil fuels. You are looking at the situation from a viewpoint of compliance through simple conservation while keeping infrastructure based on fossil fuels. We believe that the best way to comply with the resolution is to slowly shift to an infrastructure based on other fuels, and slowly reduce fossil fuel consumption to below fossil fuel production. (I mean the rate of natural production of fuels, not the rate at which they are pumped out of the ground.)"To slowly shift"? Aside from your horrid use of split infinitives, I believe we have already demonstrated that in the case of smaller nations a "slow," non-disruptive shift is plainly not possible, not when certain developing powers would have to replace as much as three quarters of their energy regimes within one or two decades -- not even taking into account the fact that many said powers lack the resources necessary to implement such a swift, dramatic shift in energy policy. The mandates of this resolution are simply unacceptable. All of these arguments were appropriately fleshed during the first debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451767) on this resolution's repeal. I would strongly suggest that Mr. Lopez read it -- or at least delegate one of his staffers to do so and give him the gist of it.

In addition, I would humbly point out to the LAE ambassador that if dramatic demonstrations that this bill would prove catastrophic to the ecnomies of developing nations during the first repeal attempt didn't work back in November, we hardly think that drowning the assembly in statistics will work now.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

So what do you propose as a replacement for FFRA?

Nothing, we hope.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

"To slowly shift"? Aside from your horrid use of split infinitives, I believe we have already demonstrated that in the case of smaller nations a "slow," non-disruptive shift is plainly not possible, not when certain developing powers would have to replace as much as three quarters of their energy regimes within one or two decades -- not even taking into account the fact that many said powers lack the resources necessary to implement such a swift, dramatic shift in energy policy. The mandates of this resolution are simply unacceptable.
Let me see if I can understand your argument. Developing nations will have a low ceiling rate. Then they will grow extremely fast, meaning that they will have to come way back down. Right?

If that's what you're saying, I'm not sure I understand it, although of course the following may be wrong, in which case I respectfully request for you to tell me why.:) First off, developing nations will grow slower than developed nations, not faster, because developing nations tend to be smaller (because there is much more cause for death, such as disease and poor living conditions), and population growth is exponential. And they don't have to continue to use fossil fuels as they develop. If a developing nation began to channel its development into non-fossil fuels as it developed, I don't see how it would be a problem. They can also get an extention if they need more time.

All of these arguments were appropriately fleshed during the first debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451767) on this resolution's repeal. I would strongly suggest that Mr. Lopez read it -- or at least delegate one of his staffers to do so and give him the gist of it.
I've read the first third of it. I may be able to read more later.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

You mustn't have been reading it very carefully, if you can still argue the "exponential" growth of small nations -- a concept laughably unrealistic in the world of NS. Here, population growth is relative not to size but to roleplay, and a good many nations assume the population stats of the game engine, the growth of which, in case you haven't noticed, is quite staggering the first few weeks of play. I would also point out that these "extensions" are only granted in catastrophic circumstances; and you've completely ignored instances where nations may lack the resources necessary to shift to alternative energy supply, or simply cannot afford it.

I would beseech you once more, please divorce yourself from the emotional feelings you may have about a green economy and take the time to read the excellent contributions from a fair few respected NS players -- left, right, center, sovereigntist, federalist, moderate, NSO, UNOG and all in between. It's well worth the effort.

Oh, and while you're at it, read the first repeal argument, too.

So what do you propose as a replacement for FFRA?
Ugh. And there is the best argument against a repeal.

Congress has informed me that, given this new realization, Ceorana will support the repeal. We thank the ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny for his information and for pointing us to the earlier debate.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

(OOC:It was the developing-nations-can't-afford-this so-will-wait-to-grow-and-then-still-not-afford-the-huge-challenge thing that did it for me. Thanks for your explanation.)

In addition, I would humbly point out to the LAE ambassador that if dramatic demonstrations that this bill would prove catastrophic to the ecnomies of developing nations during the first repeal attempt didn't work back in November, we hardly think that drowning the assembly in statistics will work now.


Let's try differents methods, I think it's important to also describe what reality is with real facts.

Some nation were thinking that the very fast Chinese oil consuption was "an extreme" scenario, I just provided the information about many nations (some large ,some small) having an even faster oil consumption growth. When a nation start from very low consuption (as Bhutan for example) growth in % can obviously be very fast.

Also, I think it's important to figure out that fossil fuel reserves are only running out in the long term, but absolutly not in short or medium term. The belief than oil reserve are running out on short term is older than 30 years, but they have not decreased, in spite of the huge increase in comsumption over this period.

but they have not decreased, in spite of the huge increase in comsumption over this period.
Of course they've decreased. We've been burning them.

but they have not decreased, in spite of the huge increase in comsumption over this period.
oh they have majorly but we have found more and also found ways of getting more out cheaply.

Let's try differents methods, I think it's important to also describe what reality is with real facts.

Some nation were thinking that the very fast Chinese oil consuption was "an extreme" scenario, I just provided the information about many nations (some large ,some small) having an even faster oil consumption growth. When a nation start from very low consuption (as Bhutan for example) growth in % can obviously be very fast.

Also, I think it's important to figure out that fossil fuel reserves are only running out in the long term, but absolutly not in short or medium term. The belief than oil reserve are running out on short term is older than 30 years, but they have not decreased, in spite of the huge increase in comsumption over this period.

Referring to the RL point. It may well be that a nation such as Bhutan can have a higher percentage growth than China, but in terms of actual impact, a 5% growth in Chinese consumption will easily swamp a 500% increase in Bhutanese consumption. Similarly, given the reckless disregard for the environment shown by both the Chinese government and private sector, in a manner that is, even when compared to other serial offenders, quite extraordinary in its destructiveness. That is why I used 'extreme' as an adjective.

The fact that oil reserves have been predicted to run out for the last 30 years does not take away from the fact that they are running out and will run out and will continue to pollute and plague lives whilst they are still used. I fear, unwittingly, that the honourable delegate is guilty of being short-sighted in his view.

I particularly cite the "Hubbert's Peak" question, which will soon (in RL terms) become relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_peak

I understand the good intentions of the honourable delegate, but I disagree with his proposed solution. The FFRA should stay unless a better replacement is drafted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Of course they've decreased. We've been burning them.

Ok you may be right literally, but in the current language and official document, by reserves everyone mean "known reserves"

Known reserves had not decreased

Please have a look at the articles I posted in this forum about former "non-conventional reserves" ("non-conventional reserves" are not considered as "reserves"), which were declared as such because they were not profitable at 20$ a barrel, but which are very profitable now at 75:

Alberta oil sands and Venezuela extra-heavy are the main examples but not the only ones
Nowadays oil companies are even prospecting and finding new ones in many places as the European North Sea; even at 60$ as the production cost by barrel, the margin is still huge: 15$/barrel...

No one knows about "total reserves" or non-exploitable ones, and it's why nobody talk about them.


Referring to the RL point. It may well be that a nation such as Bhutan can have a higher percentage growth than China, but in terms of actual impact, a 5% growth in Chinese consumption will easily swamp a 500% increase in Bhutanese consumption.

Thank you for using my argument, as it's even more difficult for Bhutan to comply with FFRA than china. Bhutan oil consuption is growing by 18%/year since 24 years, for the only reason they start from almost 0. And you want us to abrutly ask this nation to instead decrease its consuption by 2%/year (and even more because of that the ceilling) and that even if Bhutan oil consumption /capita is far below than in developped nations

In most, if not every, nation in the world: increased oil consumption had been an important factor of economic growth process. Renewable energy sources are not fully ready; On which grounds do we want to prevent all these nations to grow economically?

Love and esterel will support a same "maximum" oil consumption / capita" for every nation, but not an unfair % decrease from different consumption level.

Similarly, given the reckless disregard for the environment shown by both the Chinese government and private sector, in a manner that is, even when compared to other serial offenders, quite extraordinary in its destructiveness. That is why I used 'extreme' as an adjective.

It seems to me that we have to not forget how economically developped nations become developped economically. We had burned so much oil, and we are still burning a lot more of oil than developping ones.

The fact that oil reserves have been predicted to run out for the last 30 years does not take away from the fact that they are running out and will run out and will continue to pollute and plague lives whilst they are still used. I fear, unwittingly, that the honourable delegate is guilty of being short-sighted in his view.

I particularly cite the "Hubbert's Peak" question, which will soon (in RL terms) become relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_peak

Hubbert's Peak is a theory, the very same one had listen for decades and which had all proven false, I'm only talk about facts. Oil reserves at 75$ the barrel are not running out in short nor medium term, that's facts.

What is true is that world reserves at 20$/barrel are running out. This is reality. But who cares.

Since this seems to be straddling IC and OOC, I'm bouncing OOC.

The fact that oil reserves have been predicted to run out for the last 30 years does not take away from the fact that they are running out and will run out and will continue to pollute and plague lives whilst they are still used. I fear, unwittingly, that the honourable delegate is guilty of being short-sighted in his view.Well, they've been running out, but only because they're finite. Much like the grains of sand on a beach is finite.

Look into the Alberta tar sands. If properly processed, some say it could completely cover America and Canada's oil needs for the next 100 years.

Well, they've been running out, but only because they're finite. Much like the grains of sand on a beach is finite.

Look into the Alberta tar sands. If properly processed, some say it could completely cover America and Canada's oil needs for the next 100 years.

Exaclty, and if you allow me some last stats, here is the ammount of profitable world oil reserves from 1980 to 2004 (by the US Department of Energy)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls

Here is an extract:
http://test256.free.fr/oil2.jpg

Here is the new draft:

-----
The United Nations,

-A- Applauding the goals of "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" and concerned by the damage caused by oil and coal worldwide;

-B- Fully aware of many former resolutions by this body on the very same topic:
#18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
#39 Alternative Fuels
#71 Sustainable Energy Sources
#72 Reduction of greenhouse gases (implementing a 10% decrease in fossil fuels over the next ten years);

-C- Fully aware that “natural gas”, which is a fossil fuel, is a relatively clean source of energy and therefore that resolution #126 is without any reasons unfair with nations consuming or producing natural gas;

-D- Observing that resolution #126, by mandating the same % reduction of fossil fuel consumption to every nation without taking a little bit account of the ratio "pollution/capita", is unfair with economically developing nations which consume less "fossil fuel by capita";

-E- Convinced that every person in the world has the right to live in a nation encouraging sustainable economic growth;

-F- Observing that resolution #126 goes against the principle described in [E], as fossil fuel consumption had permit economically developped nations to become what they are and as economically developing one, starting from low fossil fuel consumption, may obviously need to increase their consumption to develop their economy and then invest in renewable energy sources.

- G- Concerned that the requirement is too tight for developing nations and may reduce significantly their economic growth without reaching severe economic depression - worrying situation were they will not qualify for time extension;

-1- Repeals UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
-----

Submitted:)

Well. What can I say?

You asked for some of my opinions, but it has already been thoroughly covered in depth as to the effects this will have on the environment and the economy.

But those aren't everything.

Does this infringe on people's rights to use resources in ways they see fit? Does that right make any sense let alone exist? What defines what responsible levels of pollution, intolerable carelessness, and general excess of legislature are?

And that is my sole concern: redundancy. Even though this is kinda gonna attack some redundancy, I'm talking about the eversteady flow of eco/enviro laws, and I think I represent quite a few people when I say I'm a little tired of these laws.

I'll still going to endorse it. It's well written, and I'm not being a hippocrite, just telling you opinions AND REACTIONS.


Good luck

My nation is an enviromentalist nation. We have to say a huge resounding NO! We use fuels that are safe for the enviroment. We have not used natural gas for sometime. Nor are we going to start using that archaic form of fuel. Sorry NO!


Sincerely,


Supreme President Klaus Lehmann
of Unified Narnia

I'm sorry, but the English in the repeal is not good enough.

A: should be "use" not "usage"; "fuel sources" not "a fuel source"

C: "unfair on"/"unfair to" not "unfair with"

D: "by every nation"/"for every nation" not "to every nation"; "any" not "a little bit"; ratio phrase sounds odd; "unfair on"/"unfair to" not "unfair with"; "fossil fuel per capita" (although that also sounds odd) not "fossil fuel by capita"

E: "has permitted" not "has permit"

G: "significantly reduce" not "reduce significantly"; "a worrying situation" not "worrying situation"


Additionally:
- you didn't mention that this resolution would increase dependence on foreign, non-UN fuel supplies
- by only dropping in that line about "severe economic depression", the majority of voters who won't have read all of the original resolution may be confused as to what you're actually saying
- a worked example might have made the problem clearer
- developing nations tend to have higher rates of population increase, another useful argument
- saying developed nations got where they are through fossil fuel use is probably not going to be popular.

Therefore, I'd recommend you not try getting this one to quorum, and work on redrafting.

I'm sorry, but the English in the repeal is not good enough.
*snip*

OOC: I have to admit that I agree. There are some serious flaws in the language of this proposed repeal. That said, though, L&E, as someone who spent the last eight years as a magazine editor and who very much wants to see the FFRA repealed, I would be more than happy to help you refine the English, if you would accept the assistance. I know English isn't your first language (French is, no?), so perhaps I could help.

I can even spell everything all British, just to annoy Kenny. ;)

OOC: I would be more than happy to help youWho are you, and what have you done with the real Cluich?

Who are you, and what have you done with the real Cluich?

I'm not a complete asshole, y'know. :p

Therefore, I'd recommend you not try getting this one to quorum, and work on redrafting.Looks like he's already done a fair amount of telegramming on this. I will not support this repeal, by the way.

OOC: for RL, maybe... but for NS, where national populations increase so much faster than in RL? For example _
St Edmundan Antarctic has a current population of 304 million, but it hasn't even existed for three months yet let alone for three years: What is its "ceiling level" supposed to be?I was actually meaning to try and work out how long 24 hours in RL equates to NS time based upon population growth. In other words, how long would it take a RL nation to grow at the rate a NS nation does in one day?

I'd love to see the Fucking Fluffy Replacement Act repealed. This has my support.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I was actually meaning to try and work out how long 24 hours in RL equates to NS time based upon population growth. In other words, how long would it take a RL nation to grow at the rate a NS nation does in one day?

Well that is very hard from what I can see because you have to figure out how much a RL nation grows in a day. The problem is RL all grow at entirly differnt speeds(NS ones are all similar though not the same). So there has to be some kind of standard.

I was actually meaning to try and work out how long 24 hours in RL equates to NS time based upon population growth. In other words, how long would it take a RL nation to grow at the rate a NS nation does in one day?

Well that is very hard from what I can see because you have to figure out how much a RL nation grows in a day. The problem is RL all grow at entirly differnt speeds(NS ones are all similar though not the same). So how are you going to find speeds to compare NS years to RL years.

I'm sorry, but the English in the repeal is not good enough.

A: should be "use" not "usage"; "fuel sources" not "a fuel source"

C: "unfair on"/"unfair to" not "unfair with"

D: "by every nation"/"for every nation" not "to every nation"; "any" not "a little bit"; ratio phrase sounds odd; "unfair on"/"unfair to" not "unfair with"; "fossil fuel per capita" (although that also sounds odd) not "fossil fuel by capita"

E: "has permitted" not "has permit"

G: "significantly reduce" not "reduce significantly"; "a worrying situation" not "worrying situation"


Ok, thanks a lot for your help, we will probably correct it
As I may not get time to do it myself, for personal reasons, the co-author will probably ask mods to delete it after quorum will be reached and will resubmit it himself.


- you didn't mention that this resolution would increase dependence on foreign, non-UN fuel supplies
- developing nations tend to have higher rates of population increase, another useful argument
- a worked example might have made the problem clearer
- by only dropping in that line about "severe economic depression", the majority of voters who won't have read all of the original resolution may be confused as to what you're actually saying


Thanks, in fact we tried to focused mainly on new arguments mainly (many similar proposals, natural gas and the ratio pollution per capita)


- saying developed nations got where they are through fossil fuel use is probably not going to be popular.

Maybe but that's reality.

Maybe but that's reality.
Doesn't mean you need to mention it, or phrase it as you have done.

I was actually meaning to try and work out how long 24 hours in RL equates to NS time based upon population growth. In other words, how long would it take a RL nation to grow at the rate a NS nation does in one day?

OOC: I don't think we really can base it on RL like that, because then different nations (of differing sizes) would have time passing at different rates for this purpose although they would still have the same number of RL days -- & thus of assumed NS time -- in which to decide about voting on UN proposals... Not to mention the fact that any nation starting off as 'Modern Tech' one or two RL years ago would almost have to be 'Future Tech' (or collapsed into a dysttopian ruin) after the high number of assumed NS years involved...

Doesn't mean you need to mention it, or phrase it as you have done.

True. While the statement is correct, it doesn't need to be mentioned. You're trying to get the proposal passed, which means you really should strike any unnecessary statements in the text that might hurt its popularity and, thus, its chances of garnering enough votes to become a resolution.

Conversely, you also might consider adding a nod to the fluffies, as was done with the UNCTI. I'm convinced that single, totally meaningless clause made the difference between passage and failure, as it was the only major change between the version that failed several months ago and the one that recently passed rather handily.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I reiterate my offer to help with refining the langauage of the proposal, L&E. Just TG me if you'd like to take me up on it. :)