NationStates Jolt Archive

THIS IS NO LONGER THE TEXT OF THE BILL, PLEASE CLICK HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14062166) FOR THE NEW PROPOSAL

Honourable Delegates, I urge you to lobby your regional delegates to be signatories to the "Clean Air Act". This is a green bill that will help create new jobs in the auto sector, the R&D sector, the Energy sector, and create a new "green" sector. If this bill passes and a member does not comply with it, the cost will be minimal to the member. Regional delegate voting ends today, so please help prop it so that the general membership can vote on it.


Whereas the member states of this Assembly understand that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

Whereas the member states of this Assembly recognizes that the result of the usage and burning fossil fuels is causing long term negative effects on the environment.

Now, therefore, the World Assembly enacts the following:

I. DEFINITIONS

"fossil fuels" means hydrocarbons used for energy, and can included coal, methane, gasoline, crude

"Assembly" means the World Assembly

"members" and "states" means the member states of the World Assembly

“power plants” means coal-burning power plants

II. AUTOMOBILES

1. By 2030, all automobiles produced, bought, sold, and used by the citizens of members shall not be fully dependent on fossil fuels, and shall have a maximum dependency of 50% for fuel or energy.

2. Member states shall, to the best of the abilities, find safe alternative environment friendly energy and/or fuels to power vehicles and automobiles.

III. POWER PLANTS

1. By 2030, member states shall dismantle coal burning power plants. Acceptable replacements include hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear.

IV. TREES AND FORESTS

1. Members states shall do their best to maintain and expand natural forests, plant new trees each year to help reduce the damage from the burning of fossil fuels.

V. PENALTIES

1. If a member were to violate this act, the penalty will be 0.001% of the annual GDP.

2. Corporations of member states who violate this act will be subject to a penalty of 0.1% of their quarterly profits.

Illegal, RL

MapleLeafss;14058643']Illegal, RL
No, it's not. '2030' is not a real reference. And it might be helpful to new players, anyway, if you were to offer a little more, instead of such a snippy - and, in this case, comically wrongheaded - dismissal.

In fact, I don't see anything in this proposal that's illegal. But it's poorly written and I doubt its feasibility. For a start, I'm curious as to why coal plants, but not oil plants, are banned.

I'd also point out that aforestation has a very low success rate in terms of 'carbon offsetting'.

1. By 2030, all automobiles produced, bought, sold, and used by the citizens of members shall not be fully dependent on fossil fuels, and shall have a maximum dependency of 50% for fuel or energy.

1. By 2030, member states shall dismantle coal burning power plants. Acceptable replacements include hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear.

Reference to 'Years' from real world is RL.. He has to do some simple adjustment to take out year 2030..

MapleLeafss;14058722']Reference to 'Years' from real world is RL.. He has to do some simple adjustment to take out year 2030..
No, as has already been explained. It's a poor form and would be better expressed as "X years from date of passage" or the like, but it's not illegal. The penalty clauses, on the other hand, are officially dubious. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14052007&postcount=576)

I'll add my curiosity as to why oil- and gas-fired power stations are ignored. I'd also feel more comfortable if this concentrated more on emissions and left the trees for a separate resolution.

In case anyone was wondering, it's been submitted as Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses

I agree it's poorly written and as such I can't support this resolution as currently written. This resolution needs major editing work..

MapleLeafss;14058777']I agree it's poorly written and as such I can't support this resolution as currently written. This resolution needs major editing work..
Ok. Then perhaps you could suggest what edits should be made.

it can be re-written...

Just curious, how is it poor form?

If you mean the "westminster" style i used in this proposal, my mistake...

how is this:


Clean Air Act

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

ALAMED by the negative long term effects of the burning and usage of fossil fuels

1. CALLS UPON car manufacturers to produce and to sell automobiles and other vehicles that are less than 50% reliant on fossil fuels for energy within 20 years of passing this resolution.

2. RECOMMENDS that member states and corporations operating within member states find safe alternative environment friendly energy and/or fuels to power vehicles and automobiles.

3. CALLS FOR the closures of fossil fueled power plants by member states and by corporations operating within member states within 15 years of passing this resolution.

4. EMPHASIZES that hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear power generation are acceptable alternatives.

5. RECOMMENDS that an emissions trading scheme be created by individual member states as another means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

If you mean the "westminster" style i used in this proposal, my mistake...


Certainly the style is a problem for us, but that is not the main problem.

The resolution is far too simplistic, it makes certain presumptions about its chosen topic which a too questionable and too vague. The resolution fails to compass the full breadth of the issue it seeks to regulate.

One of the primary problems is with the definitions, they are not accurate or comprehensive.

What is the aim of the resolution? To ban the use of fossil fuels in power production? If so then it should do so thoroughly and clearly.

The list included in the statute of "acceptable alternatives" is made inactive by the fact that these are a list which "includes" leaving a nation the option of introducing even more environmentally damaging methods of power production, and since this list could never be actually comprehensive it should be removed.

These are our comments for now, we may have more later.

yours e.t.c. ,

Whereas the member states of this Assembly understand that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

We are not opposed to this section.

Whereas the member states of this Assembly recognizes that the result of the usage and burning fossil fuels is causing long term negative effects on the environment.

Our science suggests otherwise. For one thing, we define "longterm" as "thousands of years," due to sheer magnitude of what we are talking about and the forces in play, plus how long it sometimes takes changes in them environment to actually come into play on a global scale. Our own science suggests that, at most, adverse affects of this would only last five hundred to seven hundred years, thus making the issue entirely in the short term.

Now, therefore, the World Assembly enacts the following:

I. DEFINITIONS

"fossil fuels" means hydrocarbons used for energy, and can included coal, methane, gasoline, crude

This definition needs to be changed. "Hydrocarbons" are the essential makeup of life, and as such this definition effectively includes eating and certain fuels we label as alternative but not as fossil fuels under the definition. We project the WA's population to last an average of three days after this is passed under the current wording of this definition... and while we would not mind the extra land for our nation, we do include some nations who's influence would be missed by the world within the WA.

"Assembly" means the World Assembly

"members" and "states" means the member states of the World Assembly

“power plants” means coal-burning power plants

We're kinda iffy on the power plants one. Maybe remove it and just be more specific about which kind of power plant when banning them? We also note this comes into conflict with the power plants section.

AUTOMOBILES

1. By 2030, all automobiles produced, bought, sold, and used by the citizens of members shall not be fully dependent on fossil fuels, and shall have a maximum dependency of 50% for fuel or energy.

We must object on the use of a date, as some nations already are passed that date on their calendars and would thus be automatically in violation upon its passing.

2. Member states shall, to the best of the abilities, find safe alternative environment friendly energy and/or fuels to power vehicles and automobiles.

Considering the wording of #1, does this mean that failure simply forces them to not use vehicles at all?

III. POWER PLANTS

1. By 2030, member states shall dismantle coal burning power plants. Acceptable replacements include hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear.

Once again, we object to the date. We also object to nuclear, as unsafe disposal of nuclear waste can be far more damaging than burning coal and the waste definitely lasts longer.

IV. TREES AND FORESTS

1. Members states shall do their best to maintain and expand natural forests, plant new trees each year to help reduce the damage from the burning of fossil fuels.

This is in conflict with the ban, we find. Our scientists are actually noting that some plants, specifically trees, are growing faster due to the burning of fossil fuels because of the extra abundance of carbon for those plants to use to build themselves with. If anything, burning fossil fuels actually appears to benefit them. Our scientists say that reducing the burning of fossil fuels may actually have the opposite effect on forests of what this section suggests, since they are dependent upon carbon in the air to build themselves with.

V. PENALTIES

1. If a member were to violate this act, the penalty will be 0.001% of the annual GDP.

2. Corporations of member states who violate this act will be subject to a penalty of 0.1% of their quarterly profits.

We object to the penalties. Compliance in the WA is mandatory.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

5. RECOMMENDS that an emissions trading scheme be created by individual member states as another means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I remember the last time this was brought up. I have no urge whatsoever to go through that again.

operating clauses 2, and 5 are only recommendations, hence "RECOMMENDS" and not "REQIRES"

To clarify: this is in reference to the unsubmitted proposal, not the one currently voted on by regional delegates

RECOGNIZING that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

ALAMED by the negative long term effects of the burning and usage of fossil fuels

Define "fossil fuels."

3. CALLS FOR the closures of fossil fueled power plants by member states and by corporations operating within member states within 15 years of passing this resolution.

Opposed. Our nation, at current, cannot manage it within 15 years, due to the rapid growth of our nation by immigration and the necessary expansions of power just to support them. Our alternative power sources are far from being expanded enough to replace our fossil fuel power plants.

4. EMPHASIZES that hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear power generation are acceptable alternatives.

We are still opposed to the inclusion of nuclear for reasons previous stated.

5. RECOMMENDS that an emissions trading scheme be created by individual member states as another means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Opposed. Those schemes do not reduce pollution, but merely pass the cost along to the customer.

Define "fossil fuels."Let's not be pedantic...

That wasn't meant as pedantry, but as heading off the inevitable arguments on the definition before they come. Given a reading of the conversations for the current and previous resolutions at vote, it seems prudent to do so just to prevent headaches.

Once again, we object to the date. We also object to nuclear, as unsafe disposal of nuclear waste can be far more damaging than burning coal and the waste definitely lasts longer.

Scientist have recently discovered a way to "recycle" used uranium to be used in our ARBORCANDU Nuclear Reactors, making such an argument obsolete.

I can revise the dates

Clean Air Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Arbores Canadia

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

ALARMED by the negative long term effects of the burning and usage of fossil fuels

NOTING that automobiles and fossil fueled power plants are major sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere

FULLY AWARE that several member states are opposed to nuclear power generation

NOTING FURTHER that there are methods of "recycling" nuclear fuel

1. CALLS UPON car manufacturers to produce and to sell automobiles and other vehicles that are less than 50% reliant on fossil fuels for energy within 20 years of passing this resolution.

2. RECOMMENDS that member states and corporations operating within member states find safe alternative environment friendly energy and/or fuels to power vehicles and automobiles.

3. CALLS FOR the closures of fossil fueled power plants by member states and by corporations operating within member states within 30 years of passing this resolution.

4. EMPHASIZES that hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear power generation are acceptable alternatives.

5. RECOMMENDS that a 10-years emissions trading scheme be created by individual member states to see if such a scheme is a viable method to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Please edit your original thread's first post so that your latest version appears in the first post. Thanks.

Duplicate thread merged.

Clean Air Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Arbores Canadia

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the Environment is an essential part of this earth, our health, and our wellbeing.

ALARMED by the negative long term effects of the burning and usage of fossil fuels

We still object to the usage of "long-term" and still believe a definition of "fossil fuels" to be a necessity, given the debates that will naturally pop up about the subject. Mainly, to head off people before they think of rediculous things to complain about on this issue.

NOTING that automobiles and fossil fueled power plants are major sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere

Agreed.

FULLY AWARE that several member states are opposed to nuclear power generation

Depends, but good enough to not get an objection.

NOTING FURTHER that there are methods of "recycling" nuclear fuel

Opposed. Not all nations have access to this technology, despite the fact your's does, and some nations do not even have the technological advancement to utilize any such recycling programs. Unless your nation is willing to pay the cost of modernizing entire nations and spreading that technology to them, we do not see how such a technology will ever be a viable solution to the issue.

1. CALLS UPON car manufacturers to produce and to sell automobiles and other vehicles that are less than 50% reliant on fossil fuels for energy within 20 years of passing this resolution.

20 years is good by our nation, but might be beyond unreasonable for some of the larger ones, which can literally have billions of cars on the road.

2. RECOMMENDS that member states and corporations operating within member states find safe alternative environment friendly energy and/or fuels to power vehicles and automobiles.

Agreed.

3. CALLS FOR the closures of fossil fueled power plants by member states and by corporations operating within member states within 30 years of passing this resolution.

Might be unworkable for some of the larger nations.

4. EMPHASIZES that hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear power generation are acceptable alternatives.

Still opposed to nuclear, for reasons stated.

5. RECOMMENDS that a 10-years emissions trading scheme be created by individual member states to see if such a scheme is a viable method to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Still opposed to this section, though we may be willing to drop that opposition for the short-term since this article doesn't mandate the trading schemes. We just find it to be a massive loophole out of this proposal.

To your response to

The preamble: Arbores Canadia is willing to provide such technology for member states of the World Assembly, as well as helping to build ARBORCANDU Nuclear Reactors which have safeguards to prevent the fuel to be used in weapons

Operating clause 1: This resolution mandates that car manufactures produce and sell vehicles and automobiles that are less than 50% reliant on fossil fuels, but it does not mandate that vehicles manufactured before the 20 years are up are restricted. Used vehicles can be easily modified to in take used vegetable oil (i.e. your car will smell like fries :D ).

Operating clause 3: Possible, especially within 30 years. Member states could legislate that new homes need to have solar cells on their roof, or become an essential part of their roof. Windmills are easily build on farmland, hills. Hydroelectric and nuclear obvious take longer and a lot of engineering work, but it can be done, and solar and wind could take the pressure until the larger power generating methods can be built.

Operating clause 4: answered in preamble and response to preamble.

Operating clause 5: clearly marked as a recommendation.

Operating clause 5: clearly marked as a recommendation.

And as a recommendation, it's entirely useless. If you want a trading scheme, define one, otherwise it won't happen at all, never mind in an even marginally effective manner. I strongly recommend that you don't work on emissions trading, but that might just be a severe allergy to the last nation to try.

A Proposal for a trading scheme will appear as soon the Clean Air Act is passed by the WA, until this first step is done, I will not move forward with any other legislation concerning the environment.

To clarify something, this piece of legislation is essentially a base for other environmental legislations, and as soon as this is passed I will be pushing other pieces of legislation, such as a "Clean Water Act" (I don't agree with some of the wording of the proposed "Pure Water Act"), and a "Clean Arctic Act", something of that sort.

To your response to

The preamble: Arbores Canadia is willing to provide such technology for member states of the World Assembly, as well as helping to build ARBORCANDU Nuclear Reactors which have safeguards to prevent the fuel to be used in weapons

Some of the nations you will be providing technology to still use arrows and swords, having not advanced far enough to utilize gunpowder yet, let alone nuclear technology. At best, our estimate puts the total cost your nation would have to pay in order to provide the technology at around seven or eight quadrillion dollars. Maybe more. We're pretty sure the funding for that is beyond the reach of even the largest of nations. Even with the thousands of nations making up the WA, we fail to see how this assembly could possibly fund this project, making any chance of mandating the WA pay for it be moot.

Operating clause 1: This resolution mandates that car manufactures produce and sell vehicles and automobiles that are less than 50% reliant on fossil fuels, but it does not mandate that vehicles manufactured before the 20 years are up are restricted. Used vehicles can be easily modified to in take used vegetable oil (i.e. your car will smell like fries :D ).

Vegetable oil is unworkable as a solution, due to practical problems that come from the fact vegetable oil solidifies rather easily in colder temperatures. Plus, the smell pollution alone would draw massive public protests from entire regions.

Operating clause 3: Possible, especially within 30 years. Member states could legislate that new homes need to have solar cells on their roof, or become an essential part of their roof. Windmills are easily build on farmland, hills. Hydroelectric and nuclear obvious take longer and a lot of engineering work, but it can be done, and solar and wind could take the pressure until the larger power generating methods can be built.

Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are dependant upon a combination of local climate and geography. Hydroelectric is simply unworkable in our nation, since we don't actually have a river with the right setup for it to be workable and it would take years to create one. The large lake on our northern border is fed by a river that runs through mostly flat land, with several tributary streams feeding into it from the mountains. None of the streams are large enough to provide hydroelectric and the river itself begins in land without enough elevation. And we are far from the only nation that will have problems with one, or all, of those technologies.

If there are states that still use sticks and stones, bows and arrows, swords and spears as their only way of defending themselves, I don't see how they will be affected by this bill as if their technology level is still not at the point where they are capable and stable electric power generation. This piece of legislation is targeting those with the capability and the infrastructure to create power themselves as well as those who have the technology to manufacture automobiles.

Oh! I know this one! It was on the top of his desk...

*shuffles papers, searching*

Ah! Found it!

"The point is not that some nations are that far unadvanced, but that nations themselves are not all at the same technology level. Some nations are capable of producing vehicles, but are not yet advanced enough to make use of alternative power sources due to lacking the technology. This would mandate them to have to spend a massive amount of time and money to end up utilizing technology they do not yet have the advancement for, requiring an outside nation to supply those technologies, even if they currently exist in a region that lacks the technologies and they have no communication with more advanced nations."

Yay! He used the book I recommended! Oh, sorry, right... Dignified representation... dignified...

Perhaps the core issue is just the differences in technology?

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC: The issue is the differences in technology level between nations. Some play as FT, some as PMT, some as MT, some as PT, and some as pre-modern. There are currently nations who are, technologically, at about the level of World War Two mixed in with nations that make Star Trek look primitive due to how far advanced they are. It's an unsolveable issue with how RP in NS has set things.

being a very cold wet country and with all but the coastal regions being quite high above sea level we of axmanland are quite looking forward to global warming.

besides we really don't see the point of environmental measures, for most axmanlanders environmental legislation is shutting the door looooong after the horse has bolted.

the hills glow at night, most major rivers have a pH of three or lower,the latest teen fashion trend is designer filter masks, the levels of uranium in the water are classified as "mostly not deadly" ,and we have a historic tire fire over a century old.

in short this measure would be a drop in the ocean a VERY expensive drop..........