NationStates Jolt Archive

Poodledomism and I wrote this bill a while ago and posted it here for public opinion and abuse:D. Since then, we have rewritten it and re-drafted. Here is our latest draft.

Co-authored by Poodledomism

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 activities amount for a very large percentage of our air pollution, it is necessary that such pollution be dramatically cut, therefore this bill does the following:

ESTABLISHES the Clean Air Supervision Committee (CASC) as a sister agency to 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, humanity, and any other way the CASC sees fit.
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 fine and punish the companies accordingly to their post-deadline offenses of this bill.
Ensuring that the fines from companies in violation of the regulations go to organizations and scientists dedicated to environmental purposes (i.e. Alternative Energy Technology, Lower Emission Factory Technology, helping developing nations develop on clean energy).
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 allows companies that are under the limit to "sell" their extra tonnage to other companies that are over the limit. If a company spreads its pollution over enough under-polluting companies, then they will not suffer from fines due to non-compliance. The CASC will also put a value to each ton of each specific pollutant based on environmental and human damage, cleanup cost, and any other dimensions the CASC sees fit. The CASC, at its discretion, will 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, running their properties on clean energy, and investing in clean energy in developing nations. 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. Company A can buy all of the extra tons from companies B and C, putting company A at 2,000 tons below regulations for the next 2 years 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: fining the companies 10% of their net profit on a first offense, 20% on a second offense, and progressively fines the company higher and higher amounts until the fifth offense, where the company is shut down.

Note: Previously, someone has commented that our reference to global warming is a real world reference. Previously, in our last thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537490), Hack indicated that it was just fine.

And I know that many of you have trouble understanding the trade system. That's okay, because it is a difficult concept to understand, and it took me some time to understand it too. For help, I suggest you look at the Wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading).

We recall that when it was presented prior and object to it based on this:

(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. Company A can buy all of the extra tons from companies B and C, putting company A at 2,000 tons below regulations and enabling them to avoid making any changes to the amount they pollute for the next 2 years.)

As by this you do nothing to change the amount of polutions going in just change who doing the poluting. As we said before if one company can reduce polutions to zero then fine the ones doing the poluting or make them buy the solutions to stop poluting from those that know how not to. Allowing Company A simply to buy polution credits from Company B or C; who is not poluting is stupid idea. As if both can send 2000 tons of whatever into air or water you will still end up with 4000 tons going into the air or water only Company A will be doing all the poluting.. Again if Company B can clean their act up why can't Company A... if they doing the same thing then they should not need to buy polution credits. If they have not learned to clean there process up then make them do it or stop them..... We don't need to keep dumping all these polutions into our air and water when it there is a process to end it or reduce it out there that is effective and being used. Proof of this in in your own example in that ***TWO** B and C Company had credits to sale because they doing it right and not poluting..... so why can't Company A come on line with these two....???

Companies B and C, in the same industry as Company A, spew zero tons

Also would assume that if they all have same 2000 ton limit then they producing the same or you need to relook at the credit system.. As a company say producing 200 may get 2000 limit but one producing 100 only needs 1000 not 2000 and one producing 50 only need 500 not all get 2000.. as I can produce 1 and make a killing saling my 2000 crdits. Probably more than make saling my 1 of whatever is making that is doing the poluting.


Onalunga DyAmeye
Minister of Health Cavirra

We're not sure we really understand this, so please allow us to think out loud. The author will please correct us if we're wrong....

Companies A and B both emit pollutants at the rate of 5000 tons per year. The new CASC sets a maximum limit of 4000 tons for next year. Company A operates in a nation where counter-pollution technology is readily avaiilable and it has plenty of capital to invest. It cuts its pollution to 3000 t/y. Company B doesn't have easy access to the needed technology and is financially strapped. They can't cut the emissions to the required level in one year. They're going to get hit with a fine. So they pay Company A (probably a bit less than the fine would be) to take on 1000 t/y of their emissions.

The overall pollution is cut by 2000 t/y. Company A gets some additional income which offsets a part of its counter-pollution cost. Company B gets an added year to work on its pollution problem. Unless there's something we don't understand here, this seems eminently sensible to us. It provides a financial incentive beyond avoidance of fines for some companies. It provides an alternative for companies that simply can't meet the new standards for economic or technological reasons. And it still cuts the amount of pollution emitted.

It also seems to us that this scheme, by providing a partial offset to the cost of pollution reduction, would promote development of counter-pollution technology.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

PUNISHES companies that do not comply or earn enough credits by: fining the companies 10% of their income on a first offense, 20% on a second offense, and progressively fines the company higher and higher amounts until the fifth offense, where the company is shut down.

New Sequoyah wishes to ask who would receive these fines, as well as who would collect them.

New Sequoyah finds this to be a measure that restricts our industry, and is based on flawed science. Global Warming can in no way be altered by human efforts; it is a cycle that the earth undergoes every so often. Currently, the hot topic is Global Warming; give it 20 or 30 years and it will be Global Cooling.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, (Ret.)
UN Ambassador from New Sequoyah

The Logopian nation generally supports initiatives that seek to improve the environments quality, yet we are not convinced of this particualr case.

(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. Company A can buy all of the extra tons from companies B and C, putting company A at 2,000 tons below regulations and enabling them to avoid making any changes to the amount they pollute for the next 2 years.)

I believe the math is wrong. If company A pollutes 2000 and is 1000 over the limit, that means that the limit is precisely 1000. If B and C pollute Zero, that means they are each 1000 below the limit. They couldn't each sell more than 1000. So, if A buys all the extra tonnes from B and C, they would be buying the right to pollute 2000. If they were polluting 2000 in the first place, then their purchase would put them at Zero, that is 1000 below limits, not the 2000 the example states.

As by this you do nothing to change the amount of polutions going in just change who doing the poluting.

We have to respectfully disagree with Minister DyAmeye. At first glance, it would appear that the proposal would change nothing. However we must ask the esteemed minister to consider that the proposed trade system would create a strong economic incentive for companies to stop polluting. We are not completely sure, be we are inclined to think that this indirect approach to the problem has a good chance of succeeding.

Setting yearly progressively higher standards, limiting emissions based on their threat and damage to the environment, humanity, and any other way the CASC sees fit.

As minister DyAmeye has already stated, the specific criteria that the CASC will use to decide limits should be more clearly defined. Furthermore, we can't agree with "and any other way the CASC sees fit". We will not support a resolution giving a UN agency that kind of power.

The CASC, at its discretion, will allow companies to support projects that cut back on emissions in other ways

I believe we are to understand that this projects would grant the company more credits, yet the draft really doesn't say so. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated.

On a final note, we'd be much more comfortable with the proposal if it were more specific as to how exactly would the CASC do all the ensuring stated in point 2,3, and 4.

New Sequoyah wishes to ask who would receive these fines, as well as who would collect them.

As per the same proposal, the fines would be received by "organizations and scientists dedicated to environmental purposes (i.e. Alternative Energy Technology, Lower Emission Factory Technology). "

..., and is based on flawed science. Global Warming can in no way be altered by human efforts; it is a cycle that the earth undergoes every so often.

For the sake of all of us, I hope that you are correct. I am of course no expert in the matter, but as as far as I know this is still a debated subject.

However, let us not get into a debate about global warming. It really is not so relevant to the proposal at hand. Regardles of global warming being caused by humans or not, clearly reducing the pollutants in the atmosphere is definitely a good thing. Global Warming is one way in which human emissions can hurt the environment.

hey guys, I didnt write the trading system or the example so ask existing reality about that

and in reference to global warming, if you dont think it is real that is ok, because im sure you agree that pollution is bad

also the fines would be to companies that violate the bill, they would be collected by the UN and given to the CASC

A grey-haired man with glasses approaches the podium. A younger man stands close by and translates.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8649/paatuanelderatuntx9.jpg

"Ladies, gentlemen, a brief moment of your time. I thank you for this opportunity, and bring you warm greetings from the sunny island of Los'vi, the new home of the Pa'atuan (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Pa%27atua) people. I am Voa Atuelevau, an ahigi, or elder, of the national Fono of Pa'atua. I speak on behalf of the Fono and my people.

In recent years, our homeland has been threatened by repeated flooding as the ocean level rises. Pa'atua is a single atoll, a circle, if you wish, of very small islands, on average a scant few centimetres above sea level. Climate change, and the ensuing rise of the ocean, is set to make Pa'atua uninhabitable. In addition to our land being constantly flooded, salination has made the ground virtually infertile to crops, killing off vital plant life. Ours is a subsistence lifestyle; we rely heavily on our natural surroundings and on small-scale, subsistence agriculture.

Scientific consensus established that Pa'atua would be completely uninhabitable within the next thirty years - this generation. Thanks to the immense generosity of the people and government of Alfegos, we have been resettled on the Alfegan island of Los'vi. But we have lost our land. The land which our ancestors handed down to each extended family. Land ownership was established through wahasaka -that is, genealogies-, knowledge of local history, knowledge of the land. So our culture, our customs, our law, our history, our way of life... all have been utterly disrupted.

Ladies and gentlemen, I beg your indulgence a few moments longer. Nobody -except, perhaps, the most bald-faced hypocrite- would ever claim that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the climate and the environment. Scientific consensus exists on that point. Any debate has moved on from whether climate change is a reality to the issue of how to cope with it. I am sure you can all agree that pollution is a problem, and that humanity's effect on the climate and the environment are a problem.

The proposal at hand may require some small adjustments; I entrust it to the wisdom of this Assembly. But I call upon you all to bear the fundamental importance of this issue in mind. The world is turning to this Assembly, expecting you, distinguished representatives, to act for the betterment of the peoples you represent.

We do not wish to see any other nation, any other people, suffer the same fate as we Pa'atuans.

I thank you sincerely."

[Voice of Mod]
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 text in red makes this a House Of Cards violation. It's an easy fix, though. Change the red text to "as a sister agency to", and then it's no longer dependent on Res 217 not being repealed.


[IC]
10% of income on a first offense is incredibly punitive. In a lot of cases, that's going to be as much as 200% of net profits. You kill my profits, and I'll simply close. There's no income stream to correct whatever problem the Committee thinks I have, so there's no way to fix it before the second offense. I'd just save time and fold up shop right away in that climate.

Make it a percentage of gross profits, and perhaps it would be acceptable to the business community. Leave it as is, and you'll have nations such as Frisbeeteria (an industrial oligarchy) counter-campaigning to all approving delegates.

(On second thought, we're not in the UN. We'd come out FOR it, as it would utterly destroy our competitors, while having zero impact on our own emissions strategy.)

I will respond to a bunch of people here.

Cavirra: Company A does not have to come in line with these two because of the trade system. However, it is economically beneficial to Company A to do so, as then they will not have to rely on companies B and C, and they could always get some profit by trading some of their excess "tonnage" to Company D. Thus, Company A has a strong desire to clean up their process and pollute less.

And, in part, you're right that this doesn't necessarily change the amount of pollution. If the cap of the cap-and-trade system is too loose, then there is no decrease in the amount of pollution, so the cap has to be tight, which is why environmental scientists will staff the CASC, not corporate figureheads or politicians.

Ausserland: You're precisely right. You obviously have a good understanding of cap-and-trade.

New Sequoyah: No, it doesn't restrict industry, it pressures yet also encourages companies to be creative about solving global warming, which is actually human-induced. Perhaps you would like to review what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)

To logopia: Well, yeah, I sort of messed up my calculations. Company A is below regulations for the next two years, not annually. I will change that.

And to Frisbeeteria:
Thank you for pointing out the "House of Cards" violation. We will fix that pronto. And the fact that we would be essentially draining more than the net profits of companies is a problem. As much as we hate companies that try to destroy the environment for monetary gains, we realize that is going to far. We will change it to fining the percentage of the net profits. Even so, that should be enough incentive for companies.

We would gently suggest that the authors drop the mention of Global Warming from the preamble to the proposal. As has been demonstrated in this thread already, some will seize on truth or otherwise of this phenomenon as a distraction from the laudible aims of the proposal, and the other elements of the preamble are quite strong enough to stand without the contentious words ever being uttered.

We also note that the proposal is vague to the point of silence as to what emissions are to come under the CASC's remit, which we find mildly alarming, and we have to agree with the delegation of Frisbeeteria that mandating the size of the fines in such a manner seems unwise.

We have an alternative suggestion to Frisbeteeria's. Don't create the CASC at all. Just assign its duties and functions to the UNEA. That avoids the House of Cards violation and you won't have to hear complaints about establishing "another useless committee".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I will respond to a bunch of people here.

Cavirra: Company A does not have to come in line with these two because of the trade system. However, it is economically beneficial to Company A to do so, as then they will not have to rely on companies B and C, and they could always get some profit by trading some of their excess "tonnage" to Company D. Thus, Company A has a strong desire to clean up their process and pollute less..
Then the question comes up if they all three A, B, and C are making the same product and thus using a process that polutes SO2 and two out of three produce zero,, Why can't all three produce zero? The process is there B and C have it so why not make A come in line and use B and C process and thus don't polute.

Also how do you set the limits on each company as say a company that produces 10 of a product shouldn't get the same credit limits as one that procuces 1000 of that product. Also how many company are you going to allow that produce this S02 polution you have A, B, and C, now say a D comes in... So I open Company E and F get my 1000 credits and only produce 1 of whatever thus zero polutions.. so have all those credits to sale.. plus at least one of the product just to keep getting those credits to sale to A or B or C who produce say 100 of whatever and thus polute more.

Again we don't see how this cleans up the air and water just passing credits around to allow more folks to come in and polute. What it needs to do is get all in line with Company B and C who are not poluting yet making the same as Company A who is poluting to much.


Onalunga DyAmeye
Minister of Health Cavirra

Then the question comes up if they all three A, B, and C are making the same product and thus using a process that polutes SO2 and two out of three produce zero,, Why can't all three produce zero? The process is there B and C have it so why not make A come in line and use B and C process and thus don't polute.

Just because two industries produce the same product doesn't mean that they use the same technology, operate under the same resource availability conditions, have the same amount of available capital, or are the same in a whole host of other ways. Please try to understand that this would apply to around 20,000 different nations whose industries operate under a wide variety of conditions. What may be very possible for one might be a practical impossibility for another, even if they produce the same product.

Again we don't see how this cleans up the air and water just passing credits around to allow more folks to come in and polute. What it needs to do is get all in line with Company B and C who are not poluting yet making the same as Company A who is poluting to much.

It appears that you're reading the portion of the resolution about the trade system, but ignoring the rest of its provisions. The increasingly stringent requirements set by the CASC would reduce the overall pollution, period. The trade system is a way of mitigating the damaging impact the requirements could have on some companies.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As I've commented on several previous proposals about environmental matters, why should this apply to those nations that exist on worlds of their own where their actions (no matter how polluting those might be on a "local" basis) could have no effects whatsoever on any other nations' environments?

Also, doesn't this contain a contradiction of the Fair Sentencing Act, as it makes punishing the companies at fault the responsibility of the nations in which they operate (instead of removing these cases from national jurisdiction) but then tries telling those nations' governments what punishments to impose?

Also, doesn't making any such credit-trading scheme work properly on an international basis really require banning nations from imposing taxes or tariffs (or other penalties) on the trades?

Ladies and gentlemen, I beg your indulgence a few moments longer. Nobody -except, perhaps, the most bald-faced hypocrite- would ever claim that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the climate and the environment. Scientific consensus exists on that point. Any debate has moved on from whether climate change is a reality to the issue of how to cope with it. I am sure you can all agree that pollution is a problem, and that humanity's effect on the climate and the environment are a problem.

New Sequoyah wishes to express it's deep regrets that Pa'atuan people have had to relocate due to this natural occurence of rising sea levels. However, "Scientific Consensus" does NOT equal Science, besides the fact that their is no consensus.

New Sequoyah: No, it doesn't restrict industry, it pressures yet also encourages companies to be creative about solving global warming, which is actually human-induced. Perhaps you would like to review what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)


Again, CONSENSUS does not equal SCIENCE; I as a meteorology student should know. New Sequoyah's scientists did not attend that conference, which was just a man-caused-Global-Warming party. No scientific consensus truly exists. Nothing finite little man can do will greatly effect climate change; in fact, any industrial restrictions will only harm industry with no real benefits.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, (ret.)
UN Ambassador from New Sequoyah

As I've commented on several previous proposals about environmental matters, why should this apply to those nations that exist on worlds of their own where their actions (no matter how polluting those might be on a "local" basis) could have no effects whatsoever on any other nations' environments?

Our answer would be twofold. First, the right of the UN to override national governments on purely national issues cannot be automatically discounted. Human rights violations in Logopia, for instance, wouldn't have a direct effect in any other nation, yet the UN rightly passes legislation overriding domestic policy. We maintain that the issue of protecting the environment is so important that the UN has the right to override national governments.

Second, we maintain there is no such thing a truly local environment, in the sense of it being a completely closed system. The consequences of enviromental destruction go beyond the natural ecology of a planet. The environment is ultimately the support for life and as so, of economy, society, and even politics. Damage to the enviornment has effects in all theses areas. This effects can in turn have truly international ramifications.

Also, doesn't this contain a contradiction of the Fair Sentencing Act ...

An excelent point, I agree that it seems to do so. I sincerely hope the author can solve this problem, or at least prove that it is in fact not a contradiction.

For the sake of clarity, FSA says:

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

Also, doesn't making any such credit-trading scheme work properly on an international basis really require banning nations from imposing taxes or tariffs (or other penalties) on the trades?

It is quite likely that the system would work better if there are no restrictions to the trade of credits. Imposing said restrictions would be profoundly detrimental to the industries in the countries that decided to do so. Those industries would be denied of the economic benefits of being in compliance, while still being subject to the fines the proposal would impose. We really have to ask; why would a nation want to impose those sorts of restricitions on the trade system?

Also, doesn't this contain a contradiction of the Fair Sentencing Act, as it makes punishing the companies at fault the responsibility of the nations in which they operate (instead of removing these cases from national jurisdiction) but then tries telling those nations' governments what punishments to impose?

No. The assessment of penalties for exceeding the pollution limits would be a matter of civil, not criminal law. The "Fair Sentencing Act" would only come into play if nations chose to make non-payment of the penalties a criminal act.

Also, doesn't making any such credit-trading scheme work properly on an international basis really require banning nations from imposing taxes or tariffs (or other penalties) on the trades?

We can't see how it would.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Just because two industries produce the same product doesn't mean that they use the same technology, operate under the same resource availability conditions, have the same amount of available capital, or are the same in a whole host of other ways. Please try to understand that this would apply to around 20,000 different nations whose industries operate under a wide variety of conditions. What may be very possible for one might be a practical impossibility for another, even if they produce the same product.So if all 20,000 produce product X that produces side polutions and 2/3 of them have developed the ability not to polute what is wrong with the other 1/3. It exists and then can be passed on to others. Here the question has been asked about what to do with fines.... yet nobody had said use it to get that 1/3 in line to produce zero polutions.



It appears that you're reading the portion of the resolution about the trade system, but ignoring the rest of its provisions. The increasingly stringent requirements set by the CASC would reduce the overall pollution, period. The trade system is a way of mitigating the damaging impact the requirements could have on some companies. I see nothing in here explaining beyond the example how credits will be given a company.. Thus opens the door for a company to open and produce product X at one per day and get same credits as comany that produces hundres per day... then saling his open credits to the other company... Thus no reduction in polutions being entered into water and air systems.

Also since they may operate differently to get the same results then who knows what side effects this may have. Here one considers SO2 as a polutant when other may consider H20 the polution.. and the S02 good for them and their world. Both possible side effects from producing the same product.

Would it not be better for all to produce the product where it would do the least damage or none. Let each nation look at what is safe for them and their people and the world they directly live in. Also would it not be better to ship the S02 or H20 polutions to where they do no harm, but work for the good of the place.

Cavirra, you're missing the entire point of cap-and-trade. Instead of legally forcing that 1/3 to get in line with the other 2/3, which oftentimes does not work, we give them an economic incentive to do so, which has a higher chance of working.

And as for credits, they are given on a tons-per-month basis.

And the UN sets the definition for what is as pollution. Remember, the CASC is staffed by environmental scientists and economists, thus they have knowledge and common sense so there will be no labeling of H2O as pollution.

And the problem with letting each nation look at what is safe for them and their people is that what is safe for them could very well damage the nation next door, or even a nation half a world apart. And the purpose is to keep these chemicals out of the air. True, I believe many air pollutants are good fertilizers for farms, but then they run off into drinking water and poison it, which is illegal under Water Quality + Conservation. In any case, they do not end up in the air, or less of it ends up in the air, which is our main goal for CO2 and, frankly, all pollutants.

And as for credits, they are given on a tons-per-month basis.So if I produce 200 tons I get credits for them and as long as keep it at 200 tons or below I'm withing limits.. So if I stop producing 100 tons I can sale those credits to another company so they can produce the 100 tons I didn't produce. So where is the gain in cleaning anything up 200 tons or sould say 400 tons with one company producing 100 tons giving another credits for 100 tons and they then produce 300 tons.

And the UN sets the definition for what is as pollution. Remember, the CASC is staffed by environmental scientists and economists, thus they have knowledge and common sense so there will be no labeling of H2O as pollution. You miss the point here as some worlds H20 is poison or like an acid to those that live on them so is a polution where S02 or something esle is not to them. We live in a diverse universe not just one single functing planet as has been stated in your reference to 20,000 nations doing things differently; they also face different sources of polutants.

And the problem with letting each nation look at what is safe for them and their people is that what is safe for them could very well damage the nation next door, or even a nation half a world apart. And the purpose is to keep these chemicals out of the air. True, I believe many air pollutants are good fertilizers for farms, but then they run off into drinking water and poison it, which is illegal under Water Quality + Conservation. In any case, they do not end up in the air, or less of it ends up in the air, which is our main goal for CO2 and, frankly, all pollutants.So if H20 kills my nations inhabitants I should allow the nations around mine to dump it on us. As this indicates you are not taking into consideration the differences in life forms that inhabit this universe. Thus may expose some member nations to dangers by allowing others to produce things they may find safe that is not to other members. I see this a faulty system as indictes the individual nations have no input and thus can't protect their own citizens as what will be will be dictated by the UN this CASC. They from what see here hold the interest of the majority and will forget the little guy or those not in the 'in crowd'.... non UN members will have no say here and will still be polutiing or being dumped on. As we think that if you can't live in a place then whatever goods made their serve no cause. Poluting the air and water at any level when it can be stopped is wrong and you have shown that it can be stopped in your example as 2/3 have found the way... so why let 1/3 kill off the majority..? as that what is going to happen here.

So if I produce 200 tons I get credits for them
Actually, as you later point out, you get credits for not producing them.

[...] and as long as keep it at 200 tons or below I'm withing limits.. So if I stop producing 100 tons I can sale those credits to another company so they can produce the 100 tons I didn't produce.
Correct.

So where is the gain in cleaning anything up 200 tons or sould say 400 tons with one company producing 100 tons giving another credits for 100 tons and they then produce 300 tons.
The gain is that the 200 ton limit reduces over time. The proposal doesn't say how much it reduces by for exactly the same reasons that it doesn't say what the limit is in the first place; that's for the experts to decide. Suppose for the sake of example they decide to lower the limit by 10 tons a year.

In the first year, you produce 100 tons of emissions, sell 100 tons of credit for a tidy profit, and your neighbour produces 300 tons of emissions without getting fined. The total emissions between the two of your are therefore 400 tons.

In the second year, your 100 tons of emissions leave you only 90 tons of credit (so less profit), and your neighbour can only produce 280 tons before the authorities take action. The total emissions are therefore 380 tons between the two of you.

By the eleventh year, your 100 tons of emissions leave you with no credits to sell, and your neighbour has to reduce his emissions to 100 tons also to avoid fines, giving a total of 200 tons.

Obviously a strictly linear situation like this is unrealistic, but it does allow us to draw several conclusions. The first is that people well under the emissions limits should not sit on their laurels; the limits will eventually catch up with them, and the income from their credits will eventually dry up, so they had better not have budgeted that as long-term revenue (OOC: which everyone almost always does, sigh). The second, as many have previously pointed out, is that buying credits, a solution far too many industries are prepared to live with, is made only a short-term solution, since the supply of credits is both finite and shrinking.

By the eleventh year, your 100 tons of emissions leave you with no credits to sell, and your neighbour has to reduce his emissions to 100 tons also to avoid fines, giving a total of 200 tons.
So how many river and forest do we destory in this eleven years when we can make the company that polutes the most reduce and instead of buying credits to keep poluting they can buy the procedures to stop it. As stated in the example two companies doing the same things produce no polutions thus the third company can do the same or be shut down. Add the fact this kills off wildlife as well of people living in areas where these companies polute. So what will it do to them in the eleven years it takes to bring this one company down to it's set limit of 200 and not 000 like the rest have been for the eleven years they saling credits to this other company to keep on poluting.

We need to stop it now not in eleven years if it is being done right by 2/3 then the other 1/3 can come on board or be stripped of their rights to produce whatever it is that is poluting.

We force folks to wear seatbelts and have air bags in cars and such as this why can't a company be forced to use a process that exists that don't polute. Here we have them buy credits so they don't 'have to wear the seat belts or put in air bags' getting us noplace. As funding would be best used to buy a cleaner process than pay fines so a bunch of fools can sit around and try and figure out what they will have to drinK and eat at a meeting on how to deal with all this. It simple if Company A can't reduce it polutions then Company A shuts down to a level where they only produce their limits then are given time to reduce those and if they don't they are shut down more. Company B and C can pick up the slack and probaly impliment their process and still produce 000 tons of polutions. If Company A can't come on line the shut them down.. don't give them a license to keep on killing.

Indeed more strict legislation that would have faster effects would not only be possible but desirable. We must agree with Cavirra on this. The scheme proposed by Existing Reality et al. is most definitely not the one and only nor probably the best solution to the problem of air pollution. We believe however, that is a step on the right direction. As so, we can't immediately discount it.

Furthermore, it is also important to consider the actual chances of a proposal has of passing. A legislation that only places stringent restrictions and fines on industry would most definitely be met with stauch opposition from indstrial minded nations. A legislation that also creates a economic incentive to stop pollution would be, in our opinion, much better received by those nations.

This is not to say that we would support this proposal in its current form. It definitely needs to address the practical shortcomings that have been pointed out here.

Well, in case you don't remember, Water Quality and Conservation prohibited dangerous pollution of water, so that means SO2 won't end up in our water. And, in case you forgot, the CASC has ultimate power in deciding how companies can and can't reduce their emissions beyond trading. The CASC is made up of environmental scientists who are knowledgeable, sensible, and well-educated, which means that companies wouldn't be able to just dump SO2 or other dangerous chemicals into rivers or wherever to clean up the atmosphere.

And as for the issue of other planets, the CASC has the power to reduce emissions in local zones, so that, while SO2 might be limited on Earth as a pollutant, H2O would be limited on another planet where it is a pollutant. Assuming humans could live on a planet where H2O is a pollutant or that ETI does, in fact, exist...

Also, one of the great things about cap-and-trade, and I can't stress this enough, is that there is an economic incentive for going far below the limits, as then you not only avoid the punishments, but you get to trade your extra space below regulations to someone else for money, which is profitable. Stay dirty and pay, go clean and profit.

Assuming humans could live on a planet where H2O is a pollutant or that ETI does, in fact, exist...Are you now saying that ETI don't exist in this universe as you need to come down to 'earth' or at least this one we are in now. As I and many others here are ETI not of the home planet of the UN and as it on a planet far from ours and many member nations that exist on other planets... As far as humans living on other planers they are doing that and have worked wonders to improve the living standards on many planets once thought would never be suitable for them sharing ideas and space with ETI from all over this universe.

We now see the real problem you don't believe we exist thus this is not written to consider us in it. However you will find that a good number of the UN members as well as those like myself live outside your world but take an active part in this universe that the UN covers. Or tries to but seems folks like you don't want to see that. Thus you focus on one world ideas when there is a large living universe out there with ETI in it that could help folks like you if you would just open your minds.

The fact that something exists, here a solution to produce zero polutions, and it not used is a real problem. As keep putting extensions on solving a problem only gives way to more problems. Think how many users will be effected by a polutant and not due to health issue ever have a chance to BUY a product procuded that gave off those polutions killing them. Thus in eleven years the company might be belly-up dying itself because it killed off all it's product users. Here we look at that Company as your planet where you so called humans are killing yourselves just prolonging your own death for greed.. you should have said 'keep dirty die; clean up live', as that where you headed.. the cold tomb... Old Garne saying 'humans leave warm womb crawling only to learn to walk a path to a cold tomb.. beware the walking human.'

Logopia=A legislation that also creates a economic incentive to stop pollution would be, in our opinion, much better received by those nations.What is the benifit of killing off your product user; as would it not be an incentive to find a way to keep them around and buying the product not killing them off or making them to sick.. Thus medical bills high so they can't afford your product unless it is a medical one to cure them of what you caused them to have by poluting their air and water.... and they probably still couldn't afford it due to can't work and earn an income to support family. So the INCENTIVE is there when you stop poluting people live longer have more time to do things like buy products a company produces.. Thus that company earns more and the Big Guys can have their bonus and not have to spend it on medical bills for his family or employees.

Greeneye Monstoria,
Cavirrian Space Agency

I have several concerns about this legislation (OoC: which would certainly have merit in RL; but not, perhaps, in NS)

1) Past tech nations won't have the technology to implement such anti-pollution methods. This could severely hamper both the technological and economic growth of such a nation. A pre-industrial nation would not be able to become industrial, as they may not be able to afford either the fine, nor the neccessity to purchase other credits and have profit's remain marginal (i.e. enough to keep them in the game). Tree planting, etc. may be impractical, and indeed in certain periods, non public transport would be less pollutative then public transport (e.g. 19th Century - horses are less pollutive then a steam locomotive)

2) The gradual reduction is also a problem. Take, for example, G l og. By the time that nation reaches the industrial revolution, the limit could well be ridiculously low.

3) Start up manufacturing firms may not have the economies of scale to implement anti-pollution controls, especially in area's where tree planting or other initiatives are dissallowed or otherwise impracticle

4) There is a huge, huge loophole which Cobdenia would have to exploit if this passes (for reason 1)

Unfortunately, I cannot see a way such circustances could be catered for in this resolution whilst retaining the general idea (excluding point 4, but I'm keeping that baby up my sleeve). Indeed, in the NS worlds, there is no evidence that there is an air pollution problem, or that some nation hasn't created an air pollution sucker-upperer which removes all nasties, etc.

His Excellency Sir Cyril G. M. R. C. O'M. A. DeD. von H. W. U.-G. B. S. M'B. V. MacLehose-Strangways-Jones III, KCRC, LOG
His Cobdenian Excellency's Permanent Representative to the United Nations

So how many river and forest do we destory in this eleven years when we can make the company that polutes the most reduce and instead of buying credits to keep poluting they can buy the procedures to stop it. As stated in the example two companies doing the same things produce no polutions thus the third company can do the same or be shut down. Add the fact this kills off wildlife as well of people living in areas where these companies polute. So what will it do to them in the eleven years it takes to bring this one company down to it's set limit of 200 and not 000 like the rest have been for the eleven years they saling credits to this other company to keep on poluting.

The honoured gentleman quite simply isn't listening to the facts placed before him by various distinguished speakers, and is resorting to shouting to provide proof by assertion. We are unwilling to waste more time on such a lost cause.

Cavirra is correct. A trade system such as the one being proposed will have little effect on pollution amounts in the long run; indeed, it provides an incentive for the egregious polluters to continue to pollute egregiously (provided they can find a willing non-polluting partner nation, or puppet nation).

We cannot support this proposal.

Cavirra is correct. A trade system such as the one being proposed will have little effect on pollution amounts in the long run; indeed, it provides an incentive for the egregious polluters to continue to pollute egregiously (provided they can find a willing non-polluting partner nation, or puppet nation).

On the contrary, Cavirra is incorrect. It is precisely in the long term that a trade system in a managed, shrinking market will affect pollution, and egregious polluters will pay dearly even before their mis-presumed immunity ceases to be.

That said, we don't actually like the proposal nearly as much as the Air Pollution Convention being discussed across the chamber.

It is precisely in the long term that a trade system in a managed, shrinking market will affect pollution, and egregious polluters will pay dearly even before their mis-presumed immunity ceases to be.
How long is this so called "long term" to be and how many will die before it works to stop polutants from being dumped on people? Thus it will not be a "shrinking market" unless you mean that is will because workers will not be around to work in a "market" or as buyers because something wasn't done to protect them sooner and they all died off or are not able to work.

Those egregious polluters will only be concerned about it if it hurts them and they use systems like this trade system to make sure they don't get hurt.

We are unwilling to waste more time on such a lost cause.We are sorry if you think this is a lost cause as we don't. As for the shouting we appoligize if we got a little loud when somebody suggested we don't exist.. As we do care about this issue since it effects us even if we are not in the UN we still live in this universe and poluting it harms us all in one way or another. Delaying a solution to keep folks getting rich is not going to work when the little guy who makes them rich dies off they will be the poor and have to do things for themselves. So where it the incenitive to do something now before the rich become poor with nobody around to put them up there?

Our answer would be twofold. First, the right of the UN to override national governments on purely national issues cannot be automatically discounted. Human rights violations in Logopia, for instance, wouldn't have a direct effect in any other nation, yet the UN rightly passes legislation overriding domestic policy. We maintain that the issue of protecting the environment is so important that the UN has the right to override national governments.

Ah. We have a basic difference in philosophies here. My nation's government believes that -- except in the case of the most fundamental 'sapient rights' -- the UN should restrict its imposition of binding legislation to those fields that inherently involve interactions between nations, and should generally keep out of those matters where the individual governments' decisions would have no direct effects on any nations other than their own ones.

Second, we maintain there is no such thing a truly local environment, in the sense of it being a completely closed system. The consequences of enviromental destruction go beyond the natural ecology of a planet. The environment is ultimately the support for life and as so, of economy, society, and even politics. Damage to the enviornment has effects in all theses areas. This effects can in turn have truly international ramifications.

But that argument would logically apply to "social" policies too, meaning that every field of government activity -- even such trivial-seeming matters as whether or not a nation's people would be allowed to wear orange hats ( Old NSUN joke... ) -- should be handled by the UN because of its potential (indirect) international ramifications... making national governments superfluous...

It is quite likely that the system would work better if there are no restrictions to the trade of credits. Imposing said restrictions would be profoundly detrimental to the industries in the countries that decided to do so. Those industries would be denied of the economic benefits of being in compliance, while still being subject to the fines the proposal would impose. We really have to ask; why would a nation want to impose those sorts of restricitions on the trade system?

It would be decidely foolish of those nations to follow such a policy, I agree, but looking at the actions of various governments (in both NS and RL) I see plenty of evidence for the use of foolish policies in the past and no reason to assume that this matter would necessarily be exempt from such decisions.
Especially if, for example, a Socialist-run government thought that it could place the burden of meeting those extra costs on the owners of private businesses rather than on their customers...

No. The assessment of penalties for exceeding the pollution limits would be a matter of civil, not criminal law. The "Fair Sentencing Act" would only come into play if nations chose to make non-payment of the penalties a criminal act.

Ahem. Although the preambulatory clauses of the FSA refer specifically to 'criminal' cases rather than to 'civil ones as well, the relevant operative clause (#2) makes no such distinction.

Also, doesn't making any such credit-trading scheme work properly on an international basis really require banning nations from imposing taxes or tariffs (or other penalties) on the trades?
We can't see how it would.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thank you, Ambassador Ahlman, you've just won me five marks. I bet my mission's Chief Cnicht that you or one of your colleagues would give me a response along those lines... ;)
Please note that I said "properly", rather than "at all": Whilst a credit-trading system would obviously still be workeable to some extent even with taxation imposed on some of the transactions involved, the imposition of such taxation by some but not all of the nations involved would surely be an added hindrance to any businesses within those nations that needed to buy the credits, would thus reduce the chance that the credits available would be bought by those firms that most needed -- rather than just wanted -- them, and would thus weaken this proposal's effectiveness.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

Esteemed Ambassador Devereux.

Thank you for the civil reply. I'll try to respond accordingly. Please allow me to address some of the points you make.

But that argument would logically apply to "social" policies too, meaning that every field of government activity -- even such trivial-seeming matters as whether or not a nation's people would be allowed to wear orange hats ( Old NSUN joke... ) -- should be handled by the UN because of its potential (indirect) international ramifications... making national governments superfluous...

Unfortunately, It seems I wasn't clear. The Logopian government does not believe the UN has the right to overstep national policy in every issue that could have international ramifications. We believe it has this right when an issue has considerable potential of having serious international consequences.

We grant that "considerable" and "serious" are vague terms. We weight this in a case by case basis. As for the issue of enviromental protection, it is our strong conviction that it does have considerable potential for serious international ramifications. Furthermore, we belive that if the GA agrees with us, it has every right to pass legislation accordingly.

It would be decidely foolish of those nations to follow such a policy, I agree, but looking at the actions of various governments (in both NS and RL) I see plenty of evidence for the use of foolish policies in the past and no reason to assume that this matter would necessarily be exempt from such decisions.
Especially if, for example, a Socialist-run government thought that it could place the burden of meeting those extra costs on the owners of private businesses rather than on their customers...

I must admit you are entirely correct in your assertions. Ideed I hadn't thought about cases like your example of a Socialist-run government. Still, I fail to see how creating a trading system that implicitly works better without tarifs and taxes would be something undesirable. I am not saying that it definitely isn't, but I'd certainly appreciate clarification on this point.

Ah. We have a basic difference in philosophies here. My nation's government believes that -- except in the case of the most fundamental 'sapient rights' -- the UN should restrict its imposition of binding legislation to those fields that inherently involve interactions between nations, and should generally keep out of those matters where the individual governments' decisions would have no direct effects on any nations other than their own ones.

But that argument would logically apply to "social" policies too, meaning that every field of government activity -- even such trivial-seeming matters as whether or not a nation's people would be allowed to wear orange hats ( Old NSUN joke... ) -- should be handled by the UN because of its potential (indirect) international ramifications... making national governments superfluous...Yes, yes, you, Ambassador Sweynsson, are a firm supporter of limited UN action. Your stalwart reliance on that philosophy to oppose a wide range of action by this body is noteworthy. However, it carries with it an inherent dismissal of those who do not subscribe to such, and we begin to wonder why we should bend to your deep-felt beliefs when you do not appear to ever adapt to others?

You then go on to mischaracterize the philosophy of a more involved UN. Yes, some (given the list of passed resolutions, many) of us believe the UN has a role in social issues. Some of us would even consider breathable air to be a "most fundamental right" of individuals. Few of us believe national governments are superfluous. And I dare say none of us leap in joy when this body engages in trivial pursuits. We have learned by painful experience that actions that are most obviously in the purview of national governments, the form of production of energy, for example, suddenly and detrimentally become international issues.

Ahem. Although the preambulatory clauses of the FSA refer specifically to 'criminal' cases rather than to 'civil ones as well, the relevant operative clause (#2) makes no such distinction.We see your legal wankery and raise you.

Civil proceedings do not have sentences, they have judgments of award. It is quite apparent from the structure and content of FSA that it applies to criminal and not civil cases.

(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)Oh and would you settle a bet for us? Do they or do they not allow you to remove the penguin suit for cleaning purposes? ;)

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

Originally Posted by Ausserland
No. The assessment of penalties for exceeding the pollution limits would be a matter of civil, not criminal law. The "Fair Sentencing Act" would only come into play if nations chose to make non-payment of the penalties a criminal act.

Ahem. Although the preambulatory clauses of the FSA refer specifically to 'criminal' cases rather than to 'civil ones as well, the relevant operative clause (#2) makes no such distinction.]

We'd suggest the honorable Ambassador try reading the cited clause again:

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

A violation of law is a crime, punishable under criminal law. Sentences are not imposed in civil cases; they are imposed only under criminal law. This clause applies only to the criminal justice system -- not to civil law.


Thank you, Ambassador Ahlman, you've just won me five marks. I bet my mission's Chief Cnicht that you or one of your colleagues would give me a response along those lines... ;)
Please note that I said "properly", rather than "at all": Whilst a credit-trading system would obviously still be workeable to some extent even with taxation imposed on some of the transactions involved, the imposition of such taxation by some but not all of the nations involved would surely be an added hindrance to any businesses within those nations that needed to buy the credits, would thus reduce the chance that the credits available would be bought by those firms that most needed -- rather than just wanted -- them, and would thus weaken this proposal's effectiveness.


We're pleased that we were able to let the honorable Ambassador win his bet. And we concede that imposition of some form of taxation would lessen the attractiveness of the trading scheme to some extent. But we have never taken the word "properly" to mean perfectly or without any hindrance. We'd also doubt that nations would tax the transactions to the point that they discouraged participation to any marked degree. If they did, and the firms didn't participate, no revenue would be generated anyway.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I dunno. I find that our air is just fine. Part of penal labor in Akimonad includes swatting around at the air with a butterfly net. Seems to work.

I don't see how this would be useful.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

OK, I've just seen someone make the point that pre-industrial nations will be at a disadvantage when it comes time to develop. That is why I will now allow some of the fines to go towards helping pre-industrial nations go industrial on clean fuel (i.e. wind, solar, etc), and I will also allow polluting companies to come below the limit by investing/building clean fuel creation/delivery systems in developing nations.

The distinguished Representative of the Community of Pguetania for the United Nations will now address the Assembly.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is of crucial interest not just for our generation but for future generations to enjoy clean air as nature provides it. As of now, it is our view that air quality levels are far too low worldwide. In the last 10 years, the Community of Pugetania has been making great strides to combat air pollution throughout our country and I am pleased to announce that we have cut our smog by 40%. The emphasis on air quality controls as well as developing alternative energy resources have made a significant difference towards achieving clean air.

It is our firm belief and would be in the best interest of the World Community that this proposal be approved and passed. Let this become the right legacy for our planet and it's people.