NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft II

-----------------------------------------


CLEAN ENERGY ACT
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Areas of Effect: Uranium mining
Proposed by: Stash Kroh

ACKNOWLEDGING

I) Roughly 3/5 WA nations neglect environmental funding.
II) Fossil Fuel burning is polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases across the nations, and many nuclear power generation plants have intolerable levels of thermal pollution.
III) Since it's creation, the WA has yet to pass a single resolution that attempts to solve any environmental concerns.
IV) The cost of repairing the ecological damage and the health problems of the future is significantly greater than the cost of prevention.
V) These problems will only get progressively worse unless something is done.

CONCERNED that because of the environmental practices of many member nations, the World Assembly faces a serious problem of health if such governmental neglect and environmental deterioration continues.

RECOGNIZING that promoting more acceptable forms of energy production in WA nations would be beneficial to the betterment of the environment, and quality of living for others. A lucrative bonus may entice nations to become more environmentally friendly. As well as helping establish a more positive future for the WA.

ESTABLISHING the development of the World Assembly Environmental Control Board, (ECB) which will investigate claims of unacceptable air pollution, dumping and other environmental problems, provide yearly environmental statistics, lower tariffs on imports that inflict minimal harm on the environment and regulate a Clean Energy bonus and an annual examination of member nations.

The Clean Energy bonus will utilize the WA General Fund. Nations that meet the following criteria would receive the sizeable bonus for their exceptional environmental record.

The Criteria

(I) 70% or more of a nation’s power generation is created by renewable clean sources, which do not leave traces of the following environmental damages..

-pollutants
-mining
-excessive thermal pollution
-considerable ecological damage
-poor air quality
-substantial noise pollution

INSISTING that the ECB's first mission after creation is to devise strict safety standards and environmental codes for all forms of energy production used by WA nations. Including proper routines for the storage of high level radioactive waste, the temperature of discharged water, carbon emission targets and a multitude of other environmental and safety protocols that need to be addressed.

STATING the ECB can and will shut down any establishments used for energy production that do not meet the criteria of the ECB's regulations.

MANDATING that the ECB work in cooperation with the WA General Fund and member nations of considerable environmental damage, to rectify any environmental wrongdoings. However such implementations would create a debt to be paid, an environmental interest charge of 2% over every year after the ECB’s constructive involvement must be upheld by the ECB. After 10 years the debt plus the interest needs to be paid back to the ECB or auditing from the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) will commence.

Environmental proposals don't have "mild" strengths. They have 4 different areas of effect - Autos, Uranium, Woodchipping, and All Business. I'll tell you right now that "All Business" is anything but *Mild*.

Taken into account, Thank you Frisbeeteria, sorry to say I misunderstood the effect this Act might have.

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench would oppose this resolution as written. We would absolutely object to our membership donations being used to pay dividends to technologically backward nations who show reckless disregard for ecology.

Why should the Taxpayers of Urgench be required to indulge the obnoxious negligence of states who should know better and should do better without needing to be financially rewarded?

Yours e.t.c.,

Huh? The bonus is for Eco-friendly nations to encourage environmental improvement.

No one's being rewarded for being polluters?

The ECB may at times intervene to improve conditions of wastelands, but that is not a reward for being terrible to the environment.

You are asking the Taxpayers of Urgench to give money to nations with poor histories in environmental conservation so that they can improve energy systems that they should have improved for themselves already. Why should any member state of this organisation agree to this?

We have no interest in how other member states obtain energy unless you can show a clear reason why we should do so. Why should we care if technologically impoverished states wish to use fossil fuels? Or Nuclear power for that matter? Where is the evidence that this effects the people of Urgench? The honoured Ambassador for Unibot makes no case for money to be wasted in this fashion, they provide no compelling evidence or arguments for this scheme to rob peter to pay paul.

yours e.t.c. ,

What if this line is taken out?

MANDATING that the ECB work in cooperation with the WA General Fund and member nations and regions of considerable environmental damage, to regulate the environmental footprint of that nation positively with funding to help erect cleaner energy sources to replace contaminating and polluting ones.


Then the entire act would only be about giving money to nations who have been environmentally friendly. Not about improving wastelands with funds.

Why should any member state of this organisation agree to this?

Well, if they're eco-friendly they're getting a lump of cash every year for starters,

Perhaps the Honoured Ambassador should think about approach rather than wording. It would seem sensible to encourage best practice if it has tangible benefit to the entire membership of this organisation. One could conceive of a trade statute which required basic standards of environmental protection while promoting international trade and investment in environmentally responsible energy production in a way which would benefit the entire w.a.

This is purely an example of course, but the honoured Ambassador can see that the approach is key and innovation is vital.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Well the benefit to the WA is explained in the Act,
-better public perception
-An overall lowered environmental footprint of the WA
-finally an economic bonus for being green

So, your suggesting Urgench, that the ECB be in a trade relationship with eco-diasater nations as opposed to being the Mother Teresa of the environment, to be more responsible with WA funds? (fair enough)

So are you trying to say the ECB collect more tax from environmentally backward nations? (which is a policy I was trying to avoid), or for the involvement of the ECB in your nation for environmental cleanups a tax is applied, like some sort accumulating environmental interest? With help comes a debt to be repaid back to the WA basically.

The latter sounds intriguing to me.

First the OOC bit:

CLEAN ENERGY BONUS ACT
A resolution to promote the creation and usage of clean renewable energy sources for WA nations with yearly bonuses and funding.

You don't get to pick this text. It's filled in automatically by the proposal mechanism when you select the category. If you want to add words to this effect at the start of the proposal proper, that's your own business, but this is auto-generated.

Category: Environmental | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Unibot
You've misunderstood Fris: the Environmental category does not have a Strength setting, it has an Industry Affected setting (or whatever it's called, I can't be bothered to look it up for you) instead. It will also be proposed by your WA puppet, since I note that doesn't seem to be you. Adding "Proposed by Unibot" would probably constitute a branding violation.

Just so this isn't a surprise, you should also know that you don't get to do any formatting in proposals. You only get to put in plain text, no markup, so none of the bolding and underlining that you're doing here will work.

Now back in character:

ACKNOWLEDGING

A) That the state of some WA nations from pollution is increasingly awful.
B) Regions that haven’t already been pillaged, polluted beyond recognition or mined destructively by corporate monopolies are in many cases in unacceptable form.
C) Fossil Fuel burning is causing harmful greenhouse gases, and many nuclear power generation plants have intolerable levels of thermal pollution.
I'm pretty sure I don't acknowledge all of that, and A) is a particularly unlovely sentence, but what the heck. It's your sales pitch, you can write what you like.

(OOC again: "Region" has a specific and unusual meaning in NationStates, so you probably want to avoid using it. Careless wording could leave you accidentally crossing the line into metagaming.)

RECOGNIZING that funding for more expectable forms of energy production in WA nations would be beneficial to the betterment of the environment, and quality of living for others. As well as helping establish a more positive outlook on the WA which has been criticized in the past for it’s apparent lack of attention towards environmental issues.
"Expectable" isn't the word you meant, I hope. The whole of the first sentence could use some polish, for that matter. The second "sentence" (which isn't a sentence, but which given the structure you've picked really has to be, for once) isn't helpful; the WA has also been criticised for not giving every nation its very own slice of the moon, failing to recreate prehistoric sabre-toothed moles, and bouncing my expenses chit for a new office chair. And a new office, for that matter. Never mind that they weren't the ones who were supposed to be paying in the first place, that's a minor detail.

Ahem.

Anyway, that sentence sets up a straw man that you can demolish to make you look heroic in the eyes of the WA membership. Unfortunately it's much too obvious about it, and ends up making me wonder if you were the one doing all the criticising.

ESTABLISHING a clean energy bonus utilizing the WA General Fund. Nations that meet the following criteria would receive the sizeable energy bonus.
It's petty of me I know, but I have to ask: just how many kilowatt-hours is a sizeable energy bonus?

Less pettily, it's common to switch verb moods here to give a clear lead that we're out of the sale pitch and into the actual law. So you end up with something like:


ACKNOWLEDGING <that a problem exists>,
RECOGNIZING <a potential solution>,
The WA ESTABLISHES <a bonus>,
PENDS <a committee>,
and MANDATES <what the committee does>.

The Criteria
(I) 35% or more of a nation’s power generation is created by renewable clean sources, which do not leave an unacceptable environmental footprint such as pollutants, mining or excessive thermal pollution.
Oh, a can of worms. Here, let me open it for you. Is the damming of rivers to generate clean hydro-electric power considered to leave an unacceptable environmental footprint? What about the destruction of wetlands caused by building tidal barriers? Or the birds killed by windmills? OK, that last one's a stretch, but you get the idea.
(II) The WA is allowed on all legal bounds by the member nations’ government to investigate and examine the power generation of the member nation in question.

I didn't understand that one at all. If you intend what I think you intend, I suspect you're going to have to spell out carefully what is and what isn't allowed.

PENDING the development of the World Assembly Environmental Control Board, (ECB) which would investigate claims of unacceptable air pollution, dumping and other environmental problems, and regulate the Clean Energy bonus and its yearly examination of member nations.
"PENDING" really isn't the word you're after. Neither is "would"; "will" would be better.

It doesn't help that this feels like it's being done ass-backwards. It's more natural to me to create the committee and then slot it into the elements of its job, i.e. switch the order of this and the last clause, and reword them slightly. Then again I am a bureaucrat, so I would say that.

What does the ECB get to do about claims of environmental problems apart from investigate them? It doesn't have any powers it can bring to bear beyond not coughing up the bonus, which you'd hope it would do anyway based on the annual check-up, so it seems pointless to mention it.

MANDATING that the ECB work in cooperation with the WA General Fund and member nations and regions of considerable environmental damage, to regulate the environmental footprint of that nation positively with funding to help erect cleaner energy sources to replace contaminating and polluting ones.
There must be a better way of phrasing that.

All fair points,

It's petty of me I know, but I have to ask: just how many kilowatt-hours is a sizeable energy bonus

Energy Bonus being money for saving energy. Not a can of magical energy that the WA acceding from the heavens gives you. But I know the wording is poor.

Oh, a can of worms. Here, let me open it for you

Yes the legal bounds of an unacceptable environmental footprint is not clearly defined in this resolution. Possible because I was hoping the magical ECB would solve that for me. How about I gather some opinions on the subject from other WA members before posting such a statement (and do some research myself).

I didn't understand that one at all

The ECB is allowed to examine your power generation sources, if you wish to be eligible for the bonus.

What does the ECB get to do about claims of environmental problems apart from investigate them

Working on a new draft, ECB will be working with nations for environmental clean-ups coinciding governmental interest for its involvement.

which you'd hope it would do anyway based on the annual check-up

If you don't pass the criteria, you don't get the bonus.

Is there any proof that their is significant environmental damage occuring in the NS world?

Why should we care if technologically impoverished states wish to use fossil fuels? Or Nuclear power for that matter?
Perhaps because they would probably be less likely than more advanced nations to be able to run their nuclear plants safely? The pollution from a burning reactor, or from a full-scale, 'meltdown' event, wouldn't recognise international borders...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Well the benefit to the WA is explained in the Act,
-better public perception
-An overall lowered environmental footprint of the WA
-finally an economic bonus for being green

So, your suggesting Urgench, that the ECB be in a trade relationship with eco-disaster nations as opposed to being the Mother Teresa of the environment, to be more responsible with WA funds? (fair enough)

So are you trying to say the ECB collect more tax from environmentally backward nations? (which is a policy I was trying to avoid), or for the involvement of the ECB in your nation for environmental cleanups a tax is applied, like some sort accumulating environmental interest? With help comes a debt to be repaid back to the WA basically.

The latter sounds intriguing to me.



The government of the Emperor of Urgench has no interest in how the W.A. is publicly perceived, certainly we would not wish our membership donations to be wasted on a P.R. exercise.

We must ask the honoured Ambassador for Unibot, what is the current "environmental footprint" and is there any good evidence that this needs re-sizing with large quantities of w.a. funding ?

Honoured Ambassador, you still have failed to properly explain why making payments of an unspecified amount for unspecified uses to any nation which decides to stop polluting is of any actual benefit to the entire membership of this organisation. Urgench is already responsible, we do not wish to be rewards with cash prises for this.

We are not suggesting the Honoured Ambassador's ECB should be in a trade relationship with member states, we are suggesting that the W.A. should not be creating an ecological welfare state but that it should instead encourage trade in environmentally friendly technologies and more than this encourage research and development of such.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps because they would probably be less likely than more advanced nations to be able to run their nuclear plants safely? The pollution from a burning reactor, or from a full-scale, 'meltdown' event, wouldn't recognise international borders...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


We thank the Honoured Ambassador for Bears Armed for their pointing this out, but we should tell them that we are not without imagination or comprehension of reality and therefore have no need of their hypothesising on this matter.

We were asking the Honoured Ambassador for Unibot to make a full and cogent case for what they are attempting to do. We were not asking them to tell us what the possible drawbacks of a faulty or ill-maintained nuclear power plant are. That much is obvious. The honoured Ambassador for Unibot is not, it seems, actually suggesting that the w.a. upgrade the Nuclear facilities of member states who have neglected them.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We are not suggesting the Honoured Ambassador's ECB should be in a trade relationship with member states, we are suggesting that the W.A. should not be creating an ecological welfare state but that it should instead encourage trade in environmentally friendly technologies and more than this encourage research and development of such.

How about the Clean Energy Bonus stays intact, however the "ecological welfare state" sections left out, with a trade section instead. The ECB would conduct trade with a state that qualifies for the Clean Energy Bonus, but what what would be in the trade?
Uranium? Have nations export they're now largely unused shipments of Uranium to the ECB for imports of **something** (drawing a blank, extra money?), so the ECB can sell the Uranium for its own profits to poorer less resourced nations or add it to the WA nuclear stockpile.

what is the current "environmental footprint"
Well according to activist groups like Green Think Tank, the footprint could be much smaller, and remember your nation is amongst us all, a nuclear fallout, air pollution and ecological disasters could deteriorate the World Assembly from the inside.


Thank you for reading,
Ambassador Eduard Heir
The Government Monopoly of Unibot

Also, with the large number of Anti-WA institutions and a record loss of members, I think it clear the WA has a VERY large public relations problem. With PR effecting the member rate of the WA, less donations to the WA general fund are going to occur.

How about the Clean Energy Bonus stays intact, however the "ecological welfare state" sections left out, with a trade section instead. The ECB would conduct trade with a state that qualifies for the Clean Energy Bonus, but what what would be in the trade?
Uranium? Have nations export they're now largely unused shipments of Uranium to the ECB for imports of **something** (drawing a blank, extra money?), so the ECB can sell the Uranium for its own profits to poorer less resourced nations or add it to the WA nuclear stockpile.


Well according to activist groups like Green Think Tank, the footprint could be much smaller, and remember your nation is amongst us all, a nuclear fallout, air pollution and ecological disasters could deteriorate the World Assembly from the inside.


Thank you for reading,
Ambassador Eduard Heir
The Government Monopoly of Unibot


The honoured Ambassador seems obsessed with making their committee do the work. Indeed no committee is actually necessary at all. Simply require member states to reduce trade barriers, such as tariff, on the trade in ecologically compatible technology and create an institute for members to share technological advances and research.

As for the Think Tank the honoured Ambassador mentions we have never heard of them and they have never researched our region to our knowledge. If this Think Tank exists only in the mythical "Real World" then its findings are completely irrelevant to this world.

The honoured Ambassador makes reference to the loss of membership which has occurred recently and imagines erroneously that the w.a. 's ecological credentials have anything to do with it. This is of course false, membership rises and falls and the recent migration of many nations elsewhere ( O.O.C. to NS2 ) has played the largest part in this recent dip. Creating an ECB will not significantly change the situation and no reliable information exists that any nation has resigned form the w.a. over environmental issues.


Yours e.t.c. ,

The honoured Ambassador seems obsessed with making their committee do the work. Indeed no committee is actually necessary at all. Simply require member states to reduce trade barriers, such as tariff, on the trade in ecologically compatible technology and create an institute for members to share technological advances and research.
As mentioned before the Clean Energy Bonus will stay intact in the next draft, consider it the white knight of this project. Membership Demographics is being considered, voters will be likely to vote for this Resolution with the bonus. However I have no problem
deconstructing the ECB for this resolution, though I believe an environmental control board should at least be considered by the WA in the future. The lowering of tariffs on ecologically significant products and the creation of WA Environmental Exposition will be defined in my third draft.

The Green Think Tank is a NS environmental organization.

Their forum is available here (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

As opposed to rashly altering the available draft here, I have posted the third draft which is altered dramatically (The title is now "Clean Energy Act" not "Clean Energy Bonus Act"), on a different site temporarily. The new changes include lowered tariffs on eco-friendly products, an eco-exhibition called GreenStates, the obliteration of the ECB and any sort of funding to environmental eyesores.

The third draft is available here (http://associationofworlds.googlepages.com/cleanenergyact)


Thank you for reading,
Ambassador Eduard Heir
The Government Monopoly of Unibot

Energy Bonus being money for saving energy. Not a can of magical energy that the WA acceding from the heavens gives you. But I know the wording is poor.
Exactly my point. Poor wording can and will be exploited.

Yes the legal bounds of an unacceptable environmental footprint is not clearly defined in this resolution. Possible because I was hoping the magical ECB would solve that for me. How about I gather some opinions on the subject from other WA members before posting such a statement (and do some research myself).
The ECB could solve that for you if you empower it to do so. If you don't, it can't. Currently, you don't.

The ECB is allowed to examine your power generation sources, if you wish to be eligible for the bonus.
Then say that. What was in the original wasn't intelligeable English.

Working on a new draft, ECB will be working with nations for environmental clean-ups coinciding governmental interest for its involvement.
Coinciding?

If you don't pass the criteria, you don't get the bonus.
For this and the above, if you don't say so, it doesn't get to do it.


Is there any proof that their is significant environmental damage occuring in the NS world?
Not a jot, as far as I can tell.


As opposed to rashly altering the available draft here, I have posted the third draft which is altered dramatically (The title is now "Clean Energy Act" not "Clean Energy Bonus Act"), on a different site temporarily. The new changes include lowered tariffs on eco-friendly products, an eco-exhibition called GreenStates, the obliteration of the ECB and any sort of funding to environmental eyesores.
I'd rate it as worse in almost all respects. Less focused, less clear, and less likely to achieve much.

I'd rate it as worse in almost all respects. Less focused, less clear, and less likely to achieve much.

WTF???? How can it be WORSE if he re-worded it to YOUR liking???:mad:

Personally i like the third draft better, it's more to-the-point about everything and dosen't use overly large words to confuse us.

I'd rate it as worse in almost all respects. Less focused, less clear, and less likely to achieve much.

Agreed.
I updated Draft II with portions of Draft III that I did like better, particularly the first section. However left out the tarrifs and expos because the act does become very unfocused and multi tasked with them. However this leaves the "environmental welfare" that others complained about, though it also creates the "compensation for welfare" so the WA can get back its money while still making the nations healthier and stronger.

I did end up defining a unacceptable environmental footprint in the criteria.

Thank you for your constructive criticism Gobbannaen WA Mission.

Exactly my point. Poor wording can and will be exploited.

But take a break from the serious act will you, I was joking, I understood your point.

Is there any proof that their is significant environmental damage occuring in the NS world?

How the hell am I suppose to do that? Its a text-based game, its all made up, look over there, see the smog, that stuff, that's a problem. The best I can do is mention the strong following of uranium as an energy source and argue the thermal pollution.

How can it be WORSE if he re-worded it to YOUR liking

Draft III was re-worded for Urgench, Draft II was re-worded for Gobbannaen WA Mission.

To be fair.

The Green Think Tank is a NS environmental organization.

Their forum is available here (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)


And what use are this organisation's conclusions to the formation of statutory remedy? We have made preliminary investigation of it, and this organisation though it seems well intentioned cannot inform our position with its opinions without coonvincing studies or reliable evidences.

We do however see much more merit in the most recent re-draft of the honoured delegation for Unibot's resolution.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Is there any way to calculate on average how many nations in the game have fully developed uranium industries?

After an intense study with dozens of regions, it has been concluded that on average 1 in 5 nations are powered specifically by nuclear power. With 3090 WA nations using nuclear power, with an average of 3.4 billion people per member nation, some highly interesting conclusions can be drawn. A Nuclear Reactor working at maximum efficiency on average, powers 773,000 homes, therefore 1101 nuclear reactors of member ownership exist. An average nuclear reactor creates 20 tonnes of nuclear waste a year, so roughly 22,020 tonnes of nuclear waste is created by WA nations a year. A NationStates Year is defined as one RL day. If a good exponential growth formula for the population of WA members is Y=(13,868)(1.00047^x), then applying this to the projected nuclear waste would create a formula similar to Y=(19764)(1.00047^x). Using these formulas and knowledge of Simpson’s formula of area, the nuclear waste created by WA nations since the creation of the WA is predicted to be 6.82 million tonnes.

Concluded by whom honoured Ambassador ? The Axis of Absurdity does not recognise these findings since it does not seem to have been visited by researchers or inspectors who made themselves known to its member nations. If this analysis was conducted on purely statistical evidence without reference to observed facts within w.a. member states then it is deeply flawed.

As it is we remain unable to endorse the prejudices of an unspecified special interest group which has a vested interest in seeing its own faulty research accepted as authoritative and the rash conclusions arising therefrom implemented on a compliant w.a.

The honoured Ambassador for Unibot undoubtedly has good intentions in addressing this issue and we commend their work so far. With some more work the Government of the Emperor of Urgench can certainly see itself voting for this resolution and urging others to do so also. However if the presumptions which underpin this resolution are motivated by the research mentioned above then this support is conditional upon the creation by this statute of a w.a. research and statistical analysis organisation with competence in environmental science.

The w.a. cannot be expected to acquiesce to the vague assertions of an organisation who's research methods are unclear at best and who's objectivity cannot be assured. This entire field of law cannot be held hostage to fuzzy science and the unreliable sentiment of self selecting zealots.


Yours sincerely,

Indeed; the evidence as provided is (as it can only be) based on the amount of uranium mined, and does not take into account uses for Uranium other then in nuclear reactors. Some countries might have a nuclear weapons fetish, others might be populated by creatures that eat uranium, some might use it space travel systems, whereas it's use as a currency or currency base or standard cannot be ruled out.

Even in Cobdenia, we have uranium mining, but absolutely no nuclear technology - we just don't have the capability technologically, although hopefully next year (1934) we're hoping to start implementing a plan of electrical street lighting in some major cities to replace gas. What do we do with uranium? We experiment with it. We have a feeling it might make a good material for cricket bats...

The findings use data collected from thirty random regions of different sizes including the Axis of Absurdity (the axis was not randomly chosen but included specifically).

Even in Cobdenia, we have uranium mining, but absolutely no nuclear technology - we just don't have the capability technologically, although hopefully next year (1934) we're hoping to start implementing a plan of electrical street lighting in some major cities to replace gas. What do we do with uranium? We experiment with it. We have a feeling it might make a good material for cricket bats...

Surely you make up a very small minority that would not effect the data's conclusions.

The average percentage of government funding is a pathetic 2.5% towards the environment.

Some countries might have a nuclear weapons fetish, others might be populated by creatures that eat uranium, some might use it space travel systems, whereas it's use as a currency or currency base or standard cannot be ruled out.

The Uranium Mining industry would either have to be pathetically small, or your weapon stockpile inconceivably massive for the industry to be solely used for weapons manufacturing. Besides, those nations who use the mining for weapons created have they're nation's main industry labelled as Arms Manufacturing.

The findings use data collected from thirty random regions of different sizes including the Axis of Absurdity (the axis was not randomly chosen but included specifically).



Surely you make up a very small minority that would not effect the data's conclusions.

The average percentage of government funding is a pathetic 2.5% towards the environment.


Why was the Axis of Absurdity specifically chosen in a study which was supposed to be random and would this not undermine the findings since the study group can no longer claim to be randomly selected and therefore as representative as possible ?

And in any event the findings still are not recognised by our region as official or impartial and as we pointed out ( as have others ) this grossly simplified and narrow base of data cannot be expected to accurately portray the actual environmental picture on the ground within w.a. member states.

This all shows exactly why a w.a. institute of environmental studies, which could be relied upon for accurate analysis, is so necessary before laws can be made regarding ecological issues.

Yours e.t.c. ,

You're missing the point: Uranium Mining is absolutely no indication of nuclear industry, nor collective waste stockpiling. One major factor you're ignoring is international trade. Cobdenia has a uranium mining industry, but little use for uranium. So, we flog it to nations that need it. Some of them use it for power stations, some are massive intergalatic star empires that use it to power rocket ships, others use it for nukes, god knows what some others use it for. Maybe they siccesfully use it for sporting equipment orsprinkle it on their cornflakes. Frankly, that isn't our concern.

Using sampling methods on NSWiki similar to your own, I found 6/10 nations were either futuristic, star empires, or populated by weird creatures. 1 was in the past.

Furthermore, according to this pervented line of reasoning, the only alternative sources of fuel would come from burning woodchips, furniture, and wicker baskets; none of these are particularly environmentally freindly, as well as being a waste of good craftsmanship

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

the first sentence has already discouraged me from supporting this.

Wachichi

Well what do you want people!
You want stats, so I give you stats.
But it turns out you didn't want stats, you wanted an organization to make stats.
But to do that a resolution would need to be passed.
To pass it you would need stats to get you motivated into passing the resolution.
But you didn't want stats, you wanted the organization.

The best I can do is include a tag on the Clean Energy Act stating the ECB will further the investigation of pollution by member nations. But apparently we can't pass that act unless we have the stats ALREADY!

the first sentence has already discouraged me from supporting this.

That' not my wording, that's NS.


the only alternative sources of fuel

The Coal/Natural Gas/Petroluem using nations would be ones not funding the environment but without a uranium mining industry.

Nations that use renewable clean energy would fund the environment,

So that makes the figures as so

3/5 WA nations use non-renewable energy sources.

Well what do you want people!
You want stats, so I give you stats.
But it turns out you didn't want stats, you wanted an organization to make stats.
But to do that a resolution would need to be passed.
To pass it you would need stats to get you motivated into passing the resolution.
But you didn't want stats, you wanted the organization.

The best I can do is include a tag on the Clean Energy Act stating the ECB will further the investigation of pollution by member nations. But apparently we can't pass that act unless we have the stats ALREADY!



That' not my wording, that's NS.




The Coal/Natural Gas/Petroluem using nations would be ones not funding the environment but without a uranium mining industry.

Nations that use renewable clean energy would fund the environment,

So that makes the figures as so

3/5 WA nations use non-renewable energy sources.


There is absolutely no need to bellow honoured Ambassador. Our concern was always that this resolution should have sound reasoning behind it that was all. So far you have not offered such. There is no point making law which addresses issues which do not exist in ways which are not most efficacious.

Our concern is that your statute effectively addresses an incontravertibly compelling problem with an approach which will net benefit this organisation while creating as much goodwill toward this law as possible.

But if you wish for your statute not to be or achieve any of these things then by all means ignore us.

Oh and we must ask again, why was the Axis of Absurdity Specifically included in a study which was supposed to be random ? Using such faulty and biased statistics will not aid your case.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Using sampling methods on NSWiki similar to your own, I found 6/10 nations were either futuristic, star empires, or populated by weird creatures. 1 was in the past.

That's nice, but the NS game engine describes a nation that takes place for the most place within the present technological day, with a humorous twist of course. You can say anything you want about your nation elsewhere, that's not being included in this data, this is hard data collected straight from investigation not being swayed by biased data publicly released by governments.

Our concern is that your statute effectively addresses an incontravertibly compelling problem with an approach which will net benefit this organisation while creating as much goodwill toward this law as possible.

That was the attempt of the Act. But without data to back up the statue, I can't get anything even considered. But how is data collected? ;)

That's nice, but the NS game engine describes a nation that takes place for the most place within the present technological day, with a humorous twist of course. You can say anything you want about your nation elsewhere, that's not being included in this data, this is hard data collected straight from investigation not being swayed by biased data publicly released by governments.


This is demonstrably not the case. Your study is biased and slanted, according to your own words honoured Ambassador.

Yours e.t.c,

Oh and we must ask again, why was the Axis of Absurdity Specifically included in a study which was supposed to be random ? Using such faulty and biased statistics will not aid your case.

Because you complained the data wasn't accurate if you weren't included. I don't see however it would effect the data anyway, I added another 50 regions to the census data today. The ratios hold true at the moment.

This is demonstrably not the case. Your study is biased and slanted, according to your own words honoured Ambassador.
If I delete your region from the census data, I get the same results. The conclusions are very strong with a correlation pointing to 1/5 nations mining uranium, and only 2/5 funding the environmental at all.

If I delete your region from the census data, I get the same results. The conclusions are very strong with a correlation pointing to 1/5 nations mining uranium, and only 2/5 funding the environmental at all.


The data is still tainted by having had a faulty criteria of collection. And it seems strange indeed that the deletion of an entire region from a study has absolutely no effect upon it whatsoever. This suggests that there are further possible faults with the study group or the method used to analyse it.

In any case we appreciate that statistical analysis of this kind my not provide the entirety of the case necessary for your statute, it is for this reason that statute itself must have as much subsidiary benefit to the w.a. as it possibly can. We have already indicated to the honoured Ambassador that they have made a good start in this direction in our opinion. We simply feel that the argument which accompanies this dividend must be water tight.

This will be necessary as there are many member nations who's economic systems or government philosophy will cause them to oppose this kind of law as implacably and ingeniously as possible.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The data is still tainted by having had a faulty criteria of collection. And it seems strange indeed that the deletion of an entire region from a study has absolutely no effect upon it whatsoever. This suggests that there are further possible faults with the study group or the method used to analyse it.


After adding another forty nations in the last hour to the resulting data, I can safely say the data has a very strong correlation. I challenge anyone to find holes in the data past claims of mystical uranium eating creatures and interstellar technology.

However I understand that this data is not enough to fully entice someone into excepting this charter, but how to collect evidence past experimental data is the question!?

I thank you for your involvement in this thinking process, though appearing frustrated at times I hope you understand your constructive criticism is much appreciated, I wouldn't have notice many problems with this resolution even if they were riding flying dolphins around me with the face of David Suzuki (and don't even mention the Uranium Eating Monster).

I've been questioned about bring the experimental data on C02 emissions. Apparently member nations contribute 22.7 Trillion Tonnes of Carbon emissions to the atmosphere every year. With population growth considered that can be calculated as 703 Trillion tonnes of Carbon emissions by member nations since the creation of the WA.

If I knew some geological facts I could impute them into atmospheric formulas to pull some thermal data or the effect on the average person.

Let us hope that either my calculations on radiative forcing are wrong or the atmosphere of the NS world is much larger than the Earth's.

Using the calculations I came up for C02 emissions, after figuring out that translates to about 9181 ppm of C02 being pumped into "Earth's Atmosphere". I imputted them into a formula for radiative forcing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/d/a0d6bbe1cf969c447b5475d3dfbc5bb3.png

Which in turn allowed me to predict the temperature of the environment has increased on average since the creation of the WA by 400 C. (Insane) attributed to the C02 emissions of member nations.

Consider the above as harmless trivia because the NS atmosphere would have to be much larger than Earth's to support an average population of 55.9 Trillion.

(and don't even mention the Uranium Eating Monster).


Why? What did I ever do? I live quite a harmless existance, on my little planet with other Uranium Eating Monsters...

That's nice, but the NS game engine describes a nation that takes place for the most place within the present technological day, with a humorous twist of course. You can say anything you want about your nation elsewhere, that's not being included in this data, this is hard data collected straight from investigation not being swayed by biased data publicly released by governments.


You should know, respected Ambassador, that the Empire of Urgench does not use the sorts of technology you refer to. Our people are not in anyway similar to the kinds of civilisations you seem to be allowing for. Our energy needs are supplied by Geothermal power stations and a small number of experimental Exotic Matter Reactors. Neither of these pose any kind of ecological hazard. But make no mistake, honoured Ambassador, we are not very similar in physical culture or ways of life to our twentieth century ancestors.

In common with the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Cobdenia we are concerned that this statute should properly take into account the diversity and variety of cultures and civilisations which constitute this organisation. this will mean a more subtle and more nuanced approach to this issue is needful but it should make for better law.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Did a interesting study from the latter data that turned out useless,

By dividing the estimated population of NS by a carrying capacity of Earth, I estimated that the atmosphere would be at least 2661.9 times larger than Earth's.

I used this study
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/NationStates_Political_Map.jpg

from NS creators and Wiki collaborators to calculate a carrying capacity of Earth (balancing the prevalences of different political spectrums) equivalent to the estimated population of the NS World.

Using that and the calculated carbon emissions, and projected 60ppm of Carbon is released by member nations every year.

With that I calculate with more precision than the previous data that the temperature increases by at least 2 c. every year because of member nation's carbon emissions from energy production.

:p).

Why? What did I ever do? I live quite a harmless existance, on my little planet with other Uranium Eating Monsters

** gives out a Sideshow-Bob-esque "urg...." **

Geothermal power stations

Geothermal power stations are accounted for in this document. They would pass the criteria, and you would be awarded with the Clean Energy bonus yearly.

In common with the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Cobdenia we are concerned that this statute should properly take into account the diversity and variety of cultures and civilisations which constitute this organisation. this will mean a more subtle and more nuanced approach to this issue is needful but it should make for better law.

At the moment the resolution does not restrict nations creativity and diversity in any way, but any "evidence" that is to be included would have to have some set frame in space and time which would restrict nations. That's why its madness to look past anything other than the data created by NS.

12.1 million people of a WA nationality die because of pollution caused by member nations yearly. 3.7 billion people of a WA nationality have died from carbon emissions since the creation of the WA, with the death attributed to member nations who use fuel powered energy sources.

Nations of the WA in total spend 122 billion dollars yearly on deaths preventable with better environmental practices

We are very impressed by the Honoured Ambassador for Unibot's research and we are sure that for the most part it is instructive. We still feel that this sort of study should be done under the auspices of the w.a.

A multi-lateral approach should be taken. ( O.O.C. Do you think it's possible for those interested in these issues to contribute this kind of information to a thread in this forum which would be called "the W.A. Environmental Sciences Institute" or whatever, from which resolutions could be formulated ? It would have the merit of being a communal effort which would be overseen and by the w.a. and would be endorsed by it also. )

Yours e.t.c. ,

I used this study
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/NationStates_Political_Map.jpg

I wouldn't trust the prevalence stats on that chart as far as I could throw the WA building, that data was compiled several years (RL ones) ago and is in all likelihood, vastly out of date.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

wouldn't trust the prevalence stats on that chart as far as I could throw the WA building, that data was compiled several years (RL ones) ago and is in all likelihood, vastly out of date.


Thanks for the warning, however the inaccuracy of the prevalence stats won't effect my data by more the 10%+ or -. I used it to form a good equivalence marker for Earth's carrying capacity to NS's. It's always going to flout around 50% anyway, unless of course all of the socialists die off or vice versa.

Do you think it's possible for those interested in these issues to contribute this kind of information to a thread in this forum which would be called "the W.A. Environmental Sciences Institute" or whatever, from which resolutions could be formulated ? It would have the merit of being a communal effort which would be overseen and by the w.a. and would be endorsed by it also.

I wouldn't totally discard the idea, however I believe that all WA institutions and commitees that are created materialize from thin air with no specific nation working on them. (O.O.C so nobody works on these commitees, there are no forums for their findings or progress). Though I would be interested in spearheading such a foundation.

So what portions of the collected data do I plan to release in the resolution?

Acknowledging
1) 3/5 WA nations power their nations specifically with non-renewable sources.
2) Average temperatures increase by 2 degrees Celsius every year because of WA carbon emissions from energy sources such as coal,petroleum and natural gas.
3) On a yearly basis, nations of the WA in total spend around 122 billion dollars on deaths preventable with better environmental practices.
4) 12.1 million citizens of the WA died last year because of poor air quality and rising temperatures from carbon emissions.
5)These figures will only get progressively worse unless something is done. For example, by the time the WA is celebrating its half millennium milestone, it will also be losing 14 million citizens a year to carbon emissions.

1) includes the jargon " Environmental footprints " which should not be included in any draft. Clear terms which state actual conditions should be used.

The rest are yours to do with as you wish. The science is untested internationally and the w.a. will have to take your word for it on the findings but your explanations so far seem plausible and may stand up to the rigors of any debate if this ever comes to vote.

We suggest you speak with other states who may also have an interest in this field before making any final decisions.

Yours e.t.c. ,

OK, what with all the shouting and waving of charts and statistics that stink even at this distance, I've entirely lost interest in being helpful. The core idea isn't bad, but working it up into a sane proposal frankly isn't going to be worth the grief.

I can't mention that the investigations are mine and not the entire WA's opinion however without breaking branding rules, I believe. If someone else would like to calculate and evaluate the verifiability of my findings, please do so, I would be very interested in others' results. Maybe the Green Think Tank or some other environmental NS group would like to help with some calculations, it would give them some much needed attention I would think.

OK, what with all the shouting and waving of charts and statistics that stink even at this distance, I've entirely lost interest in being helpful. The core idea isn't bad, but working it up into a sane proposal frankly isn't going to be worth the grief.

Do you have proof to say the stats are wrong?

Do you have proof to say the stats are wrong?

Do you have proof to say that they are right? Or even helpful? Has anyone actually noticed an increase of 2 degrees a year?

Don't let me stop you putting the stats into your preamble, just don't expect that they'll win you much support. More likely the opposite.

25 ppm of Co2 added in the air will on average raise the temperature by 1 degree c.

- After calculating the average of nations using fuel based energy sources (2/5)
I simiplifed the math with an average of 1-1-1 ratio of Coal/Petroleum/Natural Gas plants, because all three of them have specific amounts of average Co2 outputs, Coal being the biggest.
- Each system of energy has the typical household load a plant can handle, using this I determined how many power plants of the specific energy source exist.
- Multiplying that figure by the average amount C02 emission from each source to determine the average C02 emission across the land.
- Determining an average atmospheric size with estimates from Earth's Carry Capacity multiplied by a constant ratio of NationStates universal proportions.
- Using these two figures after converting them into microlitres and litres, I could do the gas calculation to figure out the ppm (parts-per-million) of C02 added to the NS atmosphere every year.
**Screwed up here**
- Turns out its around 60 ppm, which means the temperature rises about 2.4 degrees.
But I gave the NS the benefit of the doubt and rounded to 2 degrees.


I'll be damned if I'm not even slightly accurate in the calculations, that was my entire afternoon. ;)

The degrees could be even more, I'm thinking closer to 3, because many scientific communities believe it to be more like 20 ppm that's need to raise a degree not 25. I'm giving NS the benefit of the doubt.

Do you have proof to say that they are right? Or even helpful? Has anyone actually noticed an increase of 2 degrees a year?

Don't let me stop you putting the stats into your preamble, just don't expect that they'll win you much support. More likely the opposite.


And this is really what we have been trying to say all along. The proofs assume certain things about the NS world which are unverfiable, the proofs create the issue which the statute addresses, the statute addresses an issue which therefore cannot be said to really exist unless a consensus exists among member states that it does. The whole endeavour is therefore undermined by presumptions about the NS world which cannot ever be proved scientifically or otherwise.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The assumption made to conclude the data, is the size of the NS atmosphere which is theorized to the best of my mathematical ability. I used an atmosphere that is fairly excess for the carrying capacity needed for the NS population, so the theoretical data is not going to be higher than the "real" data, only lower to a degree. Which doesn't draw away from the strong point the resolution is trying to make.

I've taken out data from the resolution that is concluded by hypothesizing the volume of the NationStates Atmosphere. This still leaves arguments supported by data about health concerns from carbon emissions.

really exist unless a consensus exists among member states that it does

The voting of this amendment would decide that I suppose.

--------------

So,
Any logistical problems with the Resolution past the evidence, that I should know about?
Is there another way other than the theoretical conclusions that I drew from experimental data to prove environmental damage?

Well this is why stressing the material benefits of non-fossil fuel based energy to the economies of member states would help your case, and why we suggested including a focus on trade in technology.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Problem is that putting trade into the act atleast in my first attempt, hindered the effectiveness of the act and overall focus.

UPDATE

A small timbit of the act now acknowledges that the ECB will be lowering tariffs on environmentally friendly imports. I am attempting to keep the act as focused as a wanderer-of-a-politician can keep it, hence the smaller notice of the issue than in DRAFT III had. I figure the more economically-concerned ambassadors will be used to be picking up on small lines of legislative that benefit them, as opposed to the main demographic of younger more socialistic ambassadors that this act is written to appeal to.

Also you may have noticed some data change in the last NS year, I've been editing posts as I find different data. Though I don't plan any more to include the data, for those interested, the temperature would be rising much slower than 2c a year. For example since the WA was established member nations will have been responsible for a 0.3 c increase, not 600c that I was humorously claiming a day ago. The problem that occurred was a misinterpretation of data, the 60 ppm carbon emission was not increasing the Co2 concentration by 60 ppm every year, the temperature increases with a change to the concentration which would be much less than 60, and more like 1.00047.

By the WA's half-millennium the average NS temperature will be a full degree higher than it was before the WA started, thanks to member nations output of carbon emissions.
Unless of course, this act is passed ;)

And is it possible that with further research and study your figures and the conclusions arising from them could undergo further revision honoured Ambassador ?

If so then we urge you to undertake such research and then when you are sure of your case present a resolution which will address your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Already updated the data last night.
I had been sceptical of the data when I had posted them (regarding the 2c. increase) which is why I looked into my concentration rates more closely to find the error.
I trust the data that is included in the resolution much more than I do with the other conclusions on accuracy, the likelihood of another large error being found in the data is unlikely in my own opinion. I am in the process of re-checking my conclusions and processing it with backwards engineering to check for accuracy, the verdict so far is very good.

I do have a question for the Urgench Ambassador, though you turned down the resolution when it was first drafted, has your opinion changed with the new draft?

Already updated the data last night.
I had been sceptical of the data when I had posted them (regarding the 2c. increase) which is why I looked into my concentration rates more closely to find the error.
I trust the data that is included in the resolution much more than I do with the other conclusions on accuracy, the likelihood of another large error being found in the data is unlikely in my own opinion. I am in the process of re-checking my conclusions and processing it with backwards engineering to check for accuracy, the verdict so far is very good.

I do have a question for the Urgench Ambassador, though you turned down the resolution when it was first drafted, has your opinion changed with the new draft?


Respected Ambassador the government of the Emperor of Urgench is predisposed to be positive about any statutory remedy in this field which makes sensible presumptions based on good evidence and which addresses problems rationally and with efficacy. Our commitment to this process shows that.

The first draft of this bill did none of these things. The current draft is an improvement, but we would find it hard to offer unequivocal support for it since to our eyes it is still not subtle enough or well reasoned enough.

A firm and reasonably watertight case must be made for what this resolution will require and the effects of it must be ameliorated by actively balancing any negative outcomes with a fair and regenerative carrot so to speak, one which does not constitute a cash prize for what is already only reasonable behaviour to expect of course.

Future drafts of this resolution may achieve this, if so we will be able to offer our complete support for the statute. Until then the honoured Ambassador should know that the government of the Emperor of Urgench is glad to offer what ever help we can to the respected delegation of Unibot in the summation of an ambition we admire and would be happy to be associated with the success of, subject to the criteria we outlined above being met of course.

Yours e.t.c.,

O.O.C. Are Unibot and Stash Kroh one in the same?

a cash prize for what is already only reasonable behaviour to expect of course

A good case to be argued, but I believe the "cash prize" will be needed to stimulate healthy environmental development (O.O.C Many WA nations are quite selfish and will look past the moral obligations of the bonus as a way to get an economic stimulation).
Nations are not participating now in the green effort for the most part, the average funding towards the environment is a pathetic 2.5%, so something different is needed than the Al Gore approach to get nations to listen as it isn't working now, I believe that approach to be the Clean Energy Bonus.

My point being, the economically centric ambassadors will be turned off with too much wining and crying about the environment, that is their opinion. However centric the resolution to much around industry profit and you lose the interest of the idealist demographic which would be the biggest target of an environmental resolution. The Bonus is a good way of stimulating both minds. I will however look for other ways to balance the morality questions that you've brought up.

I asked about your interest in the resolution because at the moment my WA puppet has had a hard time finding endorsements, my home region does not allow me to get endorsements legally (our region has its own charter). So at the moment Stash Kroh is hovering above nations by helicopter looking for possible endorsements, as the ambassador needs two to get this resolution put beneath the assembly's eyes.
(O.O.C, I was looking for endorsements in a region called "Environment", posted a big, juicy blurb about the resolution, and then realized that the region had no WA members out of all 9 of the inhabitants, and left quickly:$)

Stash Kroh is my WA puppet. (O.O.C and Off the record, I'm a bit of a rebel, in my early days I underestimated the mods enforcement of the laws, and ended up being banned from the WA for having a dozen or so multis, however enjoy using Unibot more than my puppets as the face of my operations, as I'm accustomed to it.)

O.O.C. I wondered why I was so alone in this debate, I'm guessing others were wary of investing in case you ended up being disappeared again.

Edit- sorry i read approvals instead of endorsements, my bad. Just stay on the mods good side so i don't end up wasting my time ok?

I.C. We will reserve judgement on our actual support untill the final draft respected Ambassador.

Ambassador of Urgench, trade as you've suggested has been applied to this resolution but without the bonus to help stimulate interest in the project, this resolution has no "meat" to the proposal. What other proposals can have this sort of balance of economics and environment?

I also have a question to all WA enthusiasts, I've been looking back into the records, has a environmental act ever been passed before?

In the WA, no. In the UN, yes.

Thought so, thank you.
This makes another point I can make.

Just stay on the mods good side so i don't end up wasting my time ok?

I've always got a back up plan, don't worry. ;)

So, "new" facts that can be drawn.

-Since its creation, the WA has neglected to accept a single resolution on the betterment of the environment.
-That ignoring the significance of the environment will lead to dire consequences
-The escalation of these problems would burden the WA more than prevention would.

I've always got a back up plan, don't worry. ;)

O.O.C. right well if your up to anything which will get you banned or whatever then I'm distinctly disinclined to continue offering any more advice or time. Why be up to anything nefarious if you want people to take you seriously enough for them to get behind your resolution ? I play by the rules it means that I have no unfair advantages over other players and nothing to be shifty about.

Telling me you have a back up plan is not in any way calculated to fill me with confidence.

Is this where I mention that actually including those "statistics" in your Proposal will be a fantastic way to get it deleted?

We were wondering if that was the case. Our interest in these statistics has been to see if there was an actual case for this kind of statute. ( O.O.C. and since only stats from the in-game sources were provided, I imagined this might end up being rather dificult to achieve )

This is beginging to appear somewhat futile.

Yours e.t.c.,

Is this where I mention that actually including those "statistics" in your Proposal will be a fantastic way to get it deleted

What about the "3/5 nations" part which was using census data, and no conclusions drawn from atmospheric calculations?

I'd think that would count as metagaming; generally speaking, it's a bad idea to mention any figures whatsoever.

Well, its just I was looking back at the old WA resolutions, seems at least one resolution concluded the "WA nations are out numbered 3 to 1". I understand it could be considered meta gaming, but to mention the census data collected shows 3/5 nations don't fund the environment isn't breaking the fourth wall, I wouldn't think at least.

Telling me you have a back up plan is not in any way calculated to fill me with confidence.

(O.O.C, it was a quote from my favourite t.v show, Lost?)
http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/07/05/23_benfromlost.jpg

.

(O.O.C, it was a quote from my favourite t.v show, Lost?)
http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/07/05/23_benfromlost.jpg



O.O.C. Smart.

UPDATES

- The statistics excluding the "3/5 member nations" part have been removed, if a moderator states that the following data is also a violation of meta gaming, it will of course be removed as well.
- The Clean Energy bonus has been made dramatically tougher to get (70%), hopefully some who thought that the bonus was morally silly as it was rewarding "the only" acceptable behaviour, will see that the bonus is a reward for exceptional environmental practices.
- The ECB will now devise strict environmental standards and safety codes for all methods of energy production and enforce them, the ECB has been given the power to shut down power plants that do not meet the regulations.

Very well, honoured Ambassador, you must do as you see fit. You will need luck with such a resolution, we hope for the sake of your ambition that such luck is available to you.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Well, its just I was looking back at the old WA resolutions, seems at least one resolution concluded the "WA nations are out numbered 3 to 1".First off, if you're going to quote a resolution the least you can do is get the quote right. The clause you're quoting (which comes from the Nuclear Arms Possession Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835811&postcount=12)) says, "REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1."

I understand it could be considered meta gaming, but to mention the census data collected shows 3/5 nations don't fund the environment isn't breaking the fourth wall, I wouldn't think at least. My guess is the difference between my numbers and yours is that while my numbers came directly from the NationStates website, yours most likely came from one of the third party sites which while they do obtain information from the NS website are not officially considered part of NS.

The environmental stats came straight from the XML feed, no calculations included.

The proposal is up and running and looking for votes of any size, shape or form.
Tell your friends, and share the love for the environment, with this beautiful hum-dinger of a proposal at this gentle place. (http://www.nationstates.net/11650/page=UN_proposal/start=10)
:tongue:

What a fundamentally terrible proposal. Wrong category, poorly structured, no correlation between introductory and operative sections, no definitions, persistent grammatical errors, a vast and unspecified mandate for an unaccountable committee, completely shuts off the possibility of any interesting policy discussions for huge areas of policy through its vague generalities.

Rarely does the WA have the honour of considering a proposal that is, in every respect, worthless.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Acting Co-Chair, Green Think Tank
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Indeed we will not be able to support this resolution. We have always suspected that this resolution needed very serious re-focusing, by which we mean that it should have addressed a far more specific and cogent issue. Our urgings to the respected Ambassador for Unibot to provide proper evidences for their case was an attempt to clarify what this statute should deal with and how it should go about it.

The respected Ambassador for Unibot has made certain fundamental mistakes. Firstly they have rushed to submit the approval long before the statute could be said to be anywhere near ready.

Secondly they have ignored advice and essentially submitted a statute which is almost identical to that which they first presented for drafting despite being told exactly how flawed the first draft and its ideas were, leading us to believe that they had the arrogance to imagine that their first draft was perfect and simply wanted this process to congratulate them in this presumption when it was very far from the case.

The respected Ambassador's third mistake is one of approach. This area of law is in fact ripe for development, but it is not an area of law which is suited to a lack of subtlety or a too generalised view of the issues at stake. This type of statute should be well researched, detailed in nature and thorough in achieving benefit. In order to have this be the case the statute in question must properly define its object, clearly and accurately address this object and do so in a fashion which suits the character and true nature of this organisation. The current version of this statute does none of these things.

The last of the big mistakes ( and there are many smaller ones ) which the honoured Ambassador for Unibot has made relates to the fine art of diplomacy. Goodwill and positive feeling on the part of the membership of this organisation ( as we have learnt for ourselves ) is vital to the success of most resolutions. So far as it is possible to tell the honoured Ambassador has made little or no effort to canvass such goodwill and considering the honoured Ambassador's nation's history it would be doubly wise to have done so.

We should point out that the nation which submitted this resolution for approval is a member of our Region, the Axis of Absurdity. This nation joined our region within the last couple of days and because of regional custom obtained the requisite in endorsements in order to submit resolutions for approval. It is the opinion of the Government of the Emperor of Urgench that the nation in question has misused the trust placed in it by our region and we will be making representations to our esteemed and revered regional delegate and founder to this effect.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I reread the first clause for the first time in a couple of days. It seems to be saying "you WA nations are crap, but here's an opportunity to do something wonderful." My gut reaction is "your proposal is arrogant, and here's my 'NO' vote." I suspect I won't be alone.

The environmental stats came straight from the XML feed, no calculations included.

Are you claiming to have checked the XML feed for every WA nation?

We have a further problem. In the final section of the statute you turn the w.a. general fund into an eco-bank in no more than a couple of sentences, a bank which would charge a 2% interest rate on loans. Neither of these things is a good idea, the second is ridiculous since such an interest rate on the sums involved would create massive debt for nations which could presumably ill afford it, the effect would be to completely discourage such states from availing of funds from the putative ECB.

Such faults in this resolution arise from haste.

Yours e.t.c. ,

create massive debt for nations which could presumably ill afford it,

Massive health problems will cause more debt than fixing the current environemental problems for nations.

While there are other problems here that need addressing, this seems *rather* particularly significant:

"STATING the ECB can and will shut down any establishments used for energy production that do not meet the criteria of the ECB's regulations."

I'm all for environmental controls over pollution sources, but giving any environmental entity absolute carte blanche to shut down an energy facility regardless of any immediate consequences seems absurd.

Does one really want to pass a resolution which empowers a transnational ECB to enter a developing country, take one look at all of its coal plants, and summarily shut every single energy production plant in the entire country?

Environmental concerns are worthy of effort and even of sacrifice, but even when they outweigh other concerns it seems extremely unreasonable to allow them to outweigh other concerns *absolutely*. (Otherwise we'd just pass a resolution trying to effect mass genocide of all human beings, thus eliminating humans as polluters altogether, and rather more quickly than any green power sources might accomplish).

One would hope nations would try to MEET safety regulations, thats why they're in place. But I see your point, Dolfor, the ECB may seem stubborn and powerful with that line if read wrong. The reasoning behind putting that line in is because many complained the ECB had no power, I figured that line would give them some clout.

While the government of Bolearia is highly supportive of taking measures to improve our global environment, there are a number of concerns within this proposal we find distressing.

To begin, the stated purpose of the act is to "increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

Manufacturing and mining comprise a significant portion of Bolearia's economic interests. Furthermore, these industries directly employ a proportionally large number of our nations citizens. We are not sure we are willing to trade our people's jobs and livelihood for a decrease in air pollution of a percentile or two.

Secondly, you propose that the Environmental Control Board will have the power to "lower tariffs on imports". While the Kingdom of Bolearia is new to the World Assembly and may be incorrect simply due to my ignorance, we are unaware of any right that the World Assembly to impose any tariffs on the imports of any nation, let alone regulate said tariffs.

Third, we question how the positive effects of shutting down power production facilities that do not comply with the regulations of the Environmental Control Board outweigh the negative consequences thereof, such as leaving entire regions without power. While it agreed that to hold any merit, there must be consequences for noncompliance, but shutting down the noncompliant facility will inevitably cause more harm than help. Furthermore, we are loath to accept any provision that allows the World Assembly such direct control over our national resources.

Finally, we feel that the powers and responsibilities of the proposed Environmental Control Board need to be described in further detail, in order to ensure that the body is not given too much or too little power to reach its goals.

The Kingdom of Bolearia wholly approves of your efforts towards environmental improvement, but does not agree with certain aspects of the current draft of your proposal. We look forward to seeing future drafts that may correct what we view as problematic.

such as leaving entire regions without power

Though I can understand your concerns as much as Dolfor's, I have to think that your taking that line to a unreasonable and irresponsibly dramatic level. If EVERY power plant in a nation does not follow even CLOSE to the criteria of the ECB for carbon emissions, and other regulations, then yes, a nation may go without power as the power plants are closed down as need be (which anybody such as yourself, who worries about the environment's well-being, should be pleased about). But as the next paragraph states the ECB will work with governments to fix environmental problems, such as but not limited to, faulty power generation, as long as the government pays back such funds and interest over a set number of years to the WA.

Stash Kroh is my WA puppet. (O.O.C and Off the record, I'm a bit of a rebel, in my early days I underestimated the mods enforcement of the laws, and ended up being banned from the WA for having a dozen or so multis, however enjoy using Unibot more than my puppets as the face of my operations, as I'm accustomed to it.)
So you created an army of WA multis not because you didn't know better, but because you thought you wouldn't get caught? I see. I can ignore anything and everything you say from now on then.

You do that bud. I'll ignore everything you say too.
It'll be just like Grade Two, except for you're wining about an international institution instead of a glue stick. Okay?