NationStates Jolt Archive

Ambassador Euphobes would like comments, criticsms or assesments of the legality of his proposal "Repeal Hydrogen Powered Vehicles". It has nearly finished a test run on the UN floor, and any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Here is the proposal:

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Euphobes

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations:

Agreeing that the protection of the environment and reduction of pollution is important,

However, not convinced that the hydrogen powered vehicles are the way forward, because of the difficulty in obtaining the hydrogen fuel from water,

Informing nations that to extract the hydrogen fuel some energy and pollution will be produced anyway, nullifying the purpose of hydrogen vehicles,

Concerned that this resolution does not even consider alternative ways to improve the environment,

Unconvinced that hydrogen powered cars will reduce acid rain, which is made from sulphur trioxide, as petrol does not contain any sulphur because it is made from a hydrocarbon,

Drawing attention to the expense involved in the manufacture of hydrogen powered cars; one that some member nation’s economies cannot meet,

Believing that other ways of cutting carbon and sulphur emissions are just as viable; solar powered vehicles, alcohol powered vehicles, wind power, nuclear power, hydro-electric power, geo-thermal power to name just a few,

Affirming that the climate of each nation should be the primary factor in considering how they will cut their pollution; not a uniform standard method. A nation with a windy climate should be allowed to use wind power as their contribution to reduce carbon and sulphur emissions- not being forced into developing hydrogen powered cars,

Expressing doubts over the impact hydrogen powered cars will have on the environment, as they are likely to be expensive, inefficient and not widely used,

Reminding nations that at least six resolutions have been passed by this body to safeguard the atmosphere, for example "Sustainable Energy Sources", "Alternative Fuels" and "Reduction of Greenhouse Gases",

Lamenting that this resolution is surplus to requirements and makes unnecessary bureaucracy for nations,

Asserting that nations do not need hydrogen powered vehicles to improve the environment,

Believing the resolution “Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” to be ineffective and unfair, for reasons outlined above,

Repeals UN Resolution #18 “Hydrogen Powered Vehicles”

Thus far, it has reached half of the approvals needed for quorum, and I would like ideas on how to improve on it.

Unconvinced that hydrogen powered cars will reduce acid rain, which is made from sulphur trioxide, as petrol does not contain any sulphur because it is made from a hydrocarbon,
The EPA disagrees with you (http://epa.gov/region01/eco/acidrain/causes.html)
Two elements, sulfur and nitrogen, are primarily responsible for the harmful effects of acid rain.
Sulfur is found as a trace element in coal and oil ...
When heated to the temperatures found in steam boilers and internal combustion engines, [Nitrogen] can combine with oxygen from the atmosphere to form nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Full details are in the linked article, but basically I'd drop the whole sentence.

Reminding nations that at least six resolutions have been passed by this body to safeguard the atmosphere, for example "Sustainable Energy Sources", "Alternative Fuels" and "Reduction of Greenhouse Gases",
Rephrase as "Reminding nations that multiple other resolutions have been passed by this body to safeguard the atmosphere," to avoid a House of Cards collapse later.

There are a number of places where your phrasing and formatting could use some work, but I'll leave that as an exercise for other nations.

Well for one thing, there is no need for a repeal to be this long. People will not read it. Three or maybe four of the strongest arguments should be sufficient.

Thanks for the advice. I'll work on deciding which bits to cut out of it before it gets re-submitted.

As someone who works at an oil refinery that recently built an new, multi-million dollar unit that exists only to strip sulfur from our processed gasoline... yeah... I'd say there's plenty in hydrocarbons.

I disagree with this as these cards will now show ya.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad48sv.png

and then

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/theeconomycard9be.jpg

and then i'm proenviroment so i use this one

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/proenvironment.jpg

well thats it for me. I shall end with this pieace of advice....

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/mods.jpg

I agree with the sentiment of the repeal. Hydrogen for the fueling of cars would be expensive to produce even using relatively cheap nuclear power. Pollution of some sort would be produced anyway be it from burning coal, oil, natural gas, methane, or nuclear power to split the water molecule to produce the necessary hydrogen.

Then there is the hydrogen storage problem. Now I only took chemistry in high school but I can see just by looking at the periodic table of elements that hydrogen is the smallest. It would be difficult to store gas form hydrogen and expensive to liquefy as well and store that way. Mainly because Liquid Hydrogen would have to be stored at very cold temperatures.

The inaccuracy about petroleum in the repeal has been dealt with adequately by others already and I am only mentioning it here to state that the only hydrocarbon that I know of that does not have any sulfur in it would be methane (CH4). Coal, petroleum, natural gas all contain some form of sulfur in them one way or an other...or at least thats what my High School chemistry book says.

All in all we support this repeal, we just feel that those errors need to be fixed as well as cutting the arguments a little bit to make it more compact so people will read it.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

and then

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/theeconomycard9be.jpg

Psst, repeals of Environmental proposals improve a nation's economy.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Psst, repeals of Environmental proposals improve a nation's economy.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

not mine. my nation is a gaint forest so repealing that and bringing back gas cars will hurt my nation and its economy. besides its not like we use cars anyway.

not mine. my nation is a gaint forest so repealing that and bringing back gas cars will hurt my nation and its economy. besides its not like we use cars anyway.

You do realize that repealing this resolution will not force your nation to allow gasoline-powered vehicles within its borders, yes? Or are you of the mistaken opinion that your government is only able to do what the United Nations specifically allows?

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

not mine. my nation is a gaint forest so repealing that and bringing back gas cars will hurt my nation and its economy. besides its not like we use cars anyway.For a game stats perspective, it will improve your economy, however.

and then i'm proenviroment so i use this one

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/proenvironment.jpg



Look- this proposal is for the defence of the environment. It wants nations to be able to decide how they make their own contribution to cutting carbon emissions, rather than forcing them to use an impractical measure. The first few words imply that I am pro-environment, and it makes the point that we don't need this resolution.
As for what you say about length; if I cut any of it then the argument is weakened. I have re-submitted the proposal with some amendments, and shall post it here shortly.

Here it is:
Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Euphobes

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations:

Agreeing that the protection of the environment and reduction of pollution is important,

However, not convinced that the hydrogen powered vehicles are the way forward, because of the difficulty in obtaining the hydrogen fuel from water,

Informing nations that to extract the hydrogen fuel some energy and pollution will be produced anyway, nullifying the purpose of hydrogen vehicles,

Concerned that this resolution does not even consider alternative ways to improve the environment,

Drawing attention to the expense involved in the manufacture of hydrogen powered cars; one that some member nation’s economies cannot meet,

Believing that other ways of cutting carbon and sulphur emissions are just as viable; solar powered vehicles, alcohol powered vehicles, wind power, nuclear power, hydro-electric power, geo-thermal power to name just a few,

Affirming that the climate of each nation should be the primary factor in considering how they will cut their pollution; not a uniform standard method. A nation with a windy climate should be allowed to use wind power as their contribution to reduce carbon and sulphur emissions- not being forced into developing hydrogen powered cars,

Expressing doubts over the impact hydrogen powered cars will have on the environment, as they are likely to be expensive, inefficient and not widely used,

Reminding nations that numerous other resolutions have been passed by this body to safeguard the atmosphere,

Lamenting that this resolution is surplus to requirements and makes unnecessary bureaucracy for nations,

Asserting that nations do not need hydrogen powered vehicles to improve the environment,

Believing the resolution “Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” to be ineffective and unfair, for reasons outlined above,

Repeals UN Resolution #18 “Hydrogen Powered Vehicles”

Approvals: 22 (Euphobes, Gruenberg, Tribes of Nomads, Iron Felix, WZ Forums, Compulsoria, The Dancing Vagabond, Tarmsden, Hustlertwo, Kolothland, Understood correctnes, Coolguyistan, Leg-ends, Lusapha, David6, Flibbleites, Xarvinia-Wurttemburg, The Great Irwin Rommel, NewTexas, Kytheros, Futuristic America, Krankor)

This is the new one on the UN floor.

I think this should be left alone. A number of new developments in hydrogen production may make this a much more viable option very soon. The most important being more efficient solar powered electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen. With this method hydrogen could become as cheap as gasoline to produce and store in quantity. This may seem futuristic, but I would rather this was not dismissed.

But at the moment it is impractical, expensive and not necessarily theway forward. Until the technology exists to make hydrogen a very viable fuel, I will want the resolution repealed so that nations may choose how to cut carbon emissions according to their climate.

Then when the repeal passes...by all means write a replacement.

As it stands Ellelt supports this repeal. We would rather spend our rubles on existing technology in the automobile manufacturing field. Currently Ellelt Motor Works Soviet 128 has designed a bio-fuel tank that we will be testing shortly. It runs on used fryer oil. Elleltians love their fried foods and thus produce a large amount of used fryer oil so it would only make sense...and besides it may be distracting to the enemy when they smell fish and chips belching out of our tank's exhaust pipe.

The repeal of this resolution would not prevent in any way shape or form other nations from using hydrogen or any other source of alternative or fossil fuel. Hell it doesn't even prevent someone banning cars altogether if thats what they want to do.

What repealing UNR 18 would mean that nations that cannot afford to spend money on futuristic technologies at the current time (mine for example) could spend their R&D money on existing technology that can be used to develop products that can be manufactured now...causing immediate benefits to the environment.

Furthermore this repeal saves the whales, cures puppies on national television and destroys cancer.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

OOC: You've caught on quickly, amigo. :D

I agree with what you are saying. It should be an issue individuilized with each country. If an economy can not or it doesn't make sense to support such a manufacturing item, then why should it be produced? Completely agree with your standpoints. As previously mentioned, just check for the EPA facts on the topic before final presentation. ;)

If you don't encourage nations to develop hydrogen powered vehicles, the technology needed "to make hydrogen a very viable fuel" may never come into existence, or it may take a lot longer than it would if you do encourage their development. Altanar would be opposed to this repeal.

There are other options apart from hydrogen to improve the world's environment. The old resolution forced nations to invest in hydrogen powered vehicles, limiting their spending elsewhere. Because of that, many fuel options get less investment. Hydrogen is only one of many ways to cut carbon emissions.

I think this should be left alone. A number of new developments in hydrogen production may make this a much more viable option very soon. The most important being more efficient solar powered electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen. With this method hydrogen could become as cheap as gasoline to produce and store in quantity. This may seem futuristic, but I would rather this was not dismissed.

Have you even read the Hydrogne Powered Vehicles resolution? If you haven't you should and if you have, read it again and tell me exactly where the resolution says that we have to actually build any hydrogen powered vehicles.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If you don't encourage nations to develop hydrogen powered vehicles, the technology needed "to make hydrogen a very viable fuel" may never come into existence ...

This is because hydrogen is not a fuel! Baring going to a gas giant and scraping off the outer gaseous layers free hydrogen is not exceptionally plentiful on the planet. It has to be made, typically by breaking up the natural result of burning hydrogen, water. This requires energy and accoring to the laws of thermodynamics it will take more energy to make free hydrogen than you will get from burning it. Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium ... no more.

Now is it the most effective storage medium? That's hard to say. Currently it is a tossup between hydrogen systems and NiMH systems, the later would be as plentiful as water if it wasn't for the simple fact that until 2010 Chevron Texxaco has the pattent and the gas giant (ha ha that's a joke the old gas giants are dinosaurs because they let all their petrolium finding experts go and these experts now work directly for prerolium nations and not through the gas giants) and it won't let the technology become available to the public except through the limited hybrid systems of Toyota. By the time we reach 2010 there will be several better storage systems and some new powerful capacitor systems on the market to make both hydrogen and NiMH seem downright energy wasteful, including a nanotube system to capture 40-50% of solar energy.

Meanwhile the grass is always greener. Switchblade grass tends to put more carbon into the earth than it releases when turned into petrolium, but it's still too expensive, unless you start to implement a worldwide carbon trading system and then carbon fixing systems will have a financial advantage, besides the fact that it will grow almost anywhere. Combined with liberal treehugging legislation by 2025 the global warming problem will be so far reversed that by 2040 those darn dinosaurs without diaphrams will realize that it's safe to walk the earth once more.

This is because hydrogen is not a fuel!

Agreed, and a key factor in my submission of the repeal. It doesn't look likely to make quorum again; is constantly submitting it going to help?

Agreed, and a key factor in my submission of the repeal. It doesn't look likely to make quorum again; is constantly submitting it going to help?

You must have both patience and perseverance, young grasshopper.

You must have both patience and perseverance, young grasshopper.

A well-done telegram campaign wouldn't hurt either. ;)

As a UN delegate, I make a habit of not approving resolutions I get telegrams asking me to approve, even if I would otherwise. Anyone want to join me in this habit? The only exception I made was for "Repeal "Due Process"".
I've tried telegram campaigns before and they work quite well, and I am doing them for this proposal. However, how many telegrams do you think I should send out(roughly)?

Is this condensed one any good?


The United Nations:

Aware that the defence of the environment is important,

Not convinced that hydrogen powered vehicles will help because of the difficulty in getting hydrogen from water and the pollution that is caused in the process,

Lamenting that many member nations cannot afford to research and mass produce hydrogen powered vehicles,

Believing that it is more practical for a nation’s climate and conditions to determine how they will fight pollution- not a uniform measure,

Affirming that there are many viable alternatives to hydrogen fuel; something the resolution does not take into account,

Concluding that nations do not need hydrogen powered vehicles and therefore repeals UN Resolution #18 “Hydrogen Powered Vehicles”