NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed UN Members,
My feelings to this proposal essentially are that yes, developing alternative fuels is aa crucial ield that must be studied, but that this resolution is the wrong way to go about it. Instead of having the nations' governments unding the development of alternative fuels, this resolution goes directly to the private buisness sector of each nation and tells them how to spend the money that they have earned. It is my belief that THAT is the job of each individual nation.

Here is an attached copy of my proposal.

Repeal "Alternative Fuels"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #39
Proposed by: Mauribritania

Description: UN Resolution #39: Alternative Fuels (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Noting that the lack of fossil fuels is a problem that looms inevitably in our future.

Agreeing that research must be conducted for the purpose of discovering and utilizing alternative energy sources.

Hoping that the United Nations can work together to solve what is becoming a global problem

Feels that the United Nations Resolution #39 Alternative Fuels places the responsibility of researching and funding the development of Alternative Fuels into the wrong hands.

Believes that the United Nations should not be telling the private industries of individual nations how to spend the money that they have earned.

Notes that some automobile industries may not be able to afford to pay even 1% of their profits toward this cause.

Suggests that the burden of funding the development of alternative fuels instead be placed on the governments of individual nations.

Understands that some governments may not be able to afford to pay 1%.

Believes that there should not be a flat rate for all nations.



If you agree with this proposal, it is my hope that you will approve it on the on the UN site, located around page 4. I thank you for taking the time to consider my proposal.

Yours,
Mauribritania
Delegate to the region of Burbujas

the goverment wishes to express its interset in this proposal.

Do you have a counter-proposal ?

I feel that there is a bit of a loop hole there...

First, Major Corporations should expect this and finding Alternative fuel sources should be a main priority within the world. and that all nations should contribute.
sending in funds as well as scientists from each nation to work together and when an alternative is found it must meet the correct requirements...
1) It must be clean
2) It must not create toxins or pollutants
3) it must be a source of fuel that is abundant and will not diminish over time
4) it must be a source that Corporations can use not to go under but to utilise and adapt with.


on a grand scale this will help in the further development of an alternative fuel source. one that will bring humanity forward into the future faster than our primitive fuel sources that we use today.

instead of how you placed it... what do you think?

Remember that at the NSUN you can't legally create new law in a repeal: I suggest moving the "struck out"/"null and void" line to the very end, and changing the first words of the six preceding clauses from '_s' to '_ing' endings, so that you don't seem to be trying this...

Good luck!

The "struck out/null and void" is part of the repeal category text, is it not? We concur, however, that restating it at the end of the repeal argument is a worthwhile thing to do to improve the clarity of the repeal.

That said, we disagree wholeheartedly with the argument. 1% is not an unreasonable burden to place upon the automobile industry, which should realistically be pouring considerably larger sums of money into alternative fuels research. Indeed, when one considers the massive increase in costs that the products of the industry cause in healthcare alone, simply considering automotive accidents, then 1% begins to look like a rather pathetic tax.

We regret to inform the proposer that this industrial plea leaves us entirely unmoved.

Seeing as the only operative clause in the original resolution is

For these reasons it is proposed that this United Nations put into place a resolution requiring automobile manufacturers to spend a minimum of 1% of their profits toward alternative fuel research so that alternative fuels will proved a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

And the only compulsory, non fluff, but of it is:

automobile manufacturers to spend a minimum of 1% of their profits toward alternative fuel research

We are therefore prefer to keep the original resolution in place, as it allows us to consider "diesel" and "unleaded petrol" alternative fuels. Indeed, as there is no definition of alternative fuels, even regular petrol can be considered and alternative fuel, as it is an alternative to coal.

Hence Cobdenia wants this to remain in place - we can actually abide by this one, unlike some future hippy rubbish about hydrogen or nuclear power (whatever that is) or wind power and all that...

The "struck out/null and void" is part of the repeal category text, is it not? We concur, however, that restating it at the end of the repeal argument is a worthwhile thing to do to improve the clarity of the repeal.

That said, we disagree wholeheartedly with the argument. 1% is not an unreasonable burden to place upon the automobile industry, which should realistically be pouring considerably larger sums of money into alternative fuels research. Indeed, when one considers the massive increase in costs that the products of the industry cause in healthcare alone, simply considering automotive accidents, then 1% begins to look like a rather pathetic tax.

We regret to inform the proposer that this industrial plea leaves us entirely unmoved.


His majasty wishes to inform you that he agrees that it should be more than 1% perhaps 10% or so...

Richard Gizard Foreign Minster and U.N. Ambassador for New Cariba

His majasty wishes to inform you that he agrees that it should be more than 1% perhaps 10% or so...
It's so easy to spend other people's money when you have no accountability yourself.

Welcome to the UN. You'll fit right in.

The resolution seems a little counter-intuitive. It's surely in the interests of companies to invest in developing alternative fuels anyway, because if petroleum does become a less viable source, either through attrition or regulation, they'll be fucked. But furthermore, if a majority of UN voters are willing to support the original resolution, there's obviously a demand for alternative fuels (this is, in any case, what I've been told to say; personally, I think a lot of voters would probably prove ragingly hypocritical on this issue). Hence companies would invest regardless: setting an arbitrary amount is more likely to restrict them than anything, and anyway establishes an unnecessarily hostile attitude.
Indeed, when one considers the massive increase in costs that the products of the industry cause in healthcare alone, simply considering automotive accidents, then 1% begins to look like a rather pathetic tax.
This is irrelevant, at best. An electric car or one using green fuels, or one powered by magic pixie dust, can still run people over. Alternative fuels would have zero impact on automotive accidents: one doesn't drive less safely simply because the engine contains petroleum. If you're after a sin tax to compensate victims of road accidents, fine, but don't confuse it with environmental provisions.

Maybe a more sensible proposal would be to offer tax credits to companies that engage in such research, and (here we go again...) to promote free trade. If we're looking to the market to conduct the research, we have to allow it to do its job.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

This is irrelevant, at best. An electric car or one using green fuels, or one powered by magic pixie dust, can still run people over. Alternative fuels would have zero impact on automotive accidents: one doesn't drive less safely simply because the engine contains petroleum. If you're after a sin tax to compensate victims of road accidents, fine, but don't confuse it with environmental provisions.
It was not the best of examples to pick, we ruefully concur, however we wished to be indicative and yet not get drawn into yet another imponderable argument about the costs of pollution. Cleaning bills might perhaps have been a less contentious choice, but even then we could see pointless side-track arguments springing up.

(OOC: you wouldn't believe the cost of sand-blasting a Cambridge college's exterior of accumulated exhaust fumes. Even amortised over a decade, it's a significant amount.)

Maybe a more sensible proposal would be to offer tax credits to companies that engage in such research, and (here we go again...) to promote free trade. If we're looking to the market to conduct the research, we have to allow it to do its job.

Personally we aren't looking to the market to conduct the research, since it rarely seems to bother without obvious short-term gains in view. At least with this proposal the industry is supposed to be considering the problem, though the honoured representative from Cobdenia has already demonstrated how little comfort that is.

It was not the best of examples to pick, we ruefully concur, however we wished to be indicative and yet not get drawn into yet another imponderable argument about the costs of pollution. Cleaning bills might perhaps have been a less contentious choice, but even then we could see pointless side-track arguments springing up.
Right, but pollution is not related to road accidents; confusing environmental measures with safety ones is only likely to count against you. I'm not denying either the environmental or the safety effects of cars: I'm suggesting the two aren't related, and hence it makes no sense for them to overlap in an environmental tax.
Personally we aren't looking to the market to conduct the research, since it rarely seems to bother without obvious short-term gains in view. At least with this proposal the industry is supposed to be considering the problem, though the honoured representative from Cobdenia has already demonstrated how little comfort that is.
But yet again, it is in the interests of companies to do this research: there's so obviously a market for it. Furthermore, petroleum use is going to decrease, either because supplies run low or because it's increasingly regulated: without it, cars won't go, so car manufacturers will be stuck. Economic rationality would suggest they will do the research: adopting a combative attitude to them is not going to get anything done.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Right, but pollution is not related to road accidents; confusing environmental measures with safety ones is only likely to count against you. I'm not denying either the environmental or the safety effects of cars: I'm suggesting the two aren't related, and hence it makes no sense for them to overlap in an environmental tax.

Quite so, but we are getting away from our original point, which was not in fact to do with environmental taxation. All we wished to demonstrate was that automobile use brings with it considerable costs that the industry does not currently bear. In that light, the Ambassador of Mauribritania's pleading that the industry cannot afford to spend 1% of its profits on research into alternative fuel sources does not impress us. Indeed, Ambassador Madison, you have made persuasive arguments that a sensible automobile industry should be ploughing a great deal more than that into the research!

Quite so, but we are getting away from our original point, which was not in fact to do with environmental taxation. All we wished to demonstrate was that automobile use brings with it considerable costs that the industry does not currently bear. In that light, the Ambassador of Mauribritania's pleading that the industry cannot afford to spend 1% of its profits on research into alternative fuel sources does not impress us. Indeed, Ambassador Madison, you have made persuasive arguments that a sensible automobile industry should be ploughing a great deal more than that into the research!

Should be perhaps, but the decision to do so shouldn't be forced on the industry by this body.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Quite so, but we are getting away from our original point, which was not in fact to do with environmental taxation. All we wished to demonstrate was that automobile use brings with it considerable costs that the industry does not currently bear. In that light, the Ambassador of Mauribritania's pleading that the industry cannot afford to spend 1% of its profits on research into alternative fuel sources does not impress us. Indeed, Ambassador Madison, you have made persuasive arguments that a sensible automobile industry should be ploughing a great deal more than that into the research!
First, I have to admit I'm not our ambassador. He's...eh, somewhere round the back.

Second, it's surely about purpose. I doubt they can afford 1% of their profits investing in super-comfy chairs for their staff; I doubt they can't 1% for alternative fuel research. So in that I agree, but it's the parallel move to accidents I dislike. You stated '1% begins to look like a pathetic tax'. But there is nothing in the original resolution or in the repeal to suggest that over and above that tax, safety measures can't be adopted. You could legally require companies to invest 10% of their profits in accident mitigation technology. The purpose of the 1% 'tax' is not to mitigate accidents, so it makes no sense to corollate the two.

You're right, though, that we've strayed so far from the original point as to be worthless. And I'll note that, as in the other thread, the author hasn't returned any response to the comments offered, so we're probably doubly wasting our breath.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

It's so easy to spend other people's money when you have no accountability yourself.

Welcome to the UN. You'll fit right in.


Thank you i think....

Richard Gizard Foreign Minster and U.N. Ambassador for New Cariba

First, I have to admit I'm not our ambassador. He's...eh, somewhere round the back.

Second, it's surely about purpose. I doubt they can afford 1% of their profits investing in super-comfy chairs for their staff; I doubt they can't 1% for alternative fuel research. So in that I agree, but it's the parallel move to accidents I dislike. You stated '1% begins to look like a pathetic tax'. But there is nothing in the original resolution or in the repeal to suggest that over and above that tax, safety measures can't be adopted. You could legally require companies to invest 10% of their profits in accident mitigation technology. The purpose of the 1% 'tax' is not to mitigate accidents, so it makes no sense to corollate the two.

You're right, though, that we've strayed so far from the original point as to be worthless. And I'll note that, as in the other thread, the author hasn't returned any response to the comments offered, so we're probably doubly wasting our breath.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

and to be on semi on topic i agree with you Mr. Madison

Richard Gizard Foreign Minster and U.N. Ambassador for New Cariba