NationStates Jolt Archive

Warmth and hope to all representatives,

We would rather like to submit a proposal for your consideration relating to a hopeful repeal of UN Resolution Number 172, “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” if it isn’t too much trouble for representatives to read. We do not wish to impose but aid from experienced delegations would be delightful.

We’ve attempted to include what we think are the primary issues but we’re not experienced writers and our arrogan...errm... analytical abilities pale in comparison to that of the Embodiments so we are far from confident.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

OOC: Okey dokey sweeties, most the content of #172 seems to be rhetoric and/or real-life related so I sadly can’t argue against the giggle inducing alarmist silliness of most of it in the repeal itself so hopefully this will at least kinda suffice as a foundation for a repeal.

Linky to Original (http://www.nationstates.net/96674/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=171)

The United Nations,

Acknowledging that ozone depletion is an issue of great environmental significance,

However believing that a resolution such as “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” is not an effective means by which to protect the environment due to its many weaknesses,

Specifically noting that Resolution #172 focuses exclusively on the deleterious consequences of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), thus has limited effect as it fails to address the negative impact of innumerable ozone-depleting substances such as halons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs),

Questioning the irresponsible and unrealistic nature of requiring all member nations to reduce emissions by 50% within five years without consideration for individual national circumstances, especially economic and social viability,

Regretting the thoughtless elimination of CFCs without provision for collective research and development of viable alternatives that would mitigate economic damage by facilitating a smooth transition in member nations,

Also regretting the absence of special provision to avoid detrimental effects in developing countries, such as access to additional financial resources and relevant technologies,

Concluding that Resolution #172 is inadequate as it provides limited protection for the environment and does not satisfactorily consider the needs of member nations,

Hereby:

Repeals UN Resolution #172 “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion”.

New Sequoyah could support this if brought to the floor of the General Assembly. We would suggest not replacing it with another resolution; leae the ozone alone.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

Sir Albert generously offers to fart a couple of times less a day to aid ozone recovery.

Sir Albert generously offers to fart a couple of times less a day to aid ozone recovery.

I had no idea flatus contained ozone depleting chemicals.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Representative Flibble, we are discussing Bahgumian flatus here... although we must admit that we don't quite know why we're discussing it.

Who knows what the combination of alcohol and stress from these “Mother-in-law” creatures is capable of creating? We welcome Sir Albert’s generous gesture.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful

I had no idea flatus contained ozone depleting chemicals.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Methane (CH4) makes up a large proportion of flatulent emissions. It is known that in the upper stratosphere, where large amounts of uv radiation are found, methane dissociates to form Hydroxyls, which in turn react with gases such as HCl to form highly reactive ozone destroying chorine radicals.
Conversely, in the troposhere where uv concentration is less, methane actually acts as a net sink for chlorine radicals and increases the ozone content. However ozone is not particularly good for you at these low altitudes.

OOC: I had no idea about any of that. How terribly idiotic of me, you learn something new every day.

Anyhoo, thank you for that Bahgum but women never indulge in this anyway apparently *rolls eyes* so I’m already Ozone friendly. Woohoo.

Methane (CH4) makes up a large proportion of flatulent emissions. It is known that in the upper stratosphere, where large amounts of uv radiation are found, methane dissociates to form Hydroxyls, which in turn react with gases such as HCl to form highly reactive ozone destroying chorine radicals.
Conversely, in the troposhere where uv concentration is less, methane actually acts as a net sink for chlorine radicals and increases the ozone content. However ozone is not particularly good for you at these low altitudes.

OK, who are you and what have you done with Bahgum?:p

If UN Resolution #172 “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” is repealed is an new Resolution going to be purposed which will protect the environment from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) with a viable plan to reduce the amount of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) while having a special provision to avoid detrimental effects in developing countries by giving access to additional financial resources and relevant technologies to them and be realistic or if UN Resolution #172 “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” is repealed is Ozone Depletion going to be ignored by the UN and be left to the responsibility of individual nations?
As The Armed Republic of Tridecennial cannot decide on whether to support this repeal or not without knowing as Ozone Depletion is a very serious matter which effects all nations.

Your sincerely
Collin Hawthorn
UN Ambassador of Tridecennial

If UN Resolution #172 “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” is repealed is an new Resolution going to be purposed

I can't speak for the author of the repeal, but since any UN nation can author a replacement resolution if they're so inclined (and submit it for approval, if they've got two endorsements), I really see that as a moot point.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Addressing the issue of ozone depleting substances is among our goals; however we think that it would be advisable to have a substantial delay between the repeal and any attempt to create a new system of environmental protection by any delegation.

In our very humble opinion the General Assembly approaches issues like a small child approaches meals. A child requires variety to keep them appeased and any attempt to make the child eat all of their vegetables at once will be met with resistance and bitterness, even if the parent does know that it’s “good for them.” They must be given some of their favourite food before they will consider another mouthful of peas.

In the same way, the General Assembly requires a variety of issues to deal with. An environmental resolution cannot be followed by another environmental resolution as it will be met with considerable childish resistance and pouting thus fail, it doesn’t matter if the resolution is for their good.

Instead, they must be pacified with issues from their favourite categories such as international security or anything that appeals to their fundamentally selfish nature until the last environmental resolution is on the periphery of their collective mind or long forgotten.

Fortunately, we believe the General Assembly also has the attention span of a small child so we consider a few weeks enough.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful

OOC: Anravelle doesn’t rule things out because she much prefers to imply things rather than lie by saying “yes” when there’s no intention of replacing it or say "no" so that she loses lovely supporters. Her creator is far more honest, I’m afraid I know very little about this issue so I would really, really prefer not to write it but I will definitely try to create something using the Montreal Protocol if this still hasn’t been replaced by an individual nation or a group such as the Green Think Tank within a few months. I really do suck though, just so you know.

My life will be rather busy with Christmas shopping and preparations so I’ll only have a lil time for UN affairs, removing this from the legislative records so that any prospective author can have the freedom to write is my last concern before I leave to be a good sister/daughter/aunt/etc by doing everything for everyone in the lead up to New Years.

OK, who are you and what have you done with Bahgum?:p

Sir Albert took a rest, this message comes from the glorious leader, who actually does have an real life PhD in chemistry.

OOC: As long-term members of the Green Think-Tank may recall, I started work on a proposal against Ozone Depeletion quite a while ago... It wasn't near the top of my priorities, so I wasn't working on it very rapidly, and then the existing resolution got passed anyway so I put it away. If this repeal gets passed then I'll dig it out of my notes, in case anybody who's interested in writing a replacement, can find anything useful in it...
I seem to recall hitting a mental block over how to fit the list of chemicals to be affected into the maximum allowed length, as I felt that just leaving this to a committee would probably be too unpopular to pass...

Sorry to bring it up but allowing the committee to maintain a list of air pollutants for #227 didn’t seem to create many objections so I don’t see why the same principle can’t be applied to Ozone depleting substances, with those in the Montreal Protocol offered as a list of examples.

Anyhoo, I appreciate that a replacement is fun to discuss but can anybody find any serious flaws with the repeal. Any recommendations? Things I’ve left out that should be included? Should I up the economic and environmentalist alarmism a lil to get the fluffies and capitalists to vote for it or is it close to okay now?

The Montreal Protocol has a schedule of 75% in eight years, and 100% in 10 years, for reduction of production and consumption of most ozone depleting substances. That was 11 years, and the world hasn't notably suffered total economic wipeout as a result of changing what's in our fridges. So why is 50% in five years necessarily so totally unreasonable? This kind of economic argument, usually appealling to the poor starving Marvins of NationStates, just seems a bit lazy: "an environmental resolution? Oh, we'll just say it's economically unfeasible". And, since the game doesn't produce detailed statististics, you can never get called on it.

Also, the presence of this resolution doesn't stop you writing a new one about all other ozone depleting substances. I know I argued against this resolution at the time, using some of the arguments your repeal now presents, but wouldn't it be more responsible to sort out all the other ODS requirements first? Or at least to make the point in the repeal that stopping "50% of ozone depletion" (I don't know enough science to say whether that's what in fact this resolution would have the effect of) isn't enough?

That was 11 years, and the world hasn't notably suffered total economic wipeout as a result of changing what's in our fridges. So why is 50% in five years necessarily so totally unreasonable?
Thank you for your insight into the typical tactics of opponents of environmental resolutions and I apologise if I give the impression that I’m one of them but it wasn’t my intention dear. I wrote the repeal to state that it’s unfair and irresponsible to create a blanket 5 year plan for the emissions of all businesses in all member nations; I think that’s unreasonable because the level of halocarbon production within a nation must be taken into account as well as the resources available for the use of alternatives.

Also, my very limited understanding suggests that there had already been significant changes in national and regional policy prior to the Montreal Protocol from around 1976 onwards that led to the Vienna Convention so it was only 11 years on paper for the developed nations of real life.

Also, the presence of this resolution doesn't stop you writing a new one about all other ozone depleting substances. I know I argued against this resolution at the time, using some of the arguments your repeal now presents, but wouldn't it be more responsible to sort out all the other ODS requirements first?
I’m afraid the existence of a sub-standard resolution would bother me quite a bit while writing a proposal that’s inclusive of all ODS. I’m a rather nervous person so I would be constantly referencing it for contradictions or excessive duplication that might prompt a ruling from the lovely modlings so that I have to waste time changing things.

I know this is a rather weak reason but I think it’s far easier to write if there’s nothing else on the subject that needs to be worked around, removing that horrible mess and replacing it is far easier than trying to avoid it then repealing it, in my opinion.

Or at least to make the point in the repeal that stopping "50% of ozone depletion" (I don't know enough science to say whether that's what in fact this resolution would have the effect of) isn't enough?
Thank you for that hun; that’s a really helpful suggestion that I’ll include when re-drafting later.

Thank you for your insight into the typical tactics of opponents of environmental resolutions and I apologise if I give the impression that I’m one of them but it wasn’t my intention dear. I wrote the repeal to state that it’s unfair and irresponsible to create a blanket 5 year plan for the emissions of all businesses in all member nations; I think that’s unreasonable because the level of halocarbon production within a nation must be taken into account as well as the resources available for the use of alternatives.
Well, that's lovely, but this is how the game works. Resolutions have to affect each country equally (within reason); they can't adopt different schedules for different levels of development (or at least, that's my interpretation of various past moderator decisions). I don't see how this resolution could have included, for example, special allowances for developing nations, without running afoul of the rules (and it was reviewed by the moderators at the time, as many people complained about its reference to "poles").

I disagree with you to some extent on a more substantive level, inasmuch as an ODS is an ODS: it doesn't matter what country it comes from. But I accept that is a political debate that I'll leave aside for now. I'm simply saying I think it's unfair to argue that the resolution didn't do something that it could not have possibly have done anyway, given the way proposal rules work!

If you wish me to edit the repeal then I’m going to need to see the rulings you’re using as a basis for this assessment; please do feel free to provide the links... or general summaries of what was said if it would makes things easier.

I only ask because I don’t believe individual assessments via a committee are a breach of the optionality rule as no nation would be exempt, just affected based on their economic needs. I also believe that entire resolutions have revolved around providing aid solely for nations in need so I can’t imagine how special provisions for financial aid for members that require it would have been illegal.

Assessment on a case-by-case basis was allowed in my last resolution so I don’t see why the circumstances would have been different for “Help Prevent Ozone Depletion” in the past. Until a lovely modling proves me wrong (entirely possible, I know very little) or you show rulings then I’m going to continue believing that the old resolution could have included details such as that.

(and it was reviewed by the moderators at the time, as many people complained about its reference to "poles").
May I ask how that’s relevant?