NationStates Jolt Archive

Quite a lot of work has been done on this proposal since its original drafting, and it has now been submitted.

Repeal Alternative Fuels (UNR39)

We, the United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING that fossil fuels account for a significant part of global energy output in the form of electricity, heat, and transportation fuels,

CONCERNED about the long term harmful consequences of the widespread use of fossil fuels, regarding the environment due to the net emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, and economical and political stability due to the uneven geographical distribution of the natural resources upon which the production of fossil fuels is based,

COMMENDING the intention of United Nations Resolution 39 (Alternative Fuels, UNR39) to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and emissions caused by the use of such fuels,

ENCOURAGING the research into and use of non-fossil fuels including renewable energy sources and nuclear energy,

BELIEVING that such research should be financed, conducted, and implemented by governments, research institutions, industries, and other relevant entities, or in co-operation between such entities,

NOTING that a number of resolutions addressing the above mentioned issues have been adopted by the United Nations,

FURTHER NOTING that UNR39 refers to the combustion of fossil fuels as a factor in the depletion of the ozone layer, while this is generally held to be caused by halogens, the main sources of which are certain chemical substances known as haloalkanes unrelated to the use of fossil fuels,

FURTHER NOTING that UNR39 asserts a casual link between ozone depletion and global warming, while the latter is generally held to reduce the former,

CONCERNED that UNR39 does not target a number of important consumers of fossil energy sources, including the industry of electricity generation, the manufacturers of electronic or otherwise energy consuming items, or the energy consumption of industry and households in general,

FURTHER CONCERNED that the obligations placed upon the automobile industry by UNR39 may not cause significant reduction of fossil fuel dependence or carbon dioxide emissions,

FURTHER CONCERNED that microeconomic entities may suffer unnecessarily under the obligations laid down by UNR39 due to the absence of discrimination within these obligations, causing harm to developing nations in which such entities constitute a large part of the economic output,

Hereby REPEALS United Nations Resolution no. 39, Alternative Fuels.

OOC:

BELIEVING that such research should be financed, conducted, and implemented by governments, research institutions, industries, and other relevant entities, or in corporation between such entities,
"cooperation"

FURTHER CONCERNED that the obligations placed upon the auto mobile industry by UNR39 may not cause significant reduction of fossil fuel dependence or carbon dioxide emissions,
"automobile"

(If you used a spellchecker then it apparently had a rather more limited vocabulary than would have been necessary: I've used one that refused to recognise "cooperation" as a valid word...)

OOC:

(If you used a spellchecker then it apparently had a rather more limited vocabulary than would have been necessary: I've used one that refused to recognise "cooperation" as a valid word...)

OOC:
The Oxford English Dictionary recommends "automobile" and "co-operation", so I'll stick to those.

According to OED, "cooperation" is not a valid word :).

And for comparison purposes:


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing
Proposed by: Judaicland

Description: Whereas: Fossil fuels currently in use cause great pollution to our environment. Air pollution kills wildlife, adversely affects all nations’ populations, and is in fact a general nuisance. Despite the virtual elimination of the use of CFCs the ozone layers continues to evaporate due in large part to the continued use of environmentally damaging toxins such as fossil fuels. If the destruction of the ozone layer continues global warming will become an issue even if it isn’t as of now.

Whereas: Fossil fuels are controlled by a select few nations who by chance possess them in large quantities. This fact enables these nations to act upon a unique and potentially disastrous opportunity to wreak havoc on the world’s economy for their own benefit.

Whereas: Fossil fuels are in danger of becoming as extinct as the creatures that left them. Reserves are already becoming depleted and when the supply does run out the world will come to a halt and be thrust back into another stone age complete with utter chaos. In fact history has shown that deposits are finite. For example, until shortly after World War II Romania was one the largest producers of oil in the world and is now virtually dry.

Whereas: Alternative fuels such as hydrogen are clean with virtually no environmental side effects. Alternative fuels can be developed by any nation with the economy to do so and in fact even small nations with small economies can contribute due to the fact that they will only need as much to supply their population. Alternative fuels will also be cheaper and easier to produce so that a strong economy cannot control the entire energy market. The development of alternative fuels would avert the impending disaster and be a stable source of energy for possibly an infinite period of time.

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.

On the drafting side, the "CONCERNED" clause makes my head hurt. It's grammatically legal, but it's hard to read and I imagine it will put off most of those few of us who have read further than the title.

On the logic side, sorry but I just don't buy the arguments.

The majority of the proposal is either praising the principle of carbon reduction or pointing out errors of fact in the resolution's preamble. That's fine, but neither are reason enough to repeal: frankly, if I have to put up with having the pack of lies that is the Repeal of Right To Form Unions on the UN's lawbooks forever, I'm not inclined to let other people's pet factual peeves get them anywhere.

Only the last three clauses address the resolution's one and only operative clause, so let's take them one by one.

CONCERNED that UNR39 does not target a number of important consumers of fossil energy sources, including the industry of electricity generation, the manufacturers of electronic or otherwise energy consuming items, or the energy consumption of industry and households in general,
True, but neither does it block the targeting of them. Irrelevant, therefore.

FURTHER CONCERNED that the obligations placed upon the automobile industry by UNR39 may not cause significant reduction of fossil fuel dependence or carbon dioxide emissions,
True, but their absence will make the odds of a significant reduction of fossil fuel dependence or CO2 emissions much worse. Researching may not provide the answer, not researching definitely won't.

FURTHER CONCERNED that microeconomic entities may suffer unnecessarily under the obligations laid down by UNR39 due to the absence of discrimination within these obligations, causing harm to developing nations in which such entities constitute a large part of the economic output,
Excuse me? Redirecting 1% of profit for any automobile manufacturer will cause suffering? How, exactly?

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

And for comparison purposes:
On the drafting side, the "CONCERNED" clause makes my head hurt. It's grammatically legal, but it's hard to read and I imagine it will put off most of those few of us who have read further than the title.


One cannot be both concise and exact about such complex matters, and I prefer to be exact.



The majority of the proposal is either praising the principle of carbon reduction or pointing out errors of fact in the resolution's preamble. That's fine, but neither are reason enough to repeal: frankly, if I have to put up with having the pack of lies that is the Repeal of Right To Form Unions on the UN's lawbooks forever, I'm not inclined to let other people's pet factual peeves get them anywhere.


The arguments may not be perfect, but errors in other resolutions should motivate the repeal of those resolutions, not promote including errors in other resolutions.

The errors in UNR39 are not the reason for this repeal proposal. The principal motivation is that a very serious issue is addressed by measures with little or none of the effect intended. Obviously, if the proposal is adopted, a new resolution addressing the issue more seriously will have to be worded.

The errors are mentioned simply because they're there, and they demonstrate an almost frightening lack of knowledge about the topic. I wouldn't like people with such wrong assertions to legislate on my behalf.

If you're unhappy about the Right to Form Unions, then by all means propose a repeal. I might be inclined to support it; but that is, as I see it, not relevant in this context.


True, but neither does it block the targeting of them. Irrelevant, therefore.

While it does not block the targeting, it could potentially lead to the attitude that the issue has been addressed and need no further attention. That would be quite dangerous.


True, but their absence will make the odds of a significant reduction of fossil fuel dependence or CO2 emissions much worse. Researching may not provide the answer, not researching definitely won't.

I'm not advocating that no research should be done - quite the contrary. I believe that the burden of research should not be laid upon industry alone, let alone one specific industry. A future resolution replacing UNR39 should thus include a reasonable research obligation.


Excuse me? Redirecting 1% of profit for any automobile manufacturer will cause suffering? How, exactly?

By reducing economic growth in countries with weak economies and stagnating or negative economic growth. That's how.


Sorry, I just don't buy it.

That's your choice, though I hope that you and others, will consider the arguments here presented.



Sincerely,
Temurdian UN Representative and Secretary of Oat Meal Mining Infrastructure.

I started out from the position of happening to disagree with the author's assessment, but with no particular bee in my bonnet. The sheer quantity of straw men thrown up in this reply has definitely changed that.

One cannot be both concise and exact about such complex matters, and I prefer to be exact.
It's ironic that the problem is cause by using a concise grammatical construct confusingly, then.


The arguments may not be perfect, but errors in other resolutions should motivate the repeal of those resolutions, not promote including errors in other resolutions.
And where, precisely, did I argue that they should?

The errors in UNR39 are not the reason for this repeal proposal. The principal motivation is that a very serious issue is addressed by measures with little or none of the effect intended. Obviously, if the proposal is adopted, a new resolution addressing the issue more seriously will have to be worded.
Why wait? Seriously, if you regard the issue as very serious, you're going to have a mildly difficult time drawing up a proposal that does conflict with UNR 39. The one and only thing it does is require that the automobile industry puts a small amount of money into research. That's it. The only point at which you need to apply any thought whatsoever about UNR 39 would be if you tried raising a tax of your own.

The errors are mentioned simply because they're there, and they demonstrate an almost frightening lack of knowledge about the topic. I wouldn't like people with such wrong assertions to legislate on my behalf.
And as I said, that's fine but insufficient.

If you're unhappy about the Right to Form Unions, then by all means propose a repeal. I might be inclined to support it; but that is, as I see it, not relevant in this context.
NO NO NO NO FUCKING NO!

Ahem.

No. Now read what I wrote. I am not unhappy about the Right to Form Unions, I am unhappy about the recent Repeal of the Right to Form Unions. To call it a tissue of lies, half-truths, misdirections and deliberate misinterpretations is to be generous in attributing more than one half-truth to it. The words of that repeal, untrue as they are, are now on the UN statute book. There exists no mechanism for removing them; you can't repeal a repeal, it seems. While that farcical situation remains, I am not going to regard factual inaccuracies in non-operative clauses as grounds for repeal.

While it does not block the targeting, it could potentially lead to the attitude that the issue has been addressed and need no further attention. That would be quite dangerous.
Apart from having zero effect on future legislation, that is. You have evidently identified a form of "future attention", and it's not going to block you. Still irrelevant, therefore.

I'm not advocating that no research should be done - quite the contrary. I believe that the burden of research should not be laid upon industry alone, let alone one specific industry. A future resolution replacing UNR39 should thus include a reasonable research obligation.
What's preventing you from writing this replacement right now? UNR 39 isn't going to block you. It isn't even specific about how contributions are spent to achieve the research. As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping you from writing a strong resolution requiring serious research into alternative fuels is you.

Go on, shock me and actually write one.

By reducing economic growth in countries with weak economies and stagnating or negative economic growth. That's how.
I say again, 1%. Of profits, no less. The reduction of economic growth is negligable, and that's before you take into account the growth caused by the research itself. No, this doesn't fly at all.