[PASSED] Renewable Energy Installations Act

[Rightport]

The Government of Rightport is most likely to support this

[Abacathea]

A deep blush can be seen growing on Rowan's pale cheeks as the drafting Ambassador showers her with flattery. Though she has now spent a sixth of her short life in the Assembly and made, to her mind, many a worthy contribution to the GA, so rarely has she been so thoroughly flattered. Not that she intends to complain, of course.

After taking a few moments to gather her thoughts, and her breath, the girl rises, smiling broadly at Ambassador Chombers. "You are very kind, Ambassador, and may I say that I am equally pleased with your willingness to heed our concerns. Too many times have the serpents in this Festering Snakepit clung blindly to their own beliefs, unwilling to take even the sagest of advice. I thank you for your wisdom in allowing such changes to be made to your resolution, and while we are pleased with your acceptance of our ideals thus far, we must ask that you come just a little farther. You have taken care of our major concerns rather well, but there are still some issues that we feel need to be addressed. Starting with the first clause." The girl points to the relevant line on the document.

(i) Nations to identify key area's within their borders which could facilitate installations with the least possible environmental disturbance.

"After careful consideration, the Emissary and I believe we have come to a different wording that all of us may find more palatable. How about Nations intending to construct R.E.I.s to identify suitable areas within their borders which could facilitate installations with the least possible environmental disturbance. We mentioned before our concern regarding forcing nations to conduct the surveys regardless of the nation's ability or intention to build R.E.I.s. As I have just worded the clause, only those nations looking to build the installations need perform the surveys, which I believe was your true intent all along."

The girl takes a moment to write a quick note, speaking as she does so. "We also still have minor quibbles with the second clause. I hope you understand, these two clauses were our main points of opposition regarding your otherwise very well-written and well-intentioned legislation. As I said before, you have come a long way towards addressing our concerns, and I believe we can work together to eliminate those concerns entirely. Here." Rowan hands over a slip of paper with a revised Clause II.

Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations requiring new energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so, or must wait to begin construction until they do meet the requirements.

"The wording here is not perfect, but we believe it to be preferable to what you have in your revised draft. This is mostly a minor rewording and fixing some grammatical errors, but it would be enough to solidify our support for your proposal. The key point is that the nations must intend to build new energy installations to begin with - we believe the forced construction of such installations when they are not needed to be most undesirable. We do believe that this revised clause would still maintain the spirit and intent of your laudable goals, but do so in a way that is least intrusive to Member Nations."

"In the following clause, you seem to have retained a superfluous adjective." The girl points to the the word 'on' in the phrase 'facilities on to ensure'. "That may have been my fault - my black pen is running low on ink, and the strike-through may have faded on that word... Another minor grammatical error is in Clause IV, where you used the contracted form of 'it is'¹ instead of possessive 'its' - simply remove the apostrophe, please. The same minor error can be found in the final paragraph of the draft."

"I do apologise for lambasting you with more changes like this, Ambassador, and I must thank you again for your open mind and happy heart in accepting our recommendations thus far. There is just one final change that we would like to see made, though it is not a deal-breaker by any means. In the sixth active clause, you mention that business ought to reach for a goal of '50-100% within their lifespan'. While the context makes your intention obvious, we feel that what they are reaching for should be explicitly laid out. Furthermore, we generally prefer to avoid the use of percentages in resolutions, and think the use of such is not even required here. Perhaps the end of the clause in question could read 'encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.' Note that we have omitted 'in their lifetimes', because businesses have an indeterminate lifespan. They could last months, or they could go on for centuries."

"Thank you for your time." The redness in her cheeks never quite went away, and as Rowan takes her seat, she makes a rather obvious attempt at hiding her blushing face behind a glass of water, still smiling at the Ambassador who treated her with more kindness than most others in the Snakepit had dared to do. In her memory, only the Queleshian, Intellectual Artisan, and Mesogirian Ambassadors had been so kind to her. Well, and Sir Eduard, but that was a completely different story...

¹ The more clever readers will note that Rowan never uses contractions, even when pointing one out as a grammatical flaw ;-)

The smell of sweet perfume fills the air as a young, soft faced female enters the room, she sits in delegate Chombers seat and invites Rowan over warmly to discuss her most recent notes, sensing her reluctance she leans down and whispers in Rowans ear instead

[The ambassador is unwell today, but made it extremely clear to me, I was to come and speak to you on his behalf, my name is Fox, you'll find more information posted about me to the meet the reps section momentarily, but thats not important my dear, what is, is the message I must communicate to you. Mr Chombers made it clear to me that I must inform you he is once again completely pleased with your edits, and has made them accordingly. He wishes to thank you for all your assistance, and has asked me to give this to you

The young lady who's face has remained obscured proffers a glass case within which sits a delegate rose, almost frozen in perfect stasis.

It was made perfectly clear that was to be given to you, and only you and sincerest thanks were to be conveyed. We both hope you like them, looking at you now, and the work you have done here, we can see why he's taken such a shine to you. It seems hard not to.

As the delegate took her seat again, a smile could almost be seen behind the otherwise obscured face, but it was hard to make out as it had been kept within the shadows the entire time of her being present, which was odd considering how well lit the room was.

[Abacathea]

The Government of Rightport is most likely to support this

On behalf of Mr Chombers, who is off today, I wish to extend our sincerest thanks to you Delegate from Rightport.

Fox,
Delegate to the WA acting on behalf of Mr Jon Chombers

[Eireann Fae]

"I thank you for this," replies Rowan, delicately accepting the gift and placing it on the desk before her. "One of these days I shall have to find our office and give it a proper home. I am afraid most of my time now is spent between the Assembly Chamber and the Stranger's Bar. Very understanding about sleeping in the bar, Neville. Good man. I wonder if he would allow me to keep the rose there..." The girl lifts her eyes from the case to smile at Fox. "I hope Sir Jon recovers soon. In the meantime, welcome to the Assembly."

[Araraukar]

Aiming to avert international power and fuel crisis by ensuring nations have access to self sustaining power applications within their borders, and to ensure any and all businesses whom make environmental impacts to utilize natural resources for power requirements.

Just a little thing, but I don't think "whom" is the right word there, as it's normally used to refer to people.

Encouraging Nations who have the provisions to do so, to build as many forms of R.E.I's as practical in order to ensure maximum potential for consistent environmental supply to the grid

Just missing a small word there.

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key area's areas within their borders which could facilitate installations with the least possible environmental disturbance.

Again, small correction. I'm not sure about the "could facilitate installations", it sounds clumsy legalese to me. Maybe replace with "-within their borders, where these installations would cause the least possible environmental disturbance."

The whole "installation" sounds awkward to me - personally I would've named them Renewable Energy Powerplants, but hey, your draft, and others might/would disagree with me on this, I'm sure.

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations requiring new energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so, or must wait to begin construction until they do meet the requirements.

I would drop the bit I highlighted, since it's a bit redundant.

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both safe supply and output of these facilities.

No offence, but how is a government taskforce supposed to make sure that sun shines, wind blows, and that there are no droughts?

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

I basically get what you mean with this, but is there any other way to put it? Something on the lines of nations urging/encouraging businesses to minimize their environmental impact. (If you must keep this part at all.)

Further encourages nations who are capable of constructing and producing a surplus of renewable energy not only to do so, but to effect through sale, trade or the spirit of goodwill the supply of renewable energy or it's technology to nations unable to do so without assistance.

This bit doesn't mention anything about prices, unlike the bit addressed to the individual users. I'm not sure if you even should have this bit here, as it seems a bit disjointed from the rest and I doubt you can put proper regulations for international trade of renewable energy within the space of this one proposal.

[Abacathea]

Dearest Araraukar,

On behalf of Mr Chombers I have reviewed your edits and made a variety of them accordingly. That said, there are several which we have chosen not to take onboard, and whilst we understand your views, we wish to keep them integrally within the act. We hope to clarify as to why.

No offence, but how is a government taskforce supposed to make sure that sun shines, wind blows, and that there are no droughts?

None taken dearest delegate, however the passage regarding safe supply and facility maintenance is due to the physical mechanics of the facilities themselves. One cannot always ensure a water supply to a dish washer, but one can ensure that it's individual components are in safe and running order for when the water supply is present. These facilities would require no less maintenance, especially in the case of wind farms or hydro electric dams should they fail in any catastrophic way. Granted the damage would be considerably less than say the failure of a nuclear fission plant, but still, damaging none the less.

Abacathea wrote:
(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

I basically get what you mean with this, but is there any other way to put it? Something on the lines of nations urging/encouraging businesses to minimize their environmental impact. (If you must keep this part at all.)

We feel content with this, and while minimalizing environmental impact is an admirable goal, we wish to get businesses to sign up to renewable energy in the long run, the balancing of karma in this way, seems a good starting ground.

This bit doesn't mention anything about prices, unlike the bit addressed to the individual users. I'm not sure if you even should have this bit here, as it seems a bit disjointed from the rest and I doubt you can put proper regulations for international trade of renewable energy within the space of this one proposal.

This particular schedule is more about encouraging co-operation between nations, we don't seek nor could be fathom how to regulate or mandate nations trade in such a manner, but we do wish to encourage nations to assist each other if at all possible.

Many thanks for your inputs,

Fox,
Acting on behalf of Mr Chombers

[Araraukar]

Encouraging Nations who have the provisions to do so, to build as many forms of R.E.I's as practical in order to ensure maximum potential for consistent environmental supply to the grid

We think the word "energy" has escaped into the wild after the word "environmental". (Or perhaps "consistent supply of environmental energy" would say it better?)

All suggestions we make to the draft are only suggestions, the Abacathean delegate can always ignore them without feeling the need to apologize or explain themselves to us. We're only hoping to help.

[Abacathea]

Encouraging Nations who have the provisions to do so, to build as many forms of R.E.I's as practical in order to ensure maximum potential for consistent environmental supply to the grid

We think the word "energy" has escaped into the wild after the word "environmental". (Or perhaps "consistent supply of environmental energy" would say it better?)

All suggestions we make to the draft are only suggestions, the Abacathean delegate can always ignore them without feeling the need to apologize or explain themselves to us. We're only hoping to help.

Agreed, minor tweak made, many thanks. And we always will explain ourselves when someone has taken the time to give us their thoughts

[Bears Armed]

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both safe supply and output of these facilities.

No offence, but how is a government taskforce supposed to make sure that sun shines, wind blows, and that there are no droughts?

Prayer?

[Eireann Fae]

No offence, but how is a government taskforce supposed to make sure that sun shines, wind blows, and that there are no droughts?

Prayer?

(OOC: As it so happens, Eireann Fae's resident leaders can control the weather. Mentioning this OOC so other nations don't get jelly :p)

[Abacathea]

Prayer?

(OOC: As it so happens, Eireann Fae's resident leaders can control the weather. Mentioning this OOC so other nations don't get jelly )

Perhaps you would be willing to extend the same powers to us?

[Abacathea]

I'm feeling happy where this resolution is at, and while I've come to respect and follow the marathon/sprint guide, I really don't feel this requires much further working. So if there's nothing of significance raised in the next day or so, I will be moving to submit.

[Araraukar]

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both safe supply and output of these facilities.

This still stands unchanged. Since supply can be uncertain and beyond control of the government (we're infinitely jealous to such delegates whose people can control weather), why not drop the supply bit, and instead make certain you're talking about the facilities' safety - perhaps word it as

(iii) "Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and steady output (of power/electricity).

The double mention of "these facilities" seemed a bit clumsy, hence I dropped it from the suggestion, but if you don't want to, it could read "to ensure both the safety and steady output (of power/electricity) of these facilities".

Mention of power or electricity is in parentheses, since it's not 100% needed, but just looks better to me personally.

[Abacathea]

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both safe supply and output of these facilities.

This still stands unchanged. Since supply can be uncertain and beyond control of the government (we're infinitely jealous to such delegates whose people can control weather), why not drop the supply bit, and instead make certain you're talking about the facilities' safety - perhaps word it as

(iii) "Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and steady output (of power/electricity).

The double mention of "these facilities" seemed a bit clumsy, hence I dropped it from the suggestion, but if you don't want to, it could read "to ensure both the safety and steady output (of power/electricity) of these facilities".

Mention of power or electricity is in parentheses, since it's not 100% needed, but just looks better to me personally.

We have currently edited it to

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

We feel it is a nice sounding combination of your thoughts and ours. Would you be inclined to agree?

[Dilange]

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.

With what money? What if nations cant afford to build any of these? Do you have a fund available? Are you personally going to cut a check?

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

If they dont, then what?

v) Nations to ensure in the case of governmental control, or to mandate in the case of privatization on of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers.

Ensure? How? Is this what the taskforce does?

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

Is this forcing business to convert to green energy?

[Eireann Fae]

(Whole post OOC cos I don't feel like RPing this. I'd need Alexandra's sharp tongue to do this properly anyway, and she ain't here :p)

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.

With what money? What if nations cant afford to build any of these? Do you have a fund available? Are you personally going to cut a check?

Read the bolded. If you still don't understand, look up "economically viable".

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

If they dont, then what?

If the resolution passes, they can't not. Member nations are not allowed to not comply with passed WA resolutions. It's a game mechanics thing.

v) Nations to ensure in the case of governmental control, or to mandate in the case of privatization on of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers.

Ensure? How? Is this what the taskforce does?

Sure. Or your friendly local WA Gnomes crack the whip. The method is not important, just that it gets done. Which it would, as you can't not comply with a passed resolution.

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

Is this forcing business to convert to green energy?

Is that bad? For the record, the focus is on businesses that negatively impact the environment, not all businesses in general. If you don't like it, though, you're welcome to vote against the proposal when it hits the floor. I do hope that you're in the minority.

[Abacathea]

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.

With what money? What if nations cant afford to build any of these? Do you have a fund available? Are you personally going to cut a check?

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

If they dont, then what?

v) Nations to ensure in the case of governmental control, or to mandate in the case of privatization on of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers.

Ensure? How? Is this what the taskforce does?

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

Is this forcing business to convert to green energy?

Dearest Delegate from Dilange,

Firstly, allow us to to thank you for raising your concerns. With that in mind, allow us to address them one at a time for you.

Regarding your first concern:

With what money? What if nations cant afford to build any of these? Do you have a fund available? Are you personally going to cut a check?

You'll note we ask nations to do this who are in an economically viable position to do so, we do not force this down the throats of nations who cannot afford it. If they reach a time when they can however, yes their participation in the program is expected. We ask that you do not be deliberately obtuse though, we no more intend to hand over monies any more than the author of WAR#176 did when they made their proposal.

Regarding your second issue:

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

If they dont, then what?

Really Delegate? You're around long enough I'm sure to know that there is no "if they don't". Compliance is expected with all resolutions, there is no if they dont. Did the authors of PMC ask, "what if they don't?" no, they did not.

Regarding point three:

v) Nations to ensure in the case of governmental control, or to mandate in the case of privatization on of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers.


Ensure? How? Is this what the taskforce does?

Dear Delegate, you really are astounding us here, you're telling us your nation is not capable of mandating to private industry cost fixing on sale and supply? Or enforcing such a thing themselves? We find this concerning, but suspect your government knows full well how to do this, and you are simply attempting to pick a hole in our case here. We do not understand your concerns otherwise.

Lastly,

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

Is this forcing business to convert to green energy?

Is there a reason they shouldn't? If they are damaging the environment is there a reason they shouldn't in some way limit their damage or at least balance it?.

Ooc:Furthermore, we would like to thank the delegate from Eireann Fae for her input into the matter. We must admit though, we'd have loved to see Alexandra's input here too,

[Dilange]

Really Delegate? You're around long enough I'm sure to know that there is no "if they don't". Compliance is expected with all resolutions, there is no if they dont. Did the authors of PMC ask, "what if they don't?" no, they did not.

Oh great job refering me to another resolution I support. Great strawman. If you compliance isnt expected, then why try it.

Dear Delegate, you really are astounding us here, you're telling us your nation is not capable of mandating to private industry cost fixing on sale and supply? Or enforcing such a thing themselves? We find this concerning, but suspect your government knows full well how to do this, and you are simply attempting to pick a hole in our case here. We do not understand your concerns otherwise.

Dilange has a great energy ministry who can work things on our own. Im talk about other nations not so fortunate in good management. So please explain, not to me but others, instead of just saying Im attacking you for no reason.

Is there a reason they shouldn't? If they are damaging the environment is there a reason they shouldn't in some way limit their damage or at least balance it?.

If you are forcing all businesses to go green, then that is economically unsound. Why would businesses risk spending more money to afford expensive green energy? They wouldn't unless under the guise of wanting greener production. Please learn Economics 101 and how green energy affects it.

[Araraukar]

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

We feel it is a nice sounding combination of your thoughts and ours. Would you be inclined to agree?

Indeed, it looks good now.

[Araraukar]

Oh great job refering me to another resolution I support. Great strawman. If you compliance isnt expected, then why try it.

...because compliance IS expected and mandated?

If you are forcing all businesses to go green, then that is economically unsound. Why would businesses risk spending more money to afford expensive green energy? They wouldn't unless under the guise of wanting greener production. Please learn Economics 101 and how green energy affects it.

We suggest you re-read the whole thing - the "green energy" could not be more costly as is defined previously in the proposal.

[Abacathea]

Really Delegate? You're around long enough I'm sure to know that there is no "if they don't". Compliance is expected with all resolutions, there is no if they dont. Did the authors of PMC ask, "what if they don't?" no, they did not.

Oh great job refering me to another resolution I support. Great strawman. If you compliance isnt expected, then why try it.

Dear Delegate, you really are astounding us here, you're telling us your nation is not capable of mandating to private industry cost fixing on sale and supply? Or enforcing such a thing themselves? We find this concerning, but suspect your government knows full well how to do this, and you are simply attempting to pick a hole in our case here. We do not understand your concerns otherwise.

Dilange has a great energy ministry who can work things on our own. Im talk about other nations not so fortunate in good management. So please explain, not to me but others, instead of just saying Im attacking you for no reason.

Is there a reason they shouldn't? If they are damaging the environment is there a reason they shouldn't in some way limit their damage or at least balance it?.

If you are forcing all businesses to go green, then that is economically unsound. Why would businesses risk spending more money to afford expensive green energy? They wouldn't unless under the guise of wanting greener production. Please learn Economics 101 and how green energy affects it.

Dearest Delegate,

I suggest you re-read what is written. At no point is compliance not expected. I specifically stated that it is. I referred you to PMC as a topic because I knew you'd see my point. Not, to make your argument easier to attack. If i felt your concerns unwarranted, I'd have taken an ad hominem approach instead.

Regarding the mandate, I believe it is very clear, but i'll basify it, if a government choses to own these facilities, they are required to offer them at no heftier a cost than the current energy provisions are. If they government does not, they must instruct private industry the same.

Lastly, we are not forcing all businesses to go green, we've clarified this both in the act, and our prior response to you, merely businesses who are damaging the environment, consider it a fine or a levy if you must, but cost efficiency is not a view in our eyes to allowing environmental damage to go unchecked. That said, it is already mandated in the act, that this energy would not be more costly or cheaper than it's rivals.

Does this clarify things better dear delegate? If not, please re-read the proposal, we feel it's considerably more concise than anything we've proposed to date.

[Dilange]

We suggest you re-read the whole thing - the "green energy" could not be more costly as is defined previously in the proposal.

So have shoddy green energy rather than excellent coal or natural gas energy implimentation for the same prices? Hahaha.

[Eireann Fae]

Rowan eyes Santorica coldly, but maintains a diplomatic air as she answers his snide retort. "Kind Ambassador, please do not presume the whole of the world to be so limited in their efforts at harnessing clean energy. It is not a fundamental fact that clean energy is more expensive than use of oil and coal. Perhaps our nation can help yours in harnessing clean energy more efficiently? We would be unable to provide financial aid, but can certainly show you more efficient methods of clean energy generation, if your government would be so kind as to receive our representatives."

[Dilange]

OOC: Hoping you realize that Dilange is an anti-environmentalist nation.

Abacatheian ambassador,

Congradulations on using logical fallacies, we hope your continue use of ad hominem arguments continue their non-usefulness for later generations. This is about energy, not PMC. Stay on topic, I dont want to talk more about penises than the next guy.

Now lets use a reality situation, because everythign in your mind cannot be implimented completely. Lets say a nation built on the economics of oil, coal, fossil fuels, etc. with industries fueled by such elements. Why would nations like these allow green energy to be produced if their land is based on the fossil fuel dependence they and other nations have? Is it cost-effective for such implimentation? What quality of energy production is this giving if you say the cost of the new is to be equal or less of the current? How can you be sure of such numbers? Etc. THere is a variety of implimentation problems such proposal has. Can you answer some of these questions in the best you can? And please, dont use non-compliance as an answer...its just an answer used when you cant answer or to pass faulty bills.

Second, are you willing to kill economies and businesses because they are damaging the environment? Why would I throw fines at successful businesses because their energy they use isnt green but their production rates and capita rates are good? I find cost efficiency a very good indicator to keep wary of Ambassador, if such economies cannot bear the weight, the whole thing may collapse.

Third, for these research and surveying of land....what exactly is this being consisted of in detail? Is it going to be paid for by the government or each business? If not, how?

Fourth, in Dilange....we have a great energy initiative that does throw money behind new ways of energy. We do prototype many new ways to develop energy to save cost as well as boost production and power. How would these be investigated in terms of environmental rates? Is there any guidelines we have to follow?

Dorian turned to Rowan.

No need. Dilange has an excellent energy program and a great economic boosting energy production industry. We can do just fine without your help. Besides, our economy is at its highest point....why would I waste money in investing to change my major industries' energy to something more environmentally friendly? To me and Dilange, we would rather have the money to keep our nation strong rather than waste money to protect some grass.

[Abacathea]

OOC:
I wasn't aware dearest dilinage. I will be sure to note that when I return to character in the morning. That said, it's just after 4am here. So if we may oostpone the debate till the afternoon reaches I would be most pleased to resume said debate.

IC; the Acathean delegate calls a hiatus to the proceedings for a rest and snack and moves ominously to the 44th floor canteen and rest area.