NationStates Jolt Archive

I was busy drafting this, and I don't think I'll submit this anytime soon, but I do want your guys support for this. The preamble itself isn't working pretty well, and it will be changed, but the goal was to give you an idea of the argument justifying the resolution (help nations comply with the UN resolutions demanding cuts in carbon emissions without sacrificing growth while at the same time rewarding innovation and enviromental projects that will help decrease carbon emissions in the long term):

Cateogry: Enviromental
AoE: All Business

DECLARING that climate change poses a threat to all nations throughout the world, and hence is an international concern worthy of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the United Nations' previous resolutions to decrease carbon emissions, Resolution #74, "Reduction of greenhouse gases" and Resolution #126, "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act", thereby helping to stop climate change,

UNDERSTANDING that the United Nations may decide that stronger action is necessary in order to help protect the environment,

REALIZING however that carbon emission standards are expensive to follow, and that new memberstates as well as developing countries may not be able to afford the expenses,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET that businesses in these nations may not be as competitive on the international stage as non-UN nations due to following these international regulations,

BELIEVING that carbon quotas are an effective way of limiting carbon emissions and fossil fuel usage while stimulating innovation in these poor countries and working with, rather than against, businesses.

1.GRANTS the "UN Environmental Agency" the responsiblity for granting Carbon Units to all UN member states every year, based on national and international laws.
(a)UNEA also has the responsibility of monitoring calculating data for the annual carbon emissions all nations within the United Nations, and making said list of carbon emissions accessible for the general public.

2. DECLARES that the supply of "Carbon Units" shall be decreased in accordance with national and international regulations on reductions of fossil fuels, and that the UNEA will grant all nations an amount of "Carbon Units" which is equal to how much fossil fuels the member state would legally be allowed to use under the regulations.
(a)For example, if international regulation state that a nation must decrease its use of fossil fuels by a total of 5%, then the UNEA grants that nation a number of Carbon Units equal to 95% of all fossil fuels it is currently using.
(b)If a nation wishes to use more Fossil Fuels beyond the Carbon Units that was already given to that nation, it must acquire Carbon Units from other countries. This means that while one nation produces more carbon emissions, another nation gives up its right to produce carbon emissions, meaning that there will be the same amount of carbon emissions being polluted in the environment that the regulations mandate.

3. ALLOWS all nations, organizations and individuals to earn more Carbon Units through the creation of "Enviromental Projects" after submitting an application to the UNEA,
(a)"Enviromental Projects" include, but are not limited to, reforestation projects, carbon sequestration, and research projects that benieft the environment,
(b)The UNEA will review all applications and reward Carbon Units based on how effective the Enviromental Project is at decreasing carbon emissions.

4. PROHIBITS nations, organizations, and individuals from buying or otherwise acquiring more Carbon Units beyond the limits imposed on by international and national law,

5. ALLOWS for the Carbon Units to be transferred, bartered, and sold freely between different countries, organizations, and individuals, and that there should be no regulations infringing on this right other than in Clause 4.

6. ASSERTS that all nations has an obligation to help protect the environment from carbon emissions.

Um, bump?

Is this really that boring to most people? I mean, I don't want a conterverisal resolution a la "Freedom of Expression Act", but still...

I think that its a great idea to reduce global warming

Carbon Dioxide reduction? The answer is simple....alcohol. Simple chemistry...CO2 vs CH3CH2OH. Alcohol has twice the carbon in it, and only half the oxygen per molecule. So we should all help by capturing Carbon via alcohol imbibing offset. Could be a proposal in that.
See you down the bar.

Due to lack of discussion, I sent this to the floor along with a TG campagin to gague support.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=carbon

Please endorse.

We note that being away for a weekend didn't give us any time to comment, and that the proposal would have benefitted greatly from some grammar checking. Since we are somewhat irked at the lack of consultation, we won't be sending any scribes over.

At least you didn't call it a scheme in the resolution.

Though it strikes me as a kind of scheme...

OOC: Please note, lack of comment doesn't equal assent. I do have interest in, and comments on, this idea; I also have a lot of work to do and assorted diseases of the mind and flesh to rid myself of, over the next week. Given there is another proposal at queue, I don't see that there's an immediate hurry.

OOC: Yes, I know you guys have lives, and I apologize for assuming wrongly that silence=acceptance. However, um, I have a life too. My goal in sumbitting the TG campagin now is because in one week, my school resumes, and my activity in NS will shut down permentaly until school pauses during Spring Break, and later on during Summer Break. Plus, TG Campagins do take a long time, and I like to get it over with...

So, please forgive me for rushing. It's rather unlikely it's going to quorom at any rate though.

This proposal seems very just and proper but I have one objection. Since this resolution will only be implemented by UN members how does this change anything when the majority of the nations that exist are outside the UN and they will not be limited by this legislation? 2 things will happen; 1st, the environment will not be improved and 2nd, the non-UN members will out-compete and out-produce the UN members.

Perhaps an alternative is to develop technologies that allow us to exploit the planet's magnetic field to produce electricity and to produce mobile power transformers for vehicles. If this is done, fossil fuels lose their value as well as any other form of centralized power structure and the environment becomes cleaner because even non-UN members will want a superior form of energy over the outdated fossil fuels used. Those that develop this technology first will set the stage and out-perform others.

Can someone propose this kind of legislation? A promotion of research on alternatives?

I think there is reasonable doubt that man is 100% responsible for Global Warming. If the majority is of Global Warming is from natural sources like the Sun, then there is not much we can do about it. However if the majority is caused by man I would support this scheme and the encourage use of alternative energy source like nuclear power.

We cannot agree to this; it would hamper our economic and technological development too much. It's all very good coming up with solar panels and nuclear power, etc. but when you're currently celebrating the recent arrival of 1933, not 2008, it's rather difficult.

Also, I maintain that global warming in the NS World is cause by communists.

This proposal seems very just and proper but I have one objection. Since this resolution will only be implemented by UN members how does this change anything when the majority of the nations that exist are outside the UN and they will not be limited by this legislation?

Those who are in the NSUN would be able to more easily follow the enviromental resolutions in question than they would previously, allowing them to compete more effectively. Instead of being forced to, say, cut industry totally, they are granted other methods in order to comply, by starting enviromental projects such as deforestation and investigations into alternate energies, or buying "Carbon Units" from other countries that are more effective at being enviromentally friendly.

True, we still got the restrictions, but we in the NSUN believe that we have to do these restrictions for a greater cause and at least now the restrictions are easier to follow than previously. Improve the world you know. There are those who don't agree with the NSUN, but we have to ignore them and focus on trying to recruit more countries into the NSUN and try to help make it better. (To use an admitted strawman but just to illustrate a point, just because nations outside of the NSUN can do immoral stuff like enslave people and be competivie in the global market doesn't mean that we should as well. We have to have the moral high ground, so to say.)

Perhaps an alternative is to develop technologies that allow us to exploit the planet's magnetic field to produce electricity and to produce mobile power transformers for vehicles. If this is done, fossil fuels lose their value as well as any other form of centralized power structure and the environment becomes cleaner because even non-UN members will want a superior form of energy over the outdated fossil fuels used. Those that develop this technology first will set the stage and out-perform others.

And what if the project fails? There's always that possiblity. Or, it might be too expensive, or it could cause another enviromental problem (OOC: or be ruled too silly).

That being said, I am not dismissing it out of hand. And the UNEA would reward such enviromental projects by granting Carbon Units (and you could make money by selling the Carbon Units to countries that have not made such advancements). I also do think there are resolutions that promote research into 'alternate energy' already, but not that specific sort, more of the generic 'wind power', 'solar power', etc.

Here is one: Alternative Fuels (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=39).

I do think that such an idea, if you choose to continue along that path, should be done in a seperate resolution however, and can work in tandem with this one.

We cannot agree to this; it would hamper our economic and technological development too much. It's all very good coming up with solar panels and nuclear power, etc. but when you're currently celebrating the recent arrival of 1933, not 2008, it's rather difficult.

...Wow.

Well, are you still out of the economic depression? If not, you are allowed to not follow at least the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" (due to its exclusion about economic depressions). You still got to follow UN resolutions such as "Reduction of greenhouse gases" (10% decrease in Fossil Fuels in 10 years), but even if this resolution does not pass, you still got to comply with it. With this resolution, you are allowed to comply with reductions in fossil fuels by "reforestation programs", as well as buying Carbon Units from other, more advanced nations.

Still, I can understand.


---Dr. Bob

We found a prior effort along this line was not effective in that is mearly allowed for abuse in the process while not realy doing a thing. As companies simply buy credits from other companies or even creat a small company to sale off their credits to larger ones thus on the sly getting around any limits on them.


To us the only solotion to reduction of any polutants is to get all companies on the same lowest level by sharing their processes for cleaning things up.. and making those that work most effectively available to all who produce the polutions.. This I'll fart only once to let you fart twice still smells up the room no matter who is doing the farting.. we need to find out how to get both farting just once and maybe not at all..

Also, I maintain that global warming in the NS World is cause by communists.No it all them ghnomes in the sub-levels of the UN building getting fed to many beans.... and then allowed to wonder outside their containment areas...

Well, are you still out of the economic depression? If not, you are allowed to not follow at least the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" (due to its exclusion about economic depressions). You still got to follow UN resolutions such as "Reduction of greenhouse gases" (10% decrease in Fossil Fuels in 10 years), but even if this resolution does not pass, you still got to comply with it. With this resolution, you are allowed to comply with reductions in fossil fuels by "reforestation programs", as well as buying Carbon Units from other, more advanced nations.

Still, I can understand.


---Dr. Bob

We just built a load of pointless burning machine, which did nothing more than create polution, just before the resolution passed. In effect, we are actually producing 1000% of the polution we were producing before the legislation came into effect, thus every year we just slow the production of pointless pollution, to come into line with the resolution. Similarly, if we build another factory, etc. we stop producing as much pollution from the pointless furnaces

[OOC:I agree to this. But is normal /non delegate can approve?]

[OOC:I agree to this. But is normal /non delegate can approve?]

Once a proposal has been formally submitted, rather than just posted for discussion in this forum (or in any other forum), it needs to get approval by 06% of the Delegates within 4 days.
If it gets that much support then it's sent to the General Assembly, in which every UN nation can vote although Delegates' votes are disproportionately more important than those of non-Delegates because their value is increased by the number of endorsements that they've got.

Due to lack of discussion, I sent this to the floor along with a TG campagin to gague support.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=carbon

Please endorse.

Karshkovia can not support this legislation and will have to regretfully leave the UN if such a measure is issued. We are a developing nation with little in the way of nuclear power and we do not have the funds to invest in expensive technologies for 'renewable' energies.

If the nation of SilentScope is willing to pay for all the development costs this technology, then we would agree it is very good, however this legislation would only benefit those that can afford to move away from oil. Poorer nations are now left even worse off and to develop further, we are then forced to 'buy' carbon credits from more advanced nations in return for whatever price they desire. This would make developing nations basically slaves of advanced nations if they wish to grow.

For this, we can not support the legislation.

..and you could make money by selling the Carbon Units to countries that have not made such advancements

Ah, I see that my thoughts are correct. The advanced nations become richer and the poorer nations become poorer. The developing nations have to buy or give money way to richer, advanced nations, leaving them less money to develop their country with. There is no benefit in this for developing nations, besides 'feeling good' that they are helping the environment. I'm sure that you can explain to my people that they should feel better about helping the environment when they are starving and rioting because of hunger since our country can not afford to import food stuffs. That money was used to buy Carbon Credits so my people can rebuild our nation, leaving shortages and empty shelves...which means more money used for repairs and rebuilding.

Think of it. The advanced nations can afford to pour money into research of alternate energy sources. In the mean time, they can offset costs by selling carbon credits to poorer countries which haven't the budget to expend on that research.. it also forces poorer countries to spend money they didn't need to before and could be used in betterment of their nation.

Our nation is growing but still very poor after the soviets left 17 years ago. How do you propose we grow and rebuilt when you wish us to give every precious extra dollar to an advanced nation with little thought of anyone but themselves?

*Vladimir pauses, visibly red-faced and shaken with anger*

We threw the soviets out years ago and now with open hands, smiles and talk of 'the environment' you wish to do the same that they did; take our resources and money for your benefit and tell us it's for our own good and we should feel happy about it?!? NO! I say this is only a diplomatic maneuver to enslave developing nations! Why not give the majority of carbon credits to developing nations and then have advanced nations forced to buy from developing nations? Why that would help create more advanced nations,not limit that number.

*President Vladimir, sits still visibly angered*

===============
OOC: *I* personally know how this works but my nation's leader does not quite understand, hence the IC speech. Please be aware of that before replying..thanks.

Those who are in the NSUN would be able to more easily follow the enviromental resolutions in question than they would previously, allowing them to compete more effectively. Instead of being forced to, say, cut industry totally, they are granted other methods in order to comply, by starting enviromental projects such as deforestation and investigations into alternate energies, or buying "Carbon Units" from other countries that are more effective at being enviromentally friendly.

True, we still got the restrictions, but we in the NSUN believe that we have to do these restrictions for a greater cause and at least now the restrictions are easier to follow than previously. Improve the world you know. There are those who don't agree with the NSUN, but we have to ignore them and focus on trying to recruit more countries into the NSUN and try to help make it better. (To use an admitted strawman but just to illustrate a point, just because nations outside of the NSUN can do immoral stuff like enslave people and be competivie in the global market doesn't mean that we should as well. We have to have the moral high ground, so to say.)



And what if the project fails? There's always that possiblity. Or, it might be too expensive, or it could cause another enviromental problem (OOC: or be ruled too silly).

That being said, I am not dismissing it out of hand. And the UNEA would reward such enviromental projects by granting Carbon Units (and you could make money by selling the Carbon Units to countries that have not made such advancements). I also do think there are resolutions that promote research into 'alternate energy' already, but not that specific sort, more of the generic 'wind power', 'solar power', etc.

Here is one: Alternative Fuels (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=39).

I do think that such an idea, if you choose to continue along that path, should be done in a seperate resolution however, and can work in tandem with this one.


---Dr. Bob

That is true, leading by example and gradually transforming one's nation and gradually researching and implementing new technology has the long term benefit of surpassing the stubborn who never want to change. Too much change too quickly = not ever changing at all.

In the hopes that someone can write up an appropriate piece of legislation, we raise our gavel in respect.

Quorum has been reached.

We are declaring our enthusiastic support for this legislation.

Due to some concerns, I think it would be best to just withdraw this proposal from quorom. This isn't to say I am abandoing it, when I get free time, I will try to push this through. But for now, I'm withdrawing the proposal to allow other people to make comments and suggestions to make it better.

It was too rushed, and therefore has flaws.

might be too late for that?

Due to some concerns, I think it would be best to just withdraw this proposal from quorom. This isn't to say I am abandoing it, when I get free time, I will try to push this through. But for now, I'm withdrawing the proposal to allow other people to make comments and suggestions to make it better.

It was too rushed, and therefore has flaws.

It is too late for that now that you have submitted it. You have effectively created legislation that benefits advanced nations and turned developing nations into slaves as I stated before.

Are you sure you do not have Soviet roots in your country?

might be too late for that?

Not really. Once a thing gets to a vote, then it's too late. When it reaches quorom, it waits in line until the proposal at vote gets voted up or down before moving up in line. I got enough time to get it. In fact, I think 4 whole days. I already reported to the mods telling them to take it down, so, yeah, it will be taken down.

OOC:
(Karshkovia: I didn't address your points because I was busy with other stuff. I'll hopefully address your points ASAP.)

Not really. Once a thing gets to a vote, then it's too late. When it reaches quorom, it waits in line until the proposal at vote gets voted up or down before moving up in line. I got enough time to get it. In fact, I think 4 whole days. I already reported to the mods telling them to take it down, so, yeah, it will be taken down.

OOC:
(Karshkovia: I didn't address your points because I was busy with other stuff. I'll hopefully address your points ASAP.)

OOC: No problems here, just rping the leader of the nation.

Alright. Fully withdrawn, so I hope for some good suggestions, especially from Gobb and QoD.
****
Karshkovia can not support this legislation and will have to regretfully leave the UN if such a measure is issued. We are a developing nation with little in the way of nuclear power and we do not have the funds to invest in expensive technologies for 'renewable' energies.

If the nation of SilentScope is willing to pay for all the development costs this technology, then we would agree it is very good, however this legislation would only benefit those that can afford to move away from oil. Poorer nations are now left even worse off and to develop further, we are then forced to 'buy' carbon credits from more advanced nations in return for whatever price they desire. This would make developing nations basically slaves of advanced nations if they wish to grow.

For this, we can not support the legislation.

We point out that these resolutions already exist, and according to the law, you are currently compelled to actually use renewable energy. This resolution provides alternative methods instead of a simple "reduce carbon emissions".

There are other ways of getting Carbon Units than merely investing in alternate energy. You can start by using more energy-effienct methods that uses fossil fuels, but not too much. You can also go and invest in Enviromental Projects that can go and assist the environment, for example, reforestation. You can plant trees, which can go and asborb the carbon emissions.

We also point that Carbon Units may also be bartered freely as well, meaning that if you got allies who are more advanced than you, they may give you some Carbon Units.

Alright. Fully withdrawn, so I hope for some good suggestions, especially from Gobb and QoD.
Was some part of "We aren't sending any scribes over" unclear?

Was some part of "We aren't sending any scribes over" unclear?

I said I hoped.

*bump?*

We must agree with the representative from Cavirra. Allowing nations to buy and sell their carbon units will only serve to allow certain nations to effectively thumb their noses at this resolution and not commit to doing their part to help the environment.

As a nation founded on environmental principles, Scothopinestan is happy to see that this proposal was withdrawn, and we hope that a new version will not contain any porvision for bartering of carbon units.

We will consider Scotchpinestan's view when redrafting. At the same time, however, such bartering can encourage nations to go and change their policies, and actually help their economies, while protecting the overall environment of the NS World.

Anyway, this is a bump requesting for any new suggestions.

Let try this again. Eventually, this will be pushed to quorom. I hope.

New draft:

Cateogry: Enviromental
AoE: All Business

<pretty preamble>

DEFINING a "Carbon Unit" as a certificate allowing for the emission of one ton of ton of carbon dioxide for one year,

1.GRANTS the "UN Environmental Agency" the responsiblity for granting Carbon Units to all UN member states every year based on national and international laws, so that UN member states may give those Carbon Units to public and private firms that would need them.
(a)UNEA also has the responsibility of monitoring calculating data for the annual carbon emissions all nations within the United Nations, and making said list of carbon emissions accessible for the general public.

2. DECLARES that the supply of "Carbon Units" shall be decreased in accordance with national and international regulations on reductions of carbon dioxide emissions, and that the UNEA will grant all nations an amount of "Carbon Units" which is equal to how much Carbon Dioxide emissions the member state would legally be allowed to produce under the regulations.
(a)For example, if international regulation state that a nation must decrease its carbon dioxide emissions by a total of 5%, then the UNEA grants that nation a number of Carbon Units equal to 95% of all carbon dioxide emissions it is currently producing.

3. ALLOWS all nations, organizations and individuals to earn more Carbon Units through the creation of "Enviromental Projects" after submitting an application to the UNEA,
(a)"Enviromental Projects" include, but are not limited to, reforestation projects carbon sequestration, and research projects that benieft the environment,
(b)The UNEA will review all applications and reward Carbon Units equal to, or less than, the impact of the Enviromental Project.

4. PROHIBITS nations, organizations, and individuals from buying or otherwise acquiring more Carbon Units beyond the limits imposed on by international and national law,

5. ALLOWS for the Carbon Units to be transferred, bartered, and sold freely between different countries, organizations, and individuals, and that there should be no regulations infringing on this right other than in Clause 4.

6. STATES that UNEA would be allowed to purchase Carbon Units off the market, using any excess funds or donations specified for that purpose, in order to further promote research and development.

Still not proof-read, we note.

if smaller nations don't need them it it would help boost their economies to be able to sell what they don't use.

Sammy: Actaully, you are allowed to sell your credits, to other nations, as well as to the UNEA. You just can't sell those Carbon Units to nations beyond what existing international law prohibits.

This proposal sounds rather controlling. Let each nation affect itself. Worry about rising sea levels etc when your feet are wet on the 23rd floor.

It does pose an interesting problem, though we wonder if the treatment is worse than the illness. Regulating what a nation can and cannot do with its industry seems a bit like international socialism to me. We won't argue that there isn't an issue with increased carbon levels in the air. We also won't argue that there is an anthropogenic trend related to this level. To what extent and by what cause... we will not say.

The evidence that relates directly to carbon emissions being caused by autos and industry cries of scapegoating, when as much evidence points to the fact that this is a natural cycle of the world that we are unable to fully perceive. This means we should take action, by directly combating carbon emissions with something that naturally consumes carbon out of the air, rather than worrying about something that might result in a trivial addition to carbon increase.

The other real problem is we're seeing issues that are possibly related to global warming, which is possibly related to carbon in the air, which is possibly related to industry. That's a lot of possibility. I'd say we wait for something cold and hard as evidence, before we take action that could result in economic hardship or commercial exploitation.

I do not wish to get into an argument over global warming.

We must point to one thing: The international community has already agreed to such regulations that you fear. They do believe that carbon emissions is what causing global warming. Wheter the idea is good or bad, the fact remains that you must still follow these resolutions calling for a reduction in carbon emissions. This resolution will not effect that. You still have to regulate your industry.

What it does do is provide a way to make it easier for you to follow these current existing resolutions on the book, and provide an incentive for corporations to reduce carbon emissions (you can sell excess credits to other corporations that neeed them, as well as to UNEA itself). It actually can help businesses, by rewarding them for their efforts in reducing pollution. There are also no limits to how carbon units may be trade (except that they cannot get more carbon units than international law allow), so corporations can go and sell and buy at will.

I do hope you reconsider this proposal.
---Dr. Bob

Not that it much matters, but this really is nothing more than a 'feel-good' resolution. It does nothing and will effect nothing in this world.

The reason is because only a very small number of nations out of the total number of nations in this world actually are apart of the United Nations so any legislation made will not effect the environment.

Basically this legislation is like pissing in the wind. Ineffective and laughable.


On a sidenote: Karshkovia has become a 'green' nation with a grant from a very large friendly nation, so our carbon footprint will be virtually non-existent later this year, but we did want to point out how this legislation is like Don Quijote de la Mancha chasing windmills.

Hopefully, I will be able to submit this proposal in the afternoon. Any more suggestions?

On a sidenote, congrats Karshkovia. We're still not, um, 'green enough'. Somebody always leaving the light on in our embassy, causing our green pollution to skyrocket. My god, I hope the gnomes don't rough us up.
---Dr. Bob.

Hopefully, I will be able to submit this proposal in the afternoon. Any more suggestions?

Proof-read the damn thing. Or don't submit it, we really don't care which.

Don Quijote de la Mancha chasing windmills.

It's 'Don Quixote tilting at windmills.'

Can't rightly chase a windmill. They're rather sedentary.

Well, I personally think that carbon trading is a false solution..

It's 'Don Quixote tilting at windmills.'

Can't rightly chase a windmill. They're rather sedentary.

Yes one would think so and they would be right, however Don stated he liked to 'chase the giants', hence my statement.

Then again, college was so many years ago, I may be mis-remembering the actual quote. In any case, the thought behind the quote is the same.

Could I just point out: as written, this proposal has no effect, whatsoever. Countries can already make all of these arrangements; and they have to make no new ones. I have, repeatedly, tried to communicate you to that a carbon unit trading system would only work within the NSUN if, and given you haven't picked it up so far, I'll say it nice and big, YOU FURTHER DECREASE BELOW WHAT IS PRESENTLY ALLOWED THE ALLOWANCE FOR EMISSION GRANTED EACH NATION. As it stands, you have granted UN nations the following stunning business opportunity: to buy carbon units they are legally proscribed from buying.

Is it that you don't understand? If so, then I'm really sorry, I just don't know how to further explain it. If people are only allowed seven beans and you then allow them to swap beans if they want, there is still no incentive for them to do so given they can never have more than seven beans and there is no difference between one bean and the next. If it's that you won't listen, then, well, why not? I have, also repeatedly, stated general support for the idea. I am NOT trying to stall you. But until you demonstrate some recognition of the conceptual construct, how can we possibly provide any detailed drafting advice? You can't improve upon a fundamentally pointless, and essentially illegal, idea, unless you first take the idea and reshape it into something that serves a recognisable purpose.

SS, I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be harsh, and I know you waited a long time for me to produce relatively slight comments, but frankly, what now do you expect? This is not a proposal; it is name dropping a RL concept without implementing any of its features.

And yes, regardless of any of the above, it is badly in need of proofing.

EDIT: Alright, I thought of a better model of explanation.

Quintessence of Dust can burn x carbon units under current UN law (abstracted from the requirements of #72 and #126, etc.). But, it has a good nuclear power structure and is developing some alternative sources, meaning it can realistically burn y units, where y < x. This means it has (x - y) units left over to sell. Nastydirtyburnystinkystan doesn't have an efficient source of energy, and its power plants burn coal. And babies. They are also limited to x carbon units, but they actually NEED to burn z units, where z > x. Problem for them. But, they can buy Quod's extra units, and all is good. Of course, this costs them money, so they still have an incentive to improve their system. We have an incentive to improve ours further, so we have more units to sell and can earn money.

The difficulty is, if you take x to be the limit allowed by previous legislations, then Nastydirtyburnystinkystan can never buy more units. And our excess units are worthless as no one will want to buy them. This means we are actually incentivised NOT to decrease our carbon emissions, but rather to MAXIMISE them!

The FIRST thing this proposal needs to do is to work out, if you're still going to conduct this on a state level (and I've discussed the alternatives to that before) is how much FURTHER beyond the limit imposed by Resolution #126 you want to set UN nations' carbon emission allowance.

*sigh*

I knew what you said, QoD, and I hope everything gets resolved. Some time ago, you sent me this message about that before. You said this too:

You might consider, though, not taking such a national approach. After all, in many countries it'll be private firms that actually need the carbon units. They absolutely can trade carbon units; they still have to obey, and member nations enforce, rules on national emission levels, but that doesn't matter so long as TNCs are able to spread the sites of their emissions around.

And, I, um, point to this revision:

1.GRANTS the "UN Environmental Agency" the responsibility for granting Carbon Units to all UN member states every year based on national and international laws, so that UN member states may give those Carbon Units to public and private firms that would need them.

I thought that second part of Clause 1 would reorient the purpose of the program, from reducing carbon emissions for nations and instead, to allow TNCs to spread the sites of the emissions around. The private and public firms are then allowed to trade those carbon units, still following rules that member nations enforce, etc.

The reason I had it that way is because it would allow the states to decide how best to give away their carbon units, not for them to buy and sell it on a state-level. So, it's being done on a local level, letting these corporations spread the emissions around.

I'm going to try and think of an example later on that would show this point. Um, like one of QoD's firms is very environmentally friendly, and Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms does lots of pollution. A QoD firm may sell some its credits to Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms. Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms cannot violate the existing laws in its nation, as said before, but if one of the firms did not receive enough Credits from the government, QoD's firms would still be able to help provide it.

You could also say that UNEA also acts as a floor that could buy the Credits...but, erm...

I think this would be pretty helpful at present what I was trying to do. But, I'm going to take a big breathe before seeing the Protections of Orphans Act get into quorom and voting before deciding what next to do.

I thought that second part of Clause 1 would reorient the purpose of the program, from reducing carbon emissions for nations and instead, to allow TNCs to spread the sites of the emissions around. The private and public firms are then allowed to trade those carbon units, still following rules that member nations enforce, etc.

The reason I had it that way is because it would allow the states to decide how best to give away their carbon units, not for them to buy and sell it on a state-level. So, it's being done on a local level, letting these corporations spread the emissions around.
Firstly, please stop saying 'spread the emissions around'. If it's that, as usual, you're parroting, then it was incautious phrasing on my part and I retract; but you can't talk about 'spread' carbon emissions, given the atmosphere, last time I checked, went all the way around the globe.
Edit: evidently it [i]was incautious phrasing on my part. Fine, and I take the blame for that.

Secondly, I still don't see how there is any possibility for any trading to happen. The method I suggested still only works if you further reduce the allowances for each nation, unless national governments purposefully withhold government units from the market; as I argue below, there would be no rational justification for their doing so. Every nation is saturated with carbon units; unused ones are worthless. Hence, this proposal incentivises reaching, not reducing, the limits of carbon emission.
I'm going to try and think of an example later on that would show this point. Um, like one of QoD's firms is very environmentally friendly, and Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms does lots of pollution. A QoD firm may sell some its credits to Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms. Nastydirtyburnystinkystan's firms cannot violate the existing laws in its nation, as said before, but if one of the firms did not receive enough Credits from the government, QoD's firms would still be able to help provide it.
This fails the common sense test. If these carbon units are being allocated on a reasonable basis by the UN, there would be no reason for a nation to unreasonably withhold an allowance from a company and yet to allow it to buy carbon units from other sources. No nation would so obviously drain its own resources in pursuit of something it already has.
You could also say that UNEA also acts as a floor that could buy the Credits...but, erm...
I assume the latter part of that sentence is where you explain what you mean by 'acts as a floor', or how on earth it is remotely relevant, but until you fill in the elision, things are bound to be a little cloudy.

Sorry for that then. I am glad that the proposal didn't make quorom, otherwise I'd have to withdraw it yet again.

Anyway, it looks to me that I don't know much about carbon units, and you are right, every bit of it. The point is, now that I am parroting you for every little bit, it showcases my ignorance. I'm not supposed to be parroting, I should know this stuff.

I think one of the things I vowed to do in the NSUN is to pass proposals that actually work rather than just try to be in the limelight. Having seen dumb resolutions in the NSUN, I resolve not to follow in their footsteps.

Since it is probraly better to let professionals establish such a future carbon trading scheme rather than those who don't know how it works, I'm going to pause this effort, and maybe come back to it.

Thanks QoD for everything you have done in trying to help me in this, even though I have done some very dumb stuff. I may come back to it later, assuming I study the history of carbon trading and actually come up with a solution, but I guess I'd prefer it if you do it, all by yourself. It is far better for a carbon trading scheme to exist in the NSUN eventually, and it would fare much better under your creation rather than under mine.

Um, thanks.

EDIT:
I assume the latter part of that sentence is where you explain what you mean by 'acts as a floor', or how on earth it is remotely relevant, but until you fill in the elision, things are bound to be a little cloudy.

What I mean is, in the last clause, the UNEA can buy whatever carbon units off the market. If there are unused carbon units on the market, you can either continue to not use it, as there is no point, or sell it off to UNEA, who will buy any carbon unit. Since you are not going to use the carbon unit anyway, the rational thing to do is unload it off on UNEA and hope to make some profit. I should have made that clear. Still, even this is, well, not that useful. There will be need to be more thinking on my part.