NationStates Jolt Archive

NEW UPDATES as of "Mon. Dec 22th 2008"
_______________________________________________________




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

Category: Environmental
Areas of Effect: All Business
Proposed by: Stash Kroh

The World Assembly

ACKNOWLEDGES

I) Fossil fuel burning from energy production unleashes intolerable carbon emissions.
II) High level radioactive waste is created in considerable proportions with nuclear energy production.
III) Without proper containment vessels for radioactivity, safety precautions against power excursions, properly mandated coolant systems and adequate security, a nuclear power plant is as much of threat to national (and international) security as terrorism.

UNDERSTANDS many energy providers are allowed to pollute and damage the environment and the people living in it.

RECOGNIZES that international industrial regulations on energy production in WA nations would be beneficial to the betterment of the environment, and quality of living for others.

REALIZES an influential control board for energy production which the WA currently lacks, would be needed to further implement and enforce such regulations.

HEREBY

ESTABLISHES the development of the World Assembly Energy Control Board, (ECB). ECB inspectors will examine all establishments used for energy production on a regular basis while enforcing technical regulations on energy production.

DECLARES that the ECB will create an efficient international complaints bureau, for inhabitants of member nations to anonymously submit complaints about air quality, nuclear waste dumping or other technical or environmental problems regarding their local energy providers.

INSISTS that the ECB's first mission after creation is to devise strict technical regulations and environmental standards for all forms of energy production used by WA nations. This includes the initiative's proper routines for the storage of high level radioactive waste, the temperature of discharged water, the use of containment vessels and carbon emission targets. While also forging new security regulations for power generation.

REMINDS that a multitude of other protocols will have to be addressed by the ECB for the production of cleaner energy.

PROHIBITS the ECB from accepting donations from any energy lobbyist.

DEFINES an energy lobbyist as any party attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions by the means of bribery, when concerning energy production.

STATES the ECB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any establishments used for energy production that are fully aware they do not meet the criteria of the ECB's regulations.

DEMANDS that it is a priority of the ECB to make sure energy providers are well informed by ECB inspectors of their technical status with timely notifications.

This is something like 900 characters too long.

This is a lot less bombastic and self-important than the previous draft, but it's got a way to go yet before it could reasonably be called "diplomatic".

Just thinking while writing...


I found that in the ACKNOWLEDGING-CONCERNED-RECOGNIZING sections, it gets very redundant, but at the same time helps to empower it. When I edit it to make the proposal shorter thats where I will probably start.

I just realized I used MANDATE twice, so I got to fix that.

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.


I'm beginning to dislike the usage of percentages and exact times. I think something more general with the promise of the ECB's involvement to determine the best way to calculate and collect the "interest" on the ECB's "constructive involvement" would be more professional and "diplomatic". The auditing concept was good though.

NEW UPDATES!
- The Clean Energy Bonus has been dropped. As of the last draft it seemed out of place.
- Establishing the WA Energy Trade Committee which changes the tone of the draft greatly.
- Cleaning up the "concerned" sections which got redundant.
- Taking out the specifics from the Mandating section.
- The proposal now takes into account the effects of the bill will have on different sized nations and attempts to compensate for it to allows all sizes to benefit economically.
- The "obliteration" of the Environmental Interest Charge for the ECB's constructive involvement, YAH MONEY!

The Bump Act


ACKNOWLEDGING that this proposal was my entire weekend to mend.

UNDERSTANDING that for it to be "ignored" by the WA would be a shame.

HEREBY bumps the following the article.

For a start, you have continually ignored advice about proposal length. Though you have reduced it in size, it is still at the very least 180, and possibly nearer to 200, characters too long?

That is easily fixable, though, given large chunks of your proposal are essentially meaningless. For example:
UNDERSTANDS that larger nations make for bigger polluters however have the industry strength to survive and eventually profit from a switch to cleaner energy production. As opposed to smaller nations who would struggle economically however have little deposits of resources available for their demanding energy sectors.
The dreadful grammar (is English not your first language?) notwithstanding, this clause has no force. If it belongs anywhere in your proposal, it is in the preamble.

Remember the distinction between introductory and operative sections:
- the preamble states the problem
- the operative section addresses the problem.

Your preamble, in general, is a bit muddled. Though, again, if this is because you are not a native English speaker, I apologise if I'm being a bit brusque. In addition, I strongly recommend removal of the - utterly inconsequential - clause IV. It would make it appear to a more cynical eye than mine that your sole motive in authoring this proposal was to redress not environmental problems but rather the absence of a particular proposal category.

There is also no point using the 'INTRODUCING/EFFECTS' language if, as is the case in your 'RECOGNISING' clause, you then abandon this for fluent prose (of a sort). It's fine to simply write a prose proposal, so long as it has effects, but it's dangerously unclear to mix the two styles.

I wonder - and I say this not out of vanity - if you've ever looked at Environmental Science (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=216), the closest the old UN came to a resolution of this kind. It established a UN Environmental Agency with similar kinds of powers to your proposed 'Environmental Control Board'.

As it stands, your ECB has a very unclear mission statement. There is no mechanism for lodging these 'claims of unacceptable air pollution': who has standing to make such complaints? The lumping in of all 'other environmental problems' also gives such a body a rather alarmingly broad remit. Almost anything could be constructed so as to constitute an 'environmental problem'. For example, should this proposal pass, we would have no qualms in trying to use the ECB to circuitously establish unpopular arms trade regulations, such as a prohibition of cluster bombs. We doubt, however, that many nations would look unfavourably on such politicking. The mechanics of the 'examination', and the provenance of these 'statistics', also remains rather unclear.

Then, from the mindlessly broad, you go to the excessively narrow, with your 'strict safety standards' - though of course adding in 'a multitude of other...problems' at the end. Is this a proposal about nuclear surety? If so, such a proposal probably deserves to be dedicated to that issue alone (as was the case in the old UN, where the proposal ultimately failed, probably precisely because it attempted to deal with two distinct issues - nuclear surety and nuclear weapons).

The second committee you establish, again with massive and rather poorly defined powers, again complicates the matter. I understand the waving of the magic wand; I'm less clear on the details. What are 'interventions' (which later become 'implementations')? Are they subsidies? Is it a carbon trading scheme? Is it some kind of investment plan? How does it work?

I certainly understand the idea to tackle very broad policy areas in one sweep. It can be frustrating to get bogged down in detail. But my strong recommendation - particularly in the area of environmental regulations - is to concentrate on the narrow issues and work up.

The inattention the forum has paid to your draft is probably because it is so overly broad and vague that it is difficult to mount a sustained critique, and equally to offer constructive suggestions. I am more than willing to contribute to efforts to draft environmental regulations, and I know from my past activities in the GTT other nations are too. But I imagine they would be as reticent as I would in offering support for a proposal that grants not one, but two, committees, effective jurisdiction over the entire domain of economic activity with no clearly defined mission or checks.

If nuclear power is your interest, concentrate on that. If it's green trading, then that. If it's 'the environment', you're going to have to be prepared to be more specific.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Co-Chair, Green Think Tank
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC: As a general comment: calm down. The pace of this forum is significantly slower than of some online communities. Its members don't seem to see that as a flaw, because it allows time to mull legislation. We're all about the mulling.

The ECB will be focusing on Energy Production.

This includes any source of power that a NationState can use, because focusing on just nuclear power would be ignoring the other potentially dangerous sources of energy production.

Its acronym will be changed, to the Energy Control Board. (ECB)

Problem is that I want the resolution to set up a Energy Trade Committee (for those not worried about the environment) and a Energy Control Board. Merging the two doesn't sit right with me, that could lead to corrupt down the road.

And no, English is not my second language. But I do have aggressive dyslexia, which allows me to create the most bizarre compositions and phrases at times.

Your advice is strongly noted.

UPDATES

►My first stab to fix the queries of Quintessence of Dust’s assessment.
►Attempts to focus the proposal on Energy Production more.
►Drops the IV Clause.
►Reorders certain sections.
►Attempts to rectify any poor and cluttered language, however I encourage others to help with this as well. :hail:

There's quite a lot I don't like about this draft, not least the rather large amounts of broken grammar. I'll just pick on the one thing for now:

ESTABLISHES the development of the World Assembly Energy Control Board, (ECB). ECB inspectors will examine all establishments used for energy production on a regular basis, to later critique and pass judgement on them.

Sneaking that universal inspection regime in like this will cause all sorts of crap to descend upon you from a great height. If you want mandatory invasive inspections, put them in up front in their own clause. You'll be voted down, but at least you'll have been honest about it.

Haha, this is coming from the biggest critic or "universal inspection regime" in all of the WA! :)

Your opinion is noted, industrial inspections are needed however. It can/shall be worded to address those particular concerns. By making the ECB sound more competent, less invasive and more "understanding".

Might I ask what broken grammar exists in the resolution?
I couldn't for the life of me see it. :eek:

OK. Remember, you asked for this :-)

RECOGNIZES 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. The current void of international environmental and technical regulations on energy production is a foolish error that will lead to considerable ecological and environmental damage. Safety regulations on energy production and an influential control board for energy production which the WA currently lacks would be a solution to these problems.
Not strictly a grammar issue, but these have the feel of separate points bolted together to disguise how insulting the middle one is. Also, the flow of logic from the problems to the solutions is most politely described as non-existent.

INSINUATES stable trade relationships between member nations for non-renewable resources would help ease international tension and the effects of intensive mining in smaller undeveloped nations.
"Insinuates"? Seriously? Also, the clause comprehesively undermines the impression given by the rest of your greenspeak that you actually care about emissions.

HEREBY

ESTABLISHES the development of the World Assembly Energy Control Board, (ECB). ECB inspectors will examine all establishments used for energy production on a regular basis, enforce technical regulations on energy production, as well as create an efficient complaints bureau, for inhabitants of member nations to submit complaints about air quality, nuclear waste dumping or other technical or environmental problems regarding their local energy providers.
The second sentence here is grammatically marginal. It's certainly pretty hideous. Given that the ECB is the heart of your proposal, it would be a better idea to split its duties out into individual blocks and expand on them a bit.

INSISTS that the ECB's first mission after creation is to devise strict technical regulations and environmental standards 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 protocols that need to be addressed for the production of cleaner energy.
The second sentence here isn't a sentence, it's an over-extended subordinate clause. You tried to cure a run-on sentence by substituting a full stop for a comma, didn't you?

PROHIBITS the ECB from accepting donations from any industrial lobbyists. To prevent potential corruption from energy lobbying.
And again (only briefly this time). Also, what is energy lobbying? Throwing 9V batteries at representatives?

STATES the ECB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any establishments used for energy production that are fully aware they do not meet the criteria of the ECB's regulations, it is a priority of the ECB to make sure such notices are conducted competently and in timely fashion.
This is actually a pair of sentences stapled together with a comma. Also, what "such notices"? You've not refered to notices at all so far.

MANDATES that the ECB will also initiate a WA Energy Trade Committee which will establish stable trade relationships between large and smaller nations. Such goods would include fossil fuels and unused nuclear fuel for energy production. The committee will utilize larger developed nations that are seeking cleaner forms of energy while simultaneously attempting to salvage their mining industries and smaller undeveloped nations that are unable to afford cleaner energy production but are willing to follow ECB regulations.
I really don't like the way you're setting up two committees for the price of one, and I say that as a fan of big bureaucracies. This ETC doesn't have a well-defined mandate (that last sentence is a masterpiece of saying nothing at all, for instance). My instinct is that it belongs in a different resolution if its going to do anything useful. And again, "such goods" doesn't have a referent beforehand, though it's fairly easy to figure out what you mean.

Thank you, THANK YOU :hail:

I'll start cracking down on this tomorrow,

By the way. Energy lobbying is when a nuclear energy corporation or even better, a oil company sinks some cash into the government (aka blackmailing) to sway their opinion on the little things... like carbon emissions. :)

I might define Energy lobbying in the resolution if it becomes apparent I need to.

The trade commission will be cut. It was my attempt to create a natural and economically healthy cycle for nations as they become more environmental and developed. But it now seems out of place. This resolution shall be focusing now just on technical regulations for energy production. Hopefully in the future, things that I've abandoned like a Clean Energy Bonus and a Energy Trade Commission can get implemented later. But for now, strict regulations are a good place to start, and work up.

Thank you again for being a hardass.
Happy Holidays. :p

By the way. Energy lobbying is when a nuclear energy corporation or even better, a oil company sinks some cash into the government (aka blackmailing) to sway their opinion on the little things... like carbon emissions. :)

I might define Energy lobbying in the resolution if it becomes apparent I need to.
Or you could call it "lobbying by energy-related industries" or the like, since you only refer to it once. That's not quite right, though; the oil companies have as much right to lobby as the eco-warrior in the street, after all. Perhaps "unethical lobbying" would better? To be even-handed, the ECB ought to be careful what charities and other organisations it takes bribes, er, I mean donations from, just so that it can't be seen to be unreasonably favouring an environmental group either.

And a Merry Whatever-it-is-you-celebrate to you too.

the oil companies have as much right to lobby as the eco-warrior in the street,

If you look at it that way. You're correct. I was biased writing that because I assume its always "unethical lobbying" which isn't the case for anyone who doesn't share my political beliefs.

I put energy lobbying in the resolution because

1. The WA funds the ECB, so I didn't want to say the ECB doesn't accept money from charities because that is basically what the WA general fund is.
2. Energy lobbying takes the concept in a different direction than the UN resolution " Environmental Science (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=216)" which is where I got the idea of banning charity intervention in the first place.

Unethical lobbying might just be the right term to use, or I could just be straight forward and prohibit the ECB from getting money from any charities. (That takes away a possible loophole for Energy Providers who have "backwater" charities).

1. The WA funds the ECB, so I didn't want to say the ECB doesn't accept money from charities because that is basically what the WA general fund is. Not quite, Ambassador. While it is true that the General Fund is replenished based on "charitable donations", the use of this money by committees does not constitute a charitable donation from the GAO to the committees.

That being said, this legislation does little to promote "clean" energy. Forgive me if this has already been stated. It establishes a complaint bureau, and states that the ECB will "devise strict technical regulations and environmental standards for all forms of energy production". It regulates the storage of nuclear wastes by stating "proper routines". Okay, my nation's proper routine is to dump it in to the nearest wetland. (Not really, but it's a valid example.) What about carbon emissions, now? You don't ever say that we have to lower them.

Also, the authority of the ECB to shut down power station in "dire situations" is entirely too broad. What constitutes a "dire situation", and what will the ECB do to ensure that power remains available to the inhabitants of the power grid, while these power stations are out of commission?

Again, forgive me if any of this has been said before, or if my concerns are outdated. I'm going by the Dec. 14th version, assuming that all previous concerns have already been addressed and rectified.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Details, Details, Details.

Thank you Ambassador.
I'm still in the process of defining proper environmental conditions and procedures for the need of this resolution.

By-products of Energy Providers will have to be held accountable.

So you shall see such things implemented,
-the lowest amount of pollutants available for your energy provider while powering your energy sector comfortably.
-the lowest amount of thermal pollution
-no significant ecological damage
-no substantial noise pollution

That being said, this legislation does little to promote "clean" energy
Putting technical regulations on energy providers is a good way of cleaning your environment of excessive by-products. Energy production needs to be conducted with the utmost technical efficiency. Dead fish popping up around nuclear plants isn't efficient or clean.

kay, my nation's proper routine is to dump it in to the nearest wetland.

Thats fine that your nation's proper routine is this, but don't complain when the ECB gives your energy provider a notification of closure.

It doesn't matter what your nations' beliefs are, the ECB is the regulator. However I do need to make it clearer that the beliefs of the ECB shall be formed from what does the littlest ecological and environmental harm while fulling the needs of the energy sector in question.

Thats fine that your nation's proper routine is this, but don't complain when the ECB gives your energy provider a notification of closure. It has no authority to do so. The ECB just tells us that we must use a proper routine. We have one.

Details, Details, Details.You are writing an incredibly significant proposal, Ambassador. I do hope you realize this.
So you shall see such things implemented,
-the lowest amount of pollutants available for your energy provider while powering your energy sector comfortably.
-the lowest amount of thermal pollution
-no significant ecological damage
-no substantial noise pollution The first bullet is problematic, as it contains a rather massive loophole. Hypothetically, let's say that my nation is a vast metropolis that pumps out so much CO2 that our citizens must wear gas masks. Now, let's say that it is in only this state that we are able to comfortably power our energy sector. Therefore, we are exempt from pollution caps, essentially.
Dead fish popping up around nuclear plants isn't efficient or clean.Are you going to give us the technology for more advanced, clearer power plants? Throwing money at dirty nations does nothing more than clean up the current mess; it doesn't prevent it from happening again.

If you are going to write a comprehensive energy bill, then you should focus on one area at a time. Write one proposal for pollution, one proposal for nuclear waste management, and one proposal for the promotion of "clean energy". Then, if at all possible, mold them together. However, trying to do it all at once is just going to prove a fruitless, diminishing act; especially in under 3500 characters.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

INSISTS that the ECB's first mission after creation is to devise strict technical regulations and environmental standards for all forms of energy production used by WA nations. This includes proper routines for the storage of high level radioactive waste, the temperature of discharged water and carbon emission targets.

I don't see how this is suggesting that nation's decide what is proper. The statement is demanding the ECB to devise strict standards including proper routines, not the member nations.

The first bullet is problematic, as it contains a rather massive loophole. Hypothetically, let's say that my nation is a vast metropolis that pumps out so much CO2 that our citizens must wear gas masks. Now, let's say that it is in only this state that we are able to comfortably power our energy sector. Therefore, we are exempt from pollution caps, essentially.

If your nation has that demanding of an energy sector your metropolis must be large. But
Population + Territorial Growth = A Larger "Atmosphere" for a bigger nation.

Larger Atmosphere + Same Carbon Emissions = Lower ppm count.
____________________________________________________________

You might find the above statement fairly cynical, but...

Developed nations like so will seek cleaner energy because it will help their economy actually. It will cut down on medical funding, introduce a new industry and cut down on international dependency. So hopefully such nations will make the switch naturally, at this time I'm not willing to put out a resolution that conversely condemns smaller nation's economys.

at dirty nations does nothing more than clean up the current mess

Cleaning up on mediocre industrial practices and prevent further ecological damage seems like a worthy cause.

Why not just go out and say what you want. Forgive me, but this "cleaner" energy talk is how shall I say it....pure bullshit.

What you really want is to ban nations from drilling for oil, driving cars with internal combustion engines, mining coal and burning it to make electricity, and also to make coke for the steel industry, and baning nuclear power plants. Show some honesty, Ambassador. Being clever does not suit you.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

What you really want is to ban nations from drilling for oil, driving cars with internal combustion engines, mining coal and burning it to make electricity, and also to make coke for the steel industry, and baning nuclear power plants. Show some honesty, Ambassador. Being clever does not suit you.

???

My cleverness has failed me obviously, I have no clue what you're talking about Ambassador!? This whole time I've been trying to form a proposal that allows the economy to survive an important and vital switch to cleaner energy. Such a dramatic political move would swiftly kill the uranium mining industry, and possibly inch the WA closer to an absurd but possible international depression. Such a concept would be a regretable mistake and misguided idealism.

Its time to forge a healthy environmental pattern for nations from now on to continue, as developed countries improve their industry practices. Such a dramatic switch that you talked about would be a shortlived success, it would decicrate our economy and tick the Doomsday Clock to midnight, all progress would be lost and we would tumble into a economic dark age, look to the myths of other empires and world orders in "the real world" for guidence. As an infamous clown said, "everything burns...".

Bumped into a new category with a new name!