NationStates Jolt Archive


Draft for Repeal

Dosuun
19-07-2007, 21:45
The following is a draft of a proposal to repeal Resolution #39 Alternative Fuels (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029854&postcount=40):

The United Nations,

Applauding Resolution #39 for its intent to foster an atmosphere of hope for the future through the establishment of research into alternative fuels;

Acknowledging the importance of resource management and environmental conservation;

Further acknowledging the importance of scientific advancement and the practical application of scientific discoveries;

Recognizing the need for factual accuracy in resolutions;

Noting there is no proof of any impending socio-economic catastrophe caused by resource shortages;

Further noting that hydrogen gas does not exist unbound in great quantities naturally and does not produce more power than is consumed in its production requiring use of existing energy sources for generation, is difficult to store for long periods of time and transport over long distances, is highly flammable, and that the most cost-effective method of hydrogen production is through its removal from hydrocarbons which generates CO2;

Further noting that the production of alcoholic fuels (not expressly mentioned in the proposal but still considered an alternative fuel and therefore covered by it) often consumes more energy than is contained in the amount of alcohol-based fuel produced, often depletes crops for fuel production that would be better utilized and distributed as food to combat starvation around the world, and that increased use of farmland for fuel more quickly depletes soil driving demand for slash-and-burn techniques for land-acquisition in poorer nations contributing to the destruction of native flora;

Further noting that CO2 is not a free radical catalysts and does not interfere with the ionization of O2 or the formation of O3, more commonly referred to as Ozone and is thus neither a cause of depletion nor a threat to the Ozonosphere;

Seeking an opportunity to pass more accurate and effective legislation in replacement;

Hereby repeals UN Resolution #39 “Alternative Fuels”

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions would all be appreciated.
Laststandb
19-07-2007, 21:59
Great just the CO2 part suspect.
1) Why is it relevent? There is no mention of it
2) If it is, add a "while there are bad stuff to it"
Dosuun
19-07-2007, 22:10
Great just the CO2 part suspect.
1) Why is it relevent? There is no mention of it
2) If it is, add a "while there are bad stuff to it"
Could you elaborate?

I believe that what I states is relevent because only 2 products are produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons (commonly known as fossil fuels), Water and Carbon Dioxide. Neither pose any threat to the Ozonosphere. Also, depeletion of the ozonosphere does not cause global warming. This resolution aims to foster the production of hydrogen but does not specifiy a method for its product nor does it take into consideration the energy involved. This resolution is full of hope but seriously lacking in science and so I believe that it should be repealed and possibly replaced with more a more accurate resolution.
Laststandb
19-07-2007, 22:54
No where in the resolution does it say stuff about CO2.

I would add the above post to the resolution... (for clarification)

CO2 has harmful effects on the environment (global warming), ozone is not one of them. It seens like the reaple is doging the bad stuff while focusing attention on other stuff.
Temurdia
20-07-2007, 00:22
I actually had a resolution up recently also calling for the repeal of UNR39, though it did not make it to quorum. If anyone finds something in the proposal relevant to the current debate, feel free to copy-edit-past etc.; here goes:

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 the chemical substances known as freons and halons 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 REPEAL United Nations Resolution no. 39, Alternative Fuels.
Dosuun
20-07-2007, 00:56
Temurdia,

Thank you for that repeal. I will attempt to incorporate it into my next draft.
Gobbannium
20-07-2007, 02:00
My objections to your repeal are essentially the same as my objections to Temurdia's: you don't need to repeal it to put more effective legislation in place. Alternative Fuels has precisely one operative clause: requiring automobile industries to put 1% of profits into research into alternative fuels. That's it. Nothing in your repeal argument suggests that this is a barrier to anything you might actually have in mind.
Dosuun
20-07-2007, 03:35
But it does limit its speech to Hydrogen gas as an alternative fuel and while it is possible to use hydrogen gas as a fuel it is not practical because of what is involved in its generation, storage and transportation. Most cars produced in Dosuun use a Plutonium rod for roughly 6000 km worth of power and more is always being produced through exposure of depleted Uranium to neutron radiation.

I also do not think that the automobile industry need be the only entity pushed to create an alternative fuel. OOC: While there may be a depletion problem IRL there is not proof of one in NS.

Also, the scientific reasons outlined in this proposal are anything but scientific. The language is inaccurate and misleading.

I would propose as an alternative to this resolution a research organization be formed to examine potential alternative power sources and their potential for widespread use through cost-benefit analysis.
Temurdia
20-07-2007, 11:34
I see two central points in this issue:

- A new resolution going much further than UNR39 is necessary to address the environmental issues; and,
- UNR39 is ridden with errors to the extent that I'd call it a shame to keep it.

Preserving UNR39 would thus be unnecessary in the light of the implementation of a new resolution, and undesirable in the light of preserving the scientific credibility of the UN.
St Edmundan Antarctic
20-07-2007, 17:54
(OOC post)

I believe that what I states is relevent because only 2 products are produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons (commonly known as fossil fuels), Water and Carbon Dioxide. Neither pose any threat to the Ozonosphere.
That is theoretically true, although in practice some Nitrogen Oxides are also formed and those -- especially when released from the engines of airplanes that are flying close to the Ozone Layer -- do attack the Ozone... Whether these are formed by the combustion of nitrogenous impurities within the hydrocarbons, or just by the heat of the hydrocarbons' burning also igniting Ntirogen from the air -- which would presumably be the case if alternative fuels were used, too -- I'm not sure about...

Also, depeletion of the ozonosphere does not cause global warming.
Agreed.


Some other problems with Resolution #39 _

1. Does it even actually do anything itself, or just call for another resolution to do so? The wording of its concluding paragraph would probably be interpreted in the latter way if it was introduced today, but of course standards were lower back in the NSUN's early days...

2. Even if the environmental threat itself is trans-national enough for international legislation to be acceptable (and I'm basically willing to say that it is, despite my generally pro-NatSov views, despite the fact that there are some members of the UN whose nations are located on worlds of their own where their actions wouldn't affect any other nations' environments at all), why should it be the UN rather than the nations that determines how such research is to be funded?
(In fact, I think that any such specification about funding would be illegal, due to the resolution 'Representation In Taxation', if anybody tried including it in a new proposal nowadays...)

3. Placing the burden of this funding solely on the automobile-manufacturing industry is inherently unfair, given that any alternative fuels developed would presumably be used in other fields of activity too. This could be fixed by national laws that extended the burden to other industries too, of course, but -- looking at some UN debates, and General Assembly votes -- I have to wonder what proportion of the member-nations actually have governments intelligent enough to realise the fact...

4. Nations whose automobile-manufacturing works are state-owned could presumably organise their financial arrangements so that there were no "profits" to be taxed in this way, giving them a way around this resolution's requirements.

5. There's no scope provided for legally ending the requirement once a nation's industries have researched (or purchased from abroad) ways of developing suitable alternative fuels: As written, the tax on the automobile manufacturers would remain in place forever!

_________________________________________________________________

Oh, and about using Hydrogen as a fuel: I agree about the energy that would generally be needed to produce it, which means that it could never replace 'fossil fuels' completely (because, for example, each Hydrogen-fuelled power-station would require a higher-capacity station to produce its fuel ... unless you have the technology to strip-mine the stuff from your solar system's 'gas giant' planets & other suitable astronomical bodies.
However, for fuelling vehicles, the problems about transporting gaseous Hydrogen needn't rule it out: There's a possibility under development in RL called 'Hydrogen on demand, which uses another chemical reaction (such as the oxidation of powdered Boron...) to extract the Hydrogen from water -- which is, of course, quite safe & easy to transport -- where & when it's actually needed... with the Boron, or whatever else is used in that role, then probably regenerated from its oxide at centralised depots using mains electricity at those times of day when 'domestic' demands on the generating system are lowest...
Temurdia
20-07-2007, 22:08
Oh, and about using Hydrogen as a fuel: I agree about the energy that would generally be needed to produce it, which means that it could never replace 'fossil fuels' completely (because, for example, each Hydrogen-fuelled power-station would require a higher-capacity station to produce its fuel ... unless you have the technology to strip-mine the stuff from your solar system's 'gas giant' planets & other suitable astronomical bodies.

I believe that the technology to which the above quoted representative, and indeed most of the honoured debaters are referring, is rather hydrogen as an energy storage medium than hydrogen as an energy source, since the latter does involve nuclear fusion and is not a practical alternative to fossil fuels in most applications. However, hydrogen used for energy storage is an entirely different matter. To clarify the debate I shall here bring a short line-out of this and its associated technologies.

Energy from sources such as wind, sun, etc. are difficult to store as it is. But, if one uses that energy for electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, this hydrogen can be used in fuel cells essentially making the reaction of electrolysis the other way around. Electric energy is extracted, and the by-product is water. The hydrogen itself must be stored, and this can be done chemically. This technology is under development.

The great advantage of hydrogen is that the energy required for producing it can come from any source of electric power, be it permanent, nuclear, or fossil.


That is theoretically true, although in practice some Nitrogen Oxides are also formed and those -- especially when released from the engines of airplanes that are flying close to the Ozone Layer -- do attack the Ozone... Whether these are formed by the combustion of nitrogenous impurities within the hydrocarbons, or just by the heat of the hydrocarbons' burning also igniting Ntirogen from the air -- which would presumably be the case if alternative fuels were used, too -- I'm not sure about...

The nitrogen compounds that you refer to actually increase ozone concentration. Ozone is formed when dioxygen is heated to high temperatures, as it happens in welding flames or in lightning bolts. This is why one occasionally smells ozone during thunderstorms. It also happens in engines.

In any case, the ozone consuming contribution is negligible compared to the effect of CFCs.