NationStates Jolt Archive

Cancel Out Our Carbon Impact
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Karkaria

Description: We hereby demand that all members reduce their net carbon dioxide emissions. Nations do not need to reduce actual emissions, they only need to cancel out the emissions they are producing. All nations whose gross domestic product in the lower thirty percent are merely asked to not increase their emissions. Nations in the highest forty percent are required to reduce emissions by thirty percent by the end of every year. Finally, all nations in the median not listed above are required to reduce their emissions by ten percent every year.

Approvals: 28 (Jamesingtonland, WZ Forums, Living Rights, Derbb, Santa Maria De La Loma, Mungaia, ARC Captains, Alpacadom, Greal, Puerto Gris, TripleKo, Arturo the beaner, DSniper, Birdopia, Phalanxion, Manussa, Txiniamagna, SandBirchland, Tom Hagen, Tranquilland, Sydenham Village, What the crappy fish2, Fatir, Balkasnia, Daruc, Quazackechubezistan, Volturi, Haneastic)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 83 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jun 13 2007









please show your support, add your vote before Jun 13.

Demand? Surely, you must be joking.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

ok, 'demand' is a bad use of the word, but it doesn't affect the meaning of the proposal and it's not a reason not to vote for it. Making it a resolution wouldn't make it binding (until it is ratified), so why not vote for it?

ok, 'demand' is a bad use of the word, but it doesn't affect the meaning of the proposal and it's not a reason not to vote for it. Making it a resolution wouldn't make it binding (until it is ratified), so why not vote for it?

Because it's fluffy nonsense. The "demand" bit is merely icing on the crap -- I mean, cake.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I'll admit the wording is bad, but the meaning is exactly what I intended it to be. AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T CLARIFIED YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSAL!!!!

Because it's fluffy nonsense.

This is the reason, I believe.

It's liberal environmentalist crud. And I'm not voting for it.

That, and it wasn't even presented to us before submission, which is considered good form.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

OOC: I think use of "We" constitutes a branding violation, which would invalidate the whole thing anyway. I could be wrong, though.

Making it a resolution wouldn't make it binding (until it is ratified), so why not vote for it? Ok, proposals become resolutions when they've been voted on by the whole UN membership and come out with more "FOR" votes than "AGAINST", so making it a resolution WOULD make it binding. Secondly, since when do we 'ratify' things? I've never heard of a single thing being ratified. If you meant "proposal" instead of "resolution" and "voted into law" instead of "ratified" then I see what you mean, but you need to get your terms straight or you risk being completely misunderstood (see above).

1. If you look at the resolution up for vote thing it says "No Resolution up for vote now". So I concluded that a proposal becomes a resolution in this phase, but obviously i'm wrong, so I'm sorry for my words, but you knew what i meant! (run-ons are fun)

2.

It's liberal environmentalist crud. And I'm not voting for it.

How is enviromentalism liberal? I don't mean to use real world examples, but Bush himself has even accepted global warming as real! It's not a political issue, unless you consider a breathable atmosphere political. The U.S. and Austrailia are the only nations in the world that treat it like one, and last year Austrailia radically changed their stance on the enviromentalism. This is supposed to be a game of international politics, but you seem to be restrained to your America views.

3.
That, and it wasn't even presented to us before submission, which is considered good form.
I did propose this in the forums first. See 'Greener World Resolution.' (And yes it's misnamed aswell) I finished an updated version of it and I was happy enough with the results that I went ahead and proposed it. If it seems unfinished don't vote, but please clarify what the issue is so I can improve it!

We hereby demand that all members reduce their net carbon dioxide emissions.Is this where I make a joke about carbon dioxide nets and how we don't make any, so we don't have any emissions to reduce?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Please, Pejorative. Isn't this proposal a bad enough joke on its own?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I'm pretty sure you can't have a proposal like this: they have to have an equal effect on member nations.

Also, I really really advise you to read UN Resolutions #71, Sustainable Energy Sources, #72, Reduction of greenhouse gases, and #126, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, because you appear totally impervious to the fact we are already committed to reducing carbon emissions.

It is not feasible for a nation to reduce it's output by 30% a year unless it's soon to return to a hunter-gatherer society and suffer massive population loss. This won't pass, and if it does, it will be repealed (and if by some amazing chance it does not, I'll be lopping off quite a bit of real estate from the soon to be neolithic members of the UN >_>)

I don't mean to use real world examples, but Bush himself has even accepted global warming as real! It's not a political issue, unless you consider a breathable atmosphere political. The U.S. and Austrailia are the only nations in the world that treat it like one, and last year Austrailia radically changed their stance on the enviromentalism. This is supposed to be a game of international politics,

OOC: It's still an imaginary game. And considering that we're in an imaginary game, you can't necessarily prove that carbon dioxide emissions are a problem, especially since some of my nations are located on planets some 500 lightyears from Earth.

but you seem to be restrained to your America views.

OOC: A problem you see? My views are fine. Thanks for your concern.

Is this where I make a joke about carbon dioxide nets and how we don't make any, so we don't have any emissions to reduce?



Zyrwick doesn't make carbon dioxide nets either. Further while we are in favor of environmentally friendly development there are already resolutions written on this topic. This proposal is a waste of the UN's time. Not to mention a few other things.

Incidentally, Zyrwickians do not like being demanded to do anything, and we will almost out of hand reject any proposal that uses the phraseology of "Demands: X, Y, Z".

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador

OOC: I think use of "We" constitutes a branding violation, which would invalidate the whole thing anyway. I could be wrong, though.
* ooc: I'm pretty sure you're wrong. "We" could reasonably be interpreted as short form for "We, the United Nations" *

"We hereby demand that all members reduce their net carbon dioxide emissions."

Resolutions shouldn't demand but that's a nit pick.

"Nations do not need to reduce actual emissions, they only need to cancel out the emissions they are producing."

:confused: "cancel out?"

"All nations whose gross domestic product in the lower thirty percent are merely asked to not increase their emissions. Nations in the highest forty percent are required to reduce emissions by thirty percent by the end of every year. Finally, all nations in the median not listed above are required to reduce their emissions by ten percent every year."

I noticed it's GDP and not GDP per capita. Old nations with large populations will have more GDP than young nations with small populations even though the smaller nation may be more economically efficient and powerful on a per capita basis. More over just because you have a high GDP doesn't mean you are a carbon emitter and you can afford to reduce your emissions as required. In fact if you are a very low emitter, going an additional 30% might be vastly expensive compared to a high emitter because they probably have already done the cheep things to reduce carbon.

So let's see, eventually a nation will develop a zero carbon emission system. But they will still be required to reduce by 30% The only thing left is people, so let' kill 30% of the people every year until they get to the median level (difficult as all UN nations are doing the same thing) where they only kill 10% of their people every year. Can we say this is a very dangerous proposal?

And puppies and kittens. We'll have to eliminate them, too, since they also produce carbon dioxide.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

"Nations do not need to reduce actual emissions, they only need to cancel out the emissions they are producing."

:confused: "cancel out?"
Extracting atmospheric CO2 and storing it somehow, say in big tanks down disused coal mines.

(OOC: it's becoming a popular enough idea in political circles that someone with an industrial chemistry background must have looked at it by now. I haven't heard any howls of derision backed up by actual arguments, so while I'm personally sceptical, it seems to be a plausible option.)

Despite representing a liberal environmentalistic nation, I have to agree that this is not a goer. The targets are much to difficult to be realistically achievable, and the differential targetting is legally iffy.

Extracting atmospheric CO2 and storing it somehow, say in big tanks down disused coal mines.Well, that or buying "carbon credits", I guess.

Oh I get it, we employ "global freezing" to cool the ocean's waters and allow them to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.

OOC: I seem to recall a video that claimed the CO2/Global temperature relationship was in fact reversed and that CO2 rises as a result of global warming (not vice versa) because warmer ocean waters release a whole lot of CO2, in fact they release more CO2 than man generates. The argument is that reducing global warming through the use of artifical cosmic rays to stimulate cloud formation would lower global ocean temperatures and reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. Who is to say they are not right, especially in Nation States?

In any event this resolution isn't really workable as Gobbannium states. More over even in the real world the European carbon trade is falling flat and is being attacked by a number of environmental groups.

Cobdenia is currently producing a Carbon Dioxide-Sucker-Upperer, which when developed will suck out all the excess CO2 in the atmposhere and store it in small pickle jars, and sold as a health tonic. We're nearly there, we just need to get around the problem of the great big steam engine we use to power it putting out more CO2 the the Carbon Dioxide-Sucker-Upperer sucks in...

"Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
~Understudy to the Shazbotdom Deligate~

Cobdenia is currently producing a Carbon Dioxide-Sucker-Upperer, which when developed will suck out all the excess CO2 in the atmposhere and store it in small pickle jars, and sold as a health tonic. We're nearly there, we just need to get around the problem of the great big steam engine we use to power it putting out more CO2 the the Carbon Dioxide-Sucker-Upperer sucks in...

When you do figure it out, you can change your nation's motto to "Cobdenia Sucks!" ;)

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN