NationStates Jolt Archive

........:confused:

The wind energy act

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ellenburg

Description: NOTING previous resolutions promote and encourage alternative fuel and energies;

ALSO NOTING the variety of alternative energy options available;

MINDFUL that some nations will not have the capability of producing wind energy;

AWARE that Wind energy is available and economic;

NOTING The environmental benefits of member states adopting this technology.

NOTING concerns with the technology, some unfounded.

NOTING that wind turbines can be large and space consuming, but can be easily located within unpopulated areas.

REQUESTING that member states invest in Wind energy, where possible

REQUESTING that Wind Energy be considered either an alternative or a compliment to nuclear power.

Approvals: 126
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

I got two telegrams about this. The first time, I kindly requested that the author post it in the forum so that it might be discussed. I said I couldn't approve it in its current form.

Well, so much for that. I'll be voting against it, and not because I don't like the idea. It's because as of late, I have been very critical of every Resolution that comes our way. And this doesn't satisfy my criteria.

Shame, too.

Bollocks. Didn't think this would make quorum, or I would have considered TGing against it.

YGBSM...

And that may soon become the national motto of Cluichstan.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

YASRWACLT
:headbang: (Yet Another Stupid Resolution With A Cute, Loveable Title.) :headbang:

NOTING: That most wide open spaces where wind is abudnant is typically located near beaches where rich morons will loudly proclaim NIMBY (not in my bac yard) and promptly throw enough cash to overthrow the goverment that dares consider the option.

NOTING: That most areas favorable to wind generation are also major highways for migratory birds ... who have a hard enough time as it is running into those nice glass walled buildings without having to be chopped to shreads by rotating blades.

WONDERING: If we have a resolution to reduce bird impacts on glass structures, and if not if someone would volunteer to write one up ... the title fluffies would love it!

CONDUSED: As to why only nuclear power is mentioned as wind is typically anargument against coal and fossel fuels, not nuclear.

WISHING: We could campaign to get a large group of intelligent people to join Nationstates and get into the UN!

REQUESTS: That resolutions actually do something beyond REQUESTING!

REQUESTS: That resolutions actually do something beyond REQUESTING!
I must disagree. I have no objection to mild proposals, that only request a policy, where requiring it would clearly be unsuitable.

Without a doubt, the most yawn-inducing proposal we've seen. We promise to bring along a supply of earplugs when this reaches the floor to share with our colleagues so the snores won't be so bothersome.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Without a doubt, the most yawn-inducing proposal we've seen. We promise to bring along a supply of earplugs when this reaches the floor to share with our colleagues so the snores won't be so bothersome.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
*snicker*:p

This resolution is so useless that I can barely be bothered enough to vote in the poll. I'll abstain when it reaches the floor.

*snicker*:p

This resolution is so useless that I can barely be bothered enough to vote in the poll. I'll abstain when it reaches the floor.

If it's useless, which it is, you should vote against it. We don't need more useless legislation on the books.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

What's with the trend in proposals for something already legislated for in a broader proposal? It'll be back to dolphin protection before we know it!

I must disagree. I have no objection to mild proposals, that only request a policy, where requiring it would clearly be unsuitable.

The people of Mikitivity agree (well except for those die hard brown shirts ... every country has some sort of fringe group of nutsos).

I actually prefer that international statements respect the sovereignty of nations.


On the subject of this resolution, I'll have to check NSWiki's archive of previous resolutions again, but my memory is that one of the previous resolutions included wind power as part of a larger sustainable energy portfolio. If that is the case and if that resolution has not been repealed, then this resolution may be redundant.

At this time I need to do a minor bit of research, which I'll share here, before I can cast Mikitivity's vote.

-Howie T. Katzman

Update:
I've found the resolution which I feel covers this topic:Sustainable Energy Sources (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sustainable_Energy_Sources)

And for those of you who'd rather receive a Jolt server-error message: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030235&postcount=72

I'm not sure a single clause from a past resolution necessarily deems this one redundant.

I find myself wondering whether this motion is even worth the bother? There are no specifics to this nor any true virtue of purpose. We might as well send a missive to the Middle East saying "It behooves the Jews and the Arabs to settle their differences in a Christian manner."

We might as well send a missive to the Middle East saying "It behooves the Jews and the Arabs to settle their differences in a Christian manner."

Heh heh heh. I hope that's original. Man, that gives me a giggle.

I hate using this card, but I created it for a purpose:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/unflagrevised5bd.gif

I'm actually considering abstaining on this.

It's not great, I admit that, and that's why I won't vote for it. But, it has some redeeming features:
- mild, and thereby reasonably sovereignty friendly
- I don't think it's completely redundant
- it will hopefully prevent anything more stringent and anti-sovereign passing.

That said, its anti-nuclear tone, endorsement of irresponsible and (for Gruenberg) impractical, and general lack of quality, means it's a struggle.

I'm going to concur with some previous comments: I think it's boring. I don't necessarily think it's bad, but will be open to being swayed (by arguments, not beer) either way.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Spokesman

And for those of you who'd rather receive a Jolt server-error message: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030235&postcount=72

I'm not sure a single clause from a past resolution necessarily deems this one redundant.

That is a good point that you and spokesperson Lennto of Gruenberg both bring up. Before I cast my vote, I'd like it if we could at least discuss where the redundance line between this and the Sustainable Energy Sources resolution lies (bearing in mind that any distinctions we make here, might be applied to other topics).

I recall one of the arguments in favour of the repeals of the "Protection of Dolphins Act" resolution was that the more general endagered species resolution (its name eludes me since it is but an abreviation -- I want to say UN-ESB or something similar) was that the later resolution protected all endangered species, while the dolphins resolution had no significant bearing on landlocked nations (such as my own) nor did it really cover things in the same flexible sense that the other resolution did.

In this case, I'm tempted (though not completely convinced) that suggest that the Sustainable Energy Sources covers the basic need for nations to seek a diverse porfolio of energy sources that are renewable and sustainable. That said, I'm also of the opinion that some topics are certainly worth reinforcing and revisiting, as we've done with countless civil rights topics over the years.

-Howie T. Katzman

the Empire of Kirisubo will be carefully considering its vote when this comes up.

it reminds me a lot of 'hydrogen powered vehicles' in many ways. it may look good but it does nothing for the planet.

the Empire already had a programme of sustainable energy in place including tidal, wind and nuclear power before this came about so we're already doing our bit.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, deputy ambassador

2. Recommends that a greater proportion of energy is derived from wind and wave power plants, including offshore wind platforms;
Ok, I think it is redundant. It does no more than this existing clause does. As such, we'll vote against.

OOC: And, on the off-chance, I'll send a GHR. I'm not sure whether the mods would act, though...it might be argued the mention of nuclear power sets this proposal apart.

Ok, I think it is redundant. It does no more than this existing clause does. As such, we'll vote against.

OOC: And, on the off-chance, I'll send a GHR. I'm not sure whether the mods would act, though...it might be argued the mention of nuclear power sets this proposal apart.

This is essentially the first point I wish to explore, as the preamble in this resolution may do more. For starters, it acknowledges that not all locations are suitable for wind power. And the activating clause:

REQUESTING that Wind Energy be considered either an alternative or a compliment to nuclear power.

Actually seems to strike a nice balance between socities opposed to nuclear power and those that rely upon it, which to me suggests that this resolution is treating nuclear power as the primary alternative legally allowed under various previous UN resolutions. I actually get the feeling while reading this resolution that the sponsoring nation may have spent the time to look through the previous resolutions.

As for my vote, it would help me if the authoring nation were to come to this forum. This isn't a requirement for Mikitivity's support, but it would be nice.

This Resolution is, as many others have said before, completely useless. The Community of His Fordians will vote against.

Call me a fluffy if you want, but I don't see any real harm in this and will probably vote for. It is only mild, and is just requesting that we look at wind power, not mandating that it be used. Of course it would have been better if all clean alternative fuel sources had been included, but I don't consider that a fatal flaw.

Right now, I'm leaning towards deleting it. It is only mild,
No, it's not. It's a pretty substantial blow. UN nations have already taken one hit for this same concept under "Environmental - All Businesses". I don't see the fairness of double-taxing for the same thing again.

Had they made the final clause stronger by replacing nuclear energy, it would be sufficiently different. By REQUESTING and offering this as a complement (I ought to delete it just for 'compliment') to nuke power, there's no force to justify it. Not only is it a Duplication violation, it's also one of those relatively rare Strength violations.

I'll see if I can wrangle up some support in Modspace, but chances are it's comin' down.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

The only thing I will saw about this proposal is the poll option for yes.

"Yes... Harmless"

Now the question begs. Is it Goodless too?

Right now, I'm leaning towards deleting it.
No, it's not. It's a pretty substantial blow. UN nations have already taken one hit for this same concept under "Environmental - All Businesses". I don't see the fairness of double-taxing for the same thing again.

Had they made the final clause stronger by replacing nuclear energy, it would be sufficiently different. By REQUESTING and offering this as a complement (I ought to delete it just for 'compliment') to nuke power, there's no force to justify it. Not only is it a Duplication violation, it's also one of those relatively rare Strength violations.

I'll see if I can wrangle up some support in Modspace, but chances are it's comin' down.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Fair enough.

Just goes to show how much I don't know about the between the lines stuff, and subtleties.

At least I do read past the titles :p.

Right now, I'm leaning towards deleting it.
No, it's not. It's a pretty substantial blow. UN nations have already taken one hit for this same concept under "Environmental - All Businesses". I don't see the fairness of double-taxing for the same thing again.

Had they made the final clause stronger by replacing nuclear energy, it would be sufficiently different. By REQUESTING and offering this as a complement (I ought to delete it just for 'compliment') to nuke power, there's no force to justify it. Not only is it a Duplication violation, it's also one of those relatively rare Strength violations.

I'll see if I can wrangle up some support in Modspace, but chances are it's comin' down.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

OOC: I've long been of the opinion that the Environmental category is "broken" (read poorly designed). In this particular case, a resolution like this might actually help to solve some of California's (and the rest of the US's) energy reliability issues. Granted, as written this is a mild resolution so the arguement "it doesn't do much more" carries weight with me -- but we do this with the civil right issue of the month. People stat wank the "Human Rights" category to a point beyond death!

I would ask that while talking about this, that whatever decision be made that the game moderators consider a revamping of this entire category. It has always been problematic and really caused a fair amount of player grief -- whales, dophlins, and oil Oh My!

And Fris deletes it out from under me.

And Fris deletes it out from under me.
And there was much rejoycing.

And Fris deletes it out from under me.
Well heck, son. I waited as long as I could before bedtime. Y'all don't come hang out on the Moderation front porch all that often anymore. Ya shoulda been there tonight - Reppy had some fine corn squeezins, and she was in a sharin' mood.

WEA deleted?

Actually seems to strike a nice balance between socities opposed to nuclear power and those that rely upon it, which to me suggests that this resolution is treating nuclear power as the primary alternative legally allowed under various previous UN resolutions. I actually get the feeling while reading this resolution that the sponsoring nation may have spent the time to look through the previous resolutions.Since it relates to past proposals that are now resolutions would it fail to stand if those were taken off by repeal.. Thus be illegal due to house of cards.

Also if it is changing the intent of a passed resolution then it's ammending that resolution. If the current didn't define nuke pwr as the prim pwr then any new proposal to make it such would in effect ammend the prior should it make nuke the prim pwr source. Thus also not legal by way of ammending a resolution.

Y'all don't come hang out on the Moderation front porch all that often anymore.For the past week it's been out of my control.

So just to get this straight ... the moderation decision was to delete the proposal "The Wind Energy Act" for the following reasons:

* Its activating clauses duplicated the Sustainable Energy Sources resolution.
* It was classified as an "Environmental -- All Businesses" resolution, which is now considered a "Strong" impact, but its text was "Mild".

I can see how the first reason applies, but I don't like the second (I know I'm paraphrasing what Fris said, but I also want this to be clear, because moderation actions like this effective make our UN rule set and I plan to actually describe this in NSWiki ... I've been adding "Gameplay Impacts" descriptions on a number of resolutions to build a bit of continuity).

The thing is, there's no "mild" environmental category. Without going into stats, Environmental: All Business acts much like a "Strong" Resolution in any other category. Much like "Ban all armies, navies, and air forces" wouldn't be a mild Global Disarmament Resolution, Environmental: All Business requires stronger wording than "suggests" or "recommends".

Again, this was more of an aggrigate than either point alone.

I'll stress that it was both factors that led to the decision.

That said, I still think there should be a "mild" environmental category or rather a means for environmental resolutions to be mild in language, otherwise the entire category is doomed to future mod decisions and will be about as useful as the gun control and gambling categories.

I'd suggest actually making new subcategories based on the area of the environment the proposals seek to help:

Water (Environment Boost / Trout Fishing & Energy Markets)
Air (Auto Industry & Energy Markets) <-- halfway there
Forestry (Timber Industry) <-- already present
Waste Management (Health Boost / Tax)
Biodiversity (Environment / Tax)

Basically let the categories do trade a boost in one category with an equal zap in another. In my example, water and biodiversity both help the environment, but screwing with water resources takes energy and tends to annoy *fisherman*, while biodiversity programs mean restoring habitat.

Forestry is there, but I think you can tweak the Air, and add the other three ... the Uranium mining is kinda a squatter category. :/

For the record, I got a response to my GHR from Frisbeeteria, stating that the duplication issue was not enough in itself to warrant deletion.

For the past week it's been out of my control.

Nothing is under your control anymore. You're married now. :p

Just because I'm not crushing heads here, doesn't mean I'm ignoring the UN. ;)

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Wind_Energy_Act_%28removed%29

I'm going to go ahead and separate all the "deleted" proposals from the "failed resolutions" category. Technically speaking the moderators can not delete a resolution, but they can and do have the ability to zap proposals (when justified).

Sorry, but I have a dissenting opinion about this act for the following reasons:



REQUESTING that member states invest in Wind energy, where possible

REQUESTING that Wind Energy be considered either an alternative or a compliment to nuclear power.

Being merely a request... it doesn't really seem to do much. If it demanded that wind eNOTING The environmental benefits of member states adopting this technology.nergy be used instead of nuclear energy I might be more in favor of it.


NOTING that wind turbines can be large and space consuming, but can be easily located within unpopulated areas.

Hey, the Grand Canyon and the Painted Desert are relatively unpopulated! Maybe we could build giant windfarms there?!

NOTING The environmental benefits of member states adopting this technology.

This last point won't be appreciated, I know, but here goes...
Supposing we could build enough wind farms where important people didn't mind... The resultant energy would still be used for the same environmentally destructive consumerism. I would like to see proposals or acts dealing with this destructive mindframe. The idea sort of goes like this... Some day we'll have solar powered bulldozers to destroy the rainforests, won't that be eco-groovy?