NationStates Jolt Archive

Monitoring Environmental Stability
----------------------------------

This resolution will associate all willing nations in the UN to form a unified committee to monitor the effects of global warming, and present idea's and solutions to current problems to UN delegates.

Category: Environmental

Strength: Mild

CONCERNED that growing energy consumption is having a global effect and that the full extent of such damage must be investigated and monitored.

HOPEFUL that all nations in the UN will participate in this new resolution and
actively participate in fulfilling the objective of the new organization.

The United Nations:

1. ESTABLISHES an organization to be named the Global Environment Organization (GEO).

2. CHARGES the GEO to accomplish the following tasks;

2a. Compile conclusive and complete documentation in the following areas for all nations associated with the GEO:

I) Total energy output and consumption

II) Toxic emissions

III) Weather Reports in envornmentally sensitive areas.

IV) Waste disposal

2b. Present a report to the United Nations with information compiled beginning at the first day of the month, and concluding on the last day of the month.

2c. In conjunction with the aforementioned monthly report, the GEO will discuss possible solutions to these problems, and present the results to the UN for further discussion.

3. RESTRICTING this proposal to interfere with the economic development of any nation.

3a. The GEO will not force solutions to existing problems upon any nation; They must choose to take such actions by themselves. It is recommended they do, but not mandatory.

4. ENCOURAGES nations to donate money or provide grants to the GEO for the development of new technologies which may benefit the nations who agree to join the GEO.

4a. All donations will be used to develop newer technologies and create viable prototype models of such technologies.

4b. No donation or grant will be used to promote or sell the GEO's prototype idea's to any single person, group, corporation, or government to be used SOLELY by any person, group, corporation or government.

4c. Any technology that is developed by the GEO is owned and patented by the GEO, and will not be sold to any nation (As stated in clause 4b).

4d. All nations associated with the GEO will be privy to use of new technologies for any use they can find for them once the technology is patented.

OOC: This is what I've come up with so far...I need some critique on the basic structure and/or content to be included/removed/changed.

IC: Liubenia feels this is an effective approach for eliminating the threat of global warming from the world we reside in. We believe, however, the current format and content is...Robust, at best. We wish to build on this by gladly receiving any comments or quarrels current UN delegates may have.

We admit, this is the first proposal for a UN resolution we have brought to the table, but we believe it is an excellent idea all nations should participate in.

Category: Environmental

Strength: MildThis combination does not exist.

OOC: My mistake. Someone had told me it was fine, but perhaps a Strong strength label would be appropriate.

OOC: My mistake. Someone had told me it was fine, but perhaps a Strong strength label would be appropriate.
That doesn't exist either. Your choices are All Businesses, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping or Automobile Manufacturing.

I'm not sure I follow you. The rules state that Environmental is an OK topic for discussion. Where you mean to lead me with being vague is confusing, perhaps you could explain why those 4 topics are all we can talk about?

Ok, sorry for being unclear. This (http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1620/untitledet0.png) is what I mean: an Environmental resolution doesn't have a Strength, it instead affects a particular industry, or all industries. Most Environmental resolutions tend to be classified as 'All Businesses'.

Onto the substance of the proposal, I think some parts of it can be omitted as duplication: the IMO covers weather and the WDC waste disposal, so there's no need for this new committee to monitor these things.

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

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

I love seeing one of the cards I created played.

This committee looks pretty useful to me. Good luck.

Benedictions,

Liubenia sees no reason this new commission would be useless. Perhaps the ambassador would educate us on how this is a redundant proposal; Or even better, perhaps educate himself on the politics of tact before making futile attempts to undermine the importance of this resolution.

As you may have read, the resolution calls for the GEO to develop new technologies to help save our environment. We understand there is a price to pay for your economy, which is why you would not be forced to implement these new technologies at a high cost.

But perhaps, by slight chance, these new technologies may open doors to new industries being created. We may never know until this resolution is passed, and we sincerely hope it is. We believe it will give nations who have a high pollution rate a sense of hope and responsibility for saving the planet they live on.

As you may have read, the resolution calls for the GEO to develop new technologies to help save our environment. We understand there is a price to pay for your economy, which is why you would not be forced to implement these new technologies at a high cost.

That's the problem right there. By not mandating membership in said committee, you effectively gut the operative abilities of said committee. If nations which don't want to be a part of it continue their old practices, then your entire objective has been rendered moot- chances are the countries who will join are the countries who don't need to be monitored.

But perhaps, by slight chance, these new technologies may open doors to new industries being created. We may never know until this resolution is passed, and we sincerely hope it is. We believe it will give nations who have a high pollution rate a sense of hope and responsibility for saving the planet they live on.

OOC: That won't happen, at least from a game mechanics standpoint. Anyone can RP that a UN resolution has allowed them to develop more tech, but that's outside the purview of the game.

IC:

We don't tfeel that this is a worthwhile project. A non-mandatory committee that compiles a lot of useless data from do-gooder countries and makes recommendations that cannot be enforced is useless. I'm afraid that I have to agree with the honorable Cluichstani representative's use of UN cards.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

That's the problem right there. By not mandating membership in said committee, you effectively gut the operative abilities of said committee. If nations which don't want to be a part of it continue their old practices, then your entire objective has been rendered moot- chances are the countries who will join are the countries who don't need to be monitored.


Right. Hence, useless.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

On behalf of all the staff here in the Gobbannium delegation, I'd like to thank the representative from Liubenia for rendering the ambassador nearly speechless. He took part 2b to mean that the report would take all month to present.

This is a good idea, but other ambassadors have already pointed out that it's doomed. The legal team here has two specific nitpicks:

3. RESTRICTING this proposal notto interfere with the economic development of any nation.
You may have been missing the word in bold. If that wasn't what you meant, I'd like to apologise for presuming, but you'd be an idiot.

4b. No donation or grant will be used to promote or sell the GEO's prototype idea's to any single person, group, corporation, or government.
While this is perfectly reasonable, it does make you wonder exactly what is supposed to happen to anything concrete that the GEO comes up with. Definition by omission generally only makes lawyers happy. Also rich.


Cerys Coch, Permanant Undersecretary and Official Sarcast to the Throne of Segontium.

OOC: If there were such a thing as a mild environmental proposal, this wouldn't be so bad. But there isn't, so voluntary environmental proposals are a tough thing to write well.

IC: An excerpt from "UN Today":

Sex by Committee?

Scientists are baffled by the recent proliferation of committees in the United Nations, many of which have come into the world lame and without purpose. One researcher, who requested anonymity, had the following to say: "This clinches it! Hedonistic, unrestrained committees have been having mass orgies within the facade of decency that the UN building is supposed to represent!" When informed that the most committees convene outside of or beneath the UN building, the researcher stripped off his shirt, screamed something about Gnomes being everywhere, and ran into the woods.

Concerned social workers have opined that the lack of morals being instilled into these committees at an early age have led directly to this outbreak of wantonness among those reaching maturity. They recommend a strict program of committraception, whereby a useless committee is never fertilized by a well-meaning but toothless resolution - such unions are considered ill-conceived. Currently being marketed to young committees are IUDs, or International UN Debates, which have shown the ability to control the reproduction rate of unnecessary committees while allowing the most robust of their kind to slip past the IUD.

Also being considered is a product that would lengthen the gestation period of the average committee from the current two weeks to a month or more, during which time selective pressures would be better able to generate only the finest specimens of the committee species.

This is a good idea, but other ambassadors have already pointed out that it's doomed.

OOC: yeah, I figured that after the ambassador clarified it for me. But it is my first proposal, I should have known (By reading other proposals more clearly) that these things are mandatory for all nations if they're voted in.

My bad :P

IC: Liubenia apologizes for the error on our behalf; Our research team failed to mention that resolutions are absolute for all UN members, not voluntary.

We will fix the resolution, but if it does go to vote and fails, we will consider creating the GEO anyway for all voluntary nations rather than being UN specific. Perhaps this would be best, but we believed that the UN would be a better ground on which to establish the GEO.

You may have been missing the word in bold. If that wasn't what you meant, I'd like to apologise for presuming, but you'd be an idiot.

Ah, yes. The word you highlighted should not be there, but a simple language error. English is a second language for us, but we try our best.

Also, we are confused as to whether ambassador Rang Erman was referring to the implementation of new technologies or the organization itself being mandatory which made this useless. We do not believe forcing developing countries to implement new technologies at the cost of their economy (Game Mechanics), but if it must be, we assume we should change the wording accordingly.

While this is perfectly reasonable, it does make you wonder exactly what is supposed to happen to anything concrete that the GEO comes up with. Definition by omission generally only makes lawyers happy. Also rich.

We will fix the error, but what it essentially means is that the GEO will not sell the idea's to any single individual, corporation, or government to be used SOLELY by that individual, corporation or government. All the technology developed will be shared with all nations.

The GEO will own the patent for such technologies so as to ensure this does not happen, but if a nation asks for permission to use it, the GEO will most gladly let them, but they will not be able to buy the patent for it.

OOC: I edited the resolution, hopefully that clarifies it a little. If there are still problems with it, let me know. I got nothing against bad criticism, I just have found NS a viable reason to showboat my pride for once (I'm new to RP, so forgive me if I go too far) :P

OOC: I edited the resolution, hopefully that clarifies it a little. If there are still problems with it, let me know. I got nothing against bad criticism, I just have found NS a viable reason to showboat my pride for once (I'm new to RP, so forgive me if I go too far) :P

OOC: I think it's a good first proposal, my bizarre IC snark aside.

IC: Liubenia apologizes for the error on our behalf; Our research team failed to mention that resolutions are absolute for all UN members, not voluntary.

I would like to remind Your Excellency that while UN resolutions are binding on all member nations, there is nothing specifically forbidden about including voluntary clauses. A resolution cannot be strictly voluntary, of course; it must *do* something, even if that is to create a committee to oversee a mostly voluntary process. The downside to that form of a resolution is that it gets attacked as weak.

We will fix the resolution, but if it does go to vote and fails, we will consider creating the GEO anyway for all voluntary nations rather than being UN specific. Perhaps this would be best, but we believed that the UN would be a better ground on which to establish the GEO.

I am afraid that UN resolutions cannot refer to nations outside the UN. Thus, all resolutions must be UN-specific, though I suppose that any nation can participate in a given program (OOC: through RP outside the UN. /OOC).

Also, we are confused as to whether ambassador Rang Erman was referring to the implementation of new technologies or the organization itself being mandatory which made this useless. We do not believe forcing developing countries to implement new technologies at the cost of their economy (Game Mechanics), but if it must be, we assume we should change the wording accordingly.

While I do not claim to represent His Excellency the Ambassador Pro Tempore Rang Erman, I believe that His Excellency's point is that the proposal is useless to his government because it is currently not mandatory, but should be.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

While I do not claim to represent His Excellency the Ambassador Pro Tempore Rang Erman, I believe that His Excellency's point is that the proposal is useless to his government because it is currently not mandatory, but should be.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

You are nearly correct. This proposal is not simply useless to us, but would be useless to the UN at large because it does not mandate anything.

This is not to say that we would support the proposal otherwise. That, though, is a policy issue and not a legislative one.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

What would it take to swing the opinion of the other UN members? We have edited the draft in respects to the criticism we have received here (And we thank you greatly in assisting us), but perhaps it does not cover everything you would like. Perhaps the draft interferes with policy, but we need support on this if it is going to succeed.

[QUOTE=Allech-Atreus;12295807]That's the problem right there. By not mandating membership in said committee, you effectively gut the operative abilities of said committee. If nations which don't want to be a part of it continue their old practices, then your entire objective has been rendered moot- chances are the countries who will join are the countries who don't need to be monitored.

This has being discussed in Le Crap's cabinet meetings today. And i have being informed by the Foreign Affairs minister and the Environment minister that this resoulution would be pointless for the above reasons. We shall be lobbying our Regional delegate to get this thrown out. And to get this voted against.

We also have a problem with the proposed lack of teeth the GEO would have. 'they can't impose changes only suggest. Environmental laws will only be mandatory'

We see this as a complete waste of UN time.


P.S. has this already being an accepted proposal?

Joan Baez
Le Crap UN representative

Londi Grimaldi
Environment Minister

Eminly Baruski
Le Crap Foreign Affairs.

Uhhhh... no. No it hasn't.

This resolution will associate all willing nations in the UN to form a unified committee to monitor the effects of global warming, and present idea's and solutions to current problems to UN delegates.
If it's just about global wraming and not the environment in general then perhaps you should change the title of the resolution and/or the committee created to Intergovernmental/International Panel on Climate Change--woops, already taken. How about Intergovernmental/International/World Climate Committee or Climate Research Group or something like that.

HOPEFUL that all nations in the UN will participate in this new resolution and
actively participate in fulfilling the objective of the new organization.
Take this out. A resolution is meaningless and powerless if all it does is ask all member nations to play nice.

II) Toxic emissions
What emissions are classified as toxic under this proposal? H2O, CO2, methane gas and numerous other chemicals have been blamed for global warming but few are toxic except in fairly high concentrations.

III) Weather Reports in envornmentally sensitive areas.
What is classified as environmentally sensitive? Shouldn't all weather be monitored and recorded for a more complete picture?

2c. In conjunction with the aforementioned monthly report, the GEO will discuss possible solutions to these problems, and present the results to the UN for further discussion.
You might want to add something that keeps them from simply regurgitating the same old suggestions over and over.

3. RESTRICTING this proposal to interfere with the economic development of any nation.
How is providing this proposal with the authority to interfere with the economic development of any nation in NS a restriction?

3a. The GEO will not force solutions to existing problems upon any nation; They must choose to take such actions by themselves. It is recommended they do, but not mandatory.
Again, this would be like having a law that said theft isn't very nice so please don't do it.

4. ENCOURAGES nations to donate money or provide grants to the GEO for the development of new technologies which may benefit the nations who agree to join the GEO.
I have a bit of a problem with a UN organization with a percieved bias against all business controlling research grants about the very subject being studied. What if the grant is for an unpopular solution? Or the preliminary results of a study or series thereof contradict in part or whole previous research conducted with grants issued by the proposed commission? This just looks like a recipe for abuse. Research should be independent and impartial and that can't happen when it's funded and controlled by a political organization.

4a. All donations will be used to develop newer technologies and create viable prototype models of such technologies.

4b. No donation or grant will be used to promote or sell the GEO's prototype idea's to any single person, group, corporation, or government to be used SOLELY by any person, group, corporation or government.

4c. Any technology that is developed by the GEO is owned and patented by the GEO, and will not be sold to any nation (As stated in clause 4b).

4d. All nations associated with the GEO will be privy to use of new technologies for any use they can find for them once the technology is patented.
So it'll run on the kindness of strangers and hand out any new technology to all UN member nations? Wouldn't it make more sense to sell it to everyone at a set price and give donators a discount for and based on their contribution?

If it's just about global wraming and not the environment in general then perhaps you should change the title of the resolution and/or the committee created to Intergovernmental/International Panel on Climate Change--woops, already taken. How about Intergovernmental/International/World Climate Committee or Climate Research Group or something like that.

We will consider it, though we feel the Global Environment Organization would cover a broader aspect of what it would do. Also, the organization would deal with environmental issues small or big, and worldwide at that, possibly working in conjunction with other existing organisations.

Take this out. A resolution is meaningless and powerless if all it does is ask all member nations to play nice.

We will change that, if that is the wish of the UN delegates. However, if it is approved, and you continue to argue against it, we beg to know the point of arguing it to be mandatory in the first place, as resolutions like this that become mandatory often become a burden to large economic powerhouse nations and do not succeed.

What emissions are classified as toxic under this proposal? H2O, CO2, methane gas and numerous other chemicals have been blamed for global warming but few are toxic except in fairly high concentrations.

Our research team has told us H20 and CO2 is completely harmless. Methane gas is a form of Carbon Monoxide, or more specifically it is a member of the Hydrocarbon family. Propane and Natural Gas are also part of this family, and because they are used worldwide, they should be taken into consideration.

A complete combustion process with Natural Gas or Propane will produce H2O, Nitrogen and CO2. However, incomplete combustion is very harmful, producing CO, Nitrogen, Soot, and many aldehydes.

These are examples of what the GEO would be monitoring, but discussing these issues is not the primary goal of this discussion.

What is classified as environmentally sensitive? Shouldn't all weather be monitored and recorded for a more complete picture?

We understand the confusion here, as we did not define it before in the proposal. But to explain further, any regions of a nation that are protected from deforestation or endangering a species will be covered.

You might want to add something that keeps them from simply regurgitating the same old suggestions over and over.

It is not the purpose of the GEO's monthly report to "regurge" suggestions mentioned in a previous report; However, that does not mean it will not happen. It is the very goal of the GEO to decrease the efforts that make global warming a reality, like pollution and deforestation, and it will try it's best to reduce it to a bare minimum.

How is providing this proposal with the authority to interfere with the economic development of any nation in NS a restriction?

This is the second time we have explained this, so we will reword it.

"3. RESTRICTING this proposal from interfering with the economic development of any nation."

Again, this would be like having a law that said theft isn't very nice so please don't do it.

You said it, ambassador. We will make it mandatory, but if it is passed, we suggest you abstain from voting if it is not in your best interests to make it mandatory.

I have a bit of a problem with a UN organization with a percieved bias against all business controlling research grants about the very subject being studied. What if the grant is for an unpopular solution? Or the preliminary results of a study or series thereof contradict in part or whole previous research conducted with grants issued by the proposed commission? This just looks like a recipe for abuse. Research should be independent and impartial and that can't happen when it's funded and controlled by a political organization.

We will not force nations to donate, and we will not change that particular clause. But rest assured, it is not the intention of the GEO to abuse the grant or donation funds. Not to say it could not happen, but the GEO is not being established to better the wallets of those who work there. There is nothing wrong with implementing some kind of plan to ensure our future as the human race on earth.

So it'll run on the kindness of strangers and hand out any new technology to all UN member nations? Wouldn't it make more sense to sell it to everyone at a set price and give donators a discount for and based on their contribution?

Like it is stated in the proposal, the technologies the GEO invents will not be sold to any single nation. It is granted free of charge, which we admit we failed to mention and will edit into the proposal. The only thing the GEO would ask is recognition of inventing the technology.

We apologize for the hurriedness of all this, I am on a tight schedule, so I must leave you all now. Any questions can be left here for me when I return.

Our research team has told us H20 and CO2 is completely harmless. I do not wish to argue with your research team, but generally H2O is considered "toxic" in sufficient quantities. In point of fact people have died from drinking too much water, it can throw your electrolyte balance completely off and that could have fatal consequences.

We will consider it, though we feel the Global Environment Organization would cover a broader aspect of what it would do. Also, the organization would deal with environmental issues small or big, and worldwide at that, possibly working in conjunction with other existing organisations.
That's kind of the whole problem I have with it. Government and Intergovernmental organizations should have clear and specific mission objectives even if those misssion objectives are ongoing. This allows for easy analysis as to the effectiveness of the organization and limits the organization's, and by extension, the government's power.

We will change that, if that is the wish of the UN delegates. However, if it is approved, and you continue to argue against it, we beg to know the point of arguing it to be mandatory in the first place, as resolutions like this that become mandatory often become a burden to large economic powerhouse nations and do not succeed.
That may be so but a committee is useless unless it has the power to enforce its rulings.

Our research team has told us H20 and CO2 is completely harmless. Methane gas is a form of Carbon Monoxide, or more specifically it is a member of the Hydrocarbon family. Propane and Natural Gas are also part of this family, and because they are used worldwide, they should be taken into consideration

A complete combustion process with Natural Gas or Propane will produce H2O, Nitrogen and CO2. However, incomplete combustion is very harmful, producing CO, Nitrogen, Soot, and many aldehydes.

These are examples of what the GEO would be monitoring, but discussing these issues is not the primary goal of this discussion.
Carbon Monoxide is CO, a single carbon atom and a single oxygen atom. Hydrocarbons are any molecule composed in part or whole of hydrogen and carbon. Their toxicity, as with just about every chemical substance, depends on their concentration. CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv but the current levels are still under 500ppmv.

Also, natural gas does not contain nitrogen so in a complete combustion would produce only CO2 and H2O. Incomplete combustion only occurs when insufficient oxygen is present during and in close proximity to the reaction. Soot is burnt remnants of impurities that were present within the fuel prior to combustion. Nitrogen composes approximately 3/4 of the Earths atmosphere.


We understand the confusion here, as we did not define it before in the proposal. But to explain further, any regions of a nation that are protected from deforestation or endangering a species will be covered.
I still say that all weather and climate should be monitored for a more complete, unbiased and accurate view.

You said it, ambassador. We will make it mandatory, but if it is passed, we suggest you abstain from voting if it is not in your best interests to make it mandatory.
Dosuun is not a member nation of the UN and so can neither vote on nor be affected by any resolutions.

Like it is stated in the proposal, the technologies the GEO invents will not be sold to any single nation. It is granted free of charge, which we admit we failed to mention and will edit into the proposal. The only thing the GEO would ask is recognition of inventing the technology.
Shouldn't credit be given to the individual persons from the individual nations who actually create any new technology?

Methane gas is a form of Carbon MonoxideYour research team fails at basic chemistry. As mentioned, carbon monoxide is CO. Methane is CH4. There's no relation between it and carbon monoxide. It doesn't even release CO when burned; it releases carbon dioxide and water.

Carbon Monoxide is CO, a single carbon atom and a single oxygen atom. Hydrocarbons are any molecule composed in part or whole of hydrogen and carbon. Their toxicity, as with just about every chemical substance, depends on their concentration. CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv but the current levels are still under 500ppmv.

Though we fail to see evidence of CO2 being toxic worldwide at those levels, we do not argue the rest of the quoted text.

Also, natural gas does not contain nitrogen so in a complete combustion would produce only CO2 and H2O. Incomplete combustion only occurs when insufficient oxygen is present during and in close proximity to the reaction. Soot is burnt remnants of impurities that were present within the fuel prior to combustion. Nitrogen composes approximately 3/4 of the Earths atmosphere.

OOC: I'm a gas fitter. I know this stuff like the back of my hand. Soot is burnt up carbon, I know nitrogen is not a part of Natural Gas or Propane, incomplete combustion is when one or more of the three essential components to feeding the fire is out of proportion, either fuel, oxygen or heat.

One more thing, just to be nitpicky: Nitrogen makes up 80% of our atmosphere.

I still say that all weather and climate should be monitored for a more complete, unbiased and accurate view.

We apologize for confusion here. We neglected to add weather and climate conditions to clause 2a. You have our thanks, Dosuun.

Shouldn't credit be given to the individual persons from the individual nations who actually create any new technology?

We regret to mention the thought had not crossed our minds. However, this will be fixed.