NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a bill Poodledomism and I co-authored:
The threat of Global Warming and environmental and human degradation is growing, approaching, and affecting us more than we could have ever imagined. As corporate pollution is creating a very large amount of our air pollution, it is necessary that pollution be dramatically cut, therefore this bill does the following:

ESTABLISHES the Clean Air Supervision Committee (CASC) as a branch of the UNEA (United Nations Environmental Agency) as established in U.N Resolution 217.

-The CASC serves the following purposes:
# Setting yearly progressively higher standards, limiting emissions based on their threat and damage to the environment and humanity
# Ensuring that companies and their affiliated factories stay under or equal to the set limit for the year by the deadlines
# Ensuring that the companies and their respective home nations tax and punish the companies accordingly to their post-deadline offenses of this bill.
# Ensuring that the tax monies from companies that commit these offenses go to organizations and scientists dedicated to environmental purposes, (i.e. Alternative Energy Technology, Lower Emission Factory Technology)
# Overseeing the trading system described below.
# Negotiates allowing companies to start up after shut down based on agreements of future compliance and fines.

The trading system shall exist as described below:

This trade system awards credits to companies that are under the limit, and these companies may sell these credits to other companies that are over the limit. If a company collects enough credits, then they will not suffer from taxes due to non-compliance. The CASC will also put a value to each credit to make the trade system profitable for companies under the limit. The CASC, at its discretion, allow companies to support projects that cut back on emissions in other ways, including the planting of trees (limited or not allowed in some parts, also regulation on acceptable types of trees), getting their employees to drive clean automobiles or take public transit, and running their properties on clean energy. Companies are also allowed to sell their credits to other companies that are not on track to be in compliance by the deadlines.

(i.e. Company A spews, 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the air per year, being, 1,000 tons over the limit. Companies B and C, in the same industry as Company A, spew zero tons of SO2 each year, and each earn 1,000 credits. Company A can buy all the credits from companies B and C, putting company A at 2,000 credits and enabling them to avoid making any changes to the amount they pollute for the next 2 years.)


REQUIRES that six months into each calendar year, companies have to enter compliance with the yearly standards set by the CASC or have offset their emissions enough to bring them under net pollution levels

PUNISHES companies that do not comply or earn enough credits by: taxing the companies 10% of their income on a first offense, 20% on a second offense, and on a third offense shuts down the company.
Poodledomism and I consider this bill finished. We were looking for some constructive feedback about the bill. After that, we will post it in the UN proposals.

This Proposal is illegal. This clause...PUNISHES companies that do not comply or earn enough credits by: taxing the companies 10% of their income on a first offense, 20% on a second offense, and on a third offense shuts down the company....runs afoul of Representation in Taxation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129), which states:2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations:

(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, and

(b) the determination of rate, general type (progressive, flat, etc.) and specific application of such taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

Despite the fact that this proposal contradicts United Nations Resolution #128, the Narnian Council believes that this could have definitely been a beneficial piece of legislation for the UN.

There are other concerns that we have with the Clean Air Act - however, there would be little point in bringing these up until the problem (that the Most Glorious Hack referred to) is addressed.

In spite of this: we applaud Existing Reality and Poodledomism for this notable and worthy cause.

replace the word tax with fine and it should be ok.

but to make it completely legal, the confiscated monies should not be re invested, but perhaps held until the companies rectify their evil earth killing ways, and returned to them.

this would act as both punishment and incentive.

okay, thanks for telling us that thats illegal, I suppose we could say "Fines 10% of the companies total income"

but I would not give the money back because theres enough incentive in not losing your money, and coming in compliance early gets you extra credits which are incentive.

Plus incentive should not be given for NOT breaking a law

So we will change the word "taxes" to "fines." That should remove the contradiction to UNR #128, right?

In addition: The Narnian Council, you said that, while you supported the bill, you had some little problems with it. What are these little problems?

The People of Mephras applaud the efforts of your proposal. We as an environmentally conscious nation already attempt to do such things, and feel this would be beneficial for the world. However, we realize that often nations are extremely protective of their business rights, and try to keep regulation to a minimum. We fear such strong regulatory language might drive nations away from supporting such a proposal.

Spring Lily
UN Ambassador Principality of Mephras

Puglaisium is leaning in favour of this resolution, but wonders if businesses will have to pay tax or fees or buy credits on the excess sulfur dioxide gas they create but burry underground beneath the bedrock? Because, technically that gas does not dirty the air, but it is still produced.

The Always Right and Honourable Joel Wienstien,
Minister of the Evironment

OOC:Isn't this also illegal for RL references, r.e. Global Warming?


IC:

Just because the UN has authoritatively come out in support of clean water does not mean that is now time to go on a crusade of hippiness, despite the good marijuana that is commonly associated with such movements.

Nay, we supported the Rubinans' bill because it was both non-intrusive and sensible; this proposal is neither. Though clean air is a goal, this proposal goes much too far. The entire enforcement clause smacks of fascism; seizing the legitimate assets of a company and then shutting it down. The possibilities for corruption are amazing.

Although we must admit this is a novel way to fund the UN by means of corporate asset seizure, the entire adventure is reprehensible to us.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

We're concerned that the Clean Air Act doesn't specify some much-needed details:

(Assuming that the word 'taxes' will be replaced by 'fines' - in answer to your question, yes, this change will prevent the Clean Air Act from running afoul of Resolution #128)

If a company collects enough credits, then they will not suffer from taxes due to non-compliance.

Is there a set amount of credits to be collected in order to avoid fines due to non-compliance, or will the CASC allow for fluctuation? What amount is 'enough credits'?

Can companies use their own credits? (i.e. collects credits by staying within the guidelines, then deciding to practice non-compliance under the protection of their recently acquired credits? - thus avoiding the cost of purchasing credits).

~ Lord Chancellor Luke Bonanno

OOC:Isn't this also illegal for RL references, r.e. Global Warming?That's fine.

for those of you who like the idea but think it needs some revising why dont you copy and paste a copy in here that would be acceptable for you

I would suggest that insted of a percent fine just slap a huge monetary fine on companies that fails to comply. People-Of-The-Forest supports this proposel because of its attempt to protect the enviroment.

(spelling is not one of the most taught subjcts in People-Of-The-Forest schools....i think are posts show this just a little)

Add the necessary changes and it's fine.

For those who are wondering: In summary, emissions trading allows companies which are under the limit to "sell" their extra tonnage to other corporations which are over the limit, for a premium. I think that is a fair summary, and I will swap that in the explanation for the final bill.

Also, we will leave it up to the CASC to decide what companies can or cannot do, other than trading, to bring themselves under the limit.

(i.e. Company A spews, 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the air per year, being, 1,000 tons over the limit. Companies B and C, in the same industry as Company A, spew zero tons of SO2 each year, and each earn 1,000 credits. Company A can buy all the credits from companies B and C, putting company A at 2,000 credits and enabling them to avoid making any changes to the amount they pollute for the next 2 years.)The idea here as we see it is to stop polution thus why are we trading it around.. Today you pass out so much gas tomorrow I can and next day somebody else will. If Company B and C can for a year pass no gas then fix Company A have them buy the process from B and C to stop passing gas... this would make for a cleaner world. As here you have indicated the process exists so why not make it available to all for the betterment of all.. rather than try to control who polutes on what day... just stop them all from polutiing where it possible as here stated... since B and C are doing something right and can stop it... fines could be used to help A come up to where B and C are producing no gas..... by paying for installation of the gas reduction process for A.. in other words if A won't buy it then take the funds and buy it for them.... don't let them buy credits as then they will be passing twice as much after they buy off B and C and D and E... who produce no gas...

Fulla Gasman,
Minister of Hotair,
CEO, Something

A note here also is SO2 a polution problem for all member nations... as to some H2O is more a problem than SO2 thus another use of the fines would be to help bottle the SO2 or H2O and ship it where it will benifit folks rather than polute areas. Thus turning it into a profitable industry to make SO2 or H2O rather than close the makers down..

Crazac Hedloza,
Miniser of Minor Things

Actually, I don't need to do that, because there's an economic incentive for Company A to pollute less, as they can sell credits to others over the limit. We wouldn't need to do any of what you said. Once you start a trading process, everything works out on its own.

If I may use a real world example: The 1992 Clean Air Act, under President George H. W. Bush, implemented a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions. That brought SO2 emissions 22% under federal regulations, meanwhile compliance costs were 75% less than the EPA had originally predicted.