NationStates

Auralia wrote:

Abacathea wrote:(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

It's important to consider the the law of diminishing returns here. This would be a good idea for vehicles with relative emissions of 100, but not for vehicles with relative emissions of 1. In the latter case, there is no real need to cut emissions any further, and any attempts to do so would largely be a waste of resources.

That is completely true and why I specifically suggested this clause include one of my favourite word pairings in international legislation - practical AND effective. At the point where these measures are not both practical AND effective, they are no longer mandated.

Auralia wrote:

Abacathea wrote:(iii) Mandates the creation of the "International Vehicular Emissions Authority" committee to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively and to provide guidance and guidelines to nations to further assist them in their goals.

I really don't think this committee is necessary.

Probably a fair point, actually.

Ossitania wrote:

Auralia wrote:
It's important to consider the the law of diminishing returns here. This would be a good idea for vehicles with relative emissions of 100, but not for vehicles with relative emissions of 1. In the latter case, there is no real need to cut emissions any further, and any attempts to do so would largely be a waste of resources.

That is completely true and why I specifically suggested this clause include one of my favourite word pairings in international legislation - practical AND effective. At the point where these measures are not both practical AND effective, they are no longer mandated.

Unfortunately, the clause is worded such that "a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions" is automatically considered a "practical and effective measure[] to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions", regardless of the context. In other words, we have to set a progressive schedule for emissions reduction, even if it isn't appropriate.

We also have this clause:

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

Granted, it's only an encouragement, but it has the same problems.

Oh, and I just noticed this:

(vi) Encourages governments incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce a lower emissions than.

It appears that this clause was truncated? There's also some bad grammar ("a lower emissions"). This issue alone should be sufficient to justify withdrawing the proposal.

Actually you're entirely right, that was an oversight on my part. I will submit a GHR instantly and have it pulled for the appropriate revisions, (more so on the committee and truncated text) everything else I will review and decide on accordingly, although most of the input from both Ossitania and Discoveria will be remaining as is, mainly because I actually fully like and agree with them and the direction of which they pulled the text.

Auralia wrote:

Ossitania wrote:
That is completely true and why I specifically suggested this clause include one of my favourite word pairings in international legislation - practical AND effective. At the point where these measures are not both practical AND effective, they are no longer mandated.

Unfortunately, the clause is worded such that "a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions" is automatically considered a "practical and effective measure[] to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions", regardless of the context. In other words, we have to set a progressive schedule for emissions reduction, even if it isn't appropriate.

We also have this clause:

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

Granted, it's only an encouragement, but it has the same problems.

GHR submitted in order to rectify the grammatical errors noted in your post that followed this one.

Now, lets look at these

Ossitania wrote:That is completely true and why I specifically suggested this clause include one of my favourite word pairings in international legislation - practical AND effective. At the point where these measures are not both practical AND effective, they are no longer mandated.

I'm inclined to agree with Ossitania here, the law of diminishing returns seems inapplicable, if emissions could be reduced from 1 to 0, then this is still a practical and effective schedule of events. If emissions cannot be reduced further ie; below 0 then there is no practical and effective solution therefore, mandate is non applicable.

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

I would feel that this clause (also noted being an encouragement) is still based off practical values, 75% of 4 grams of exhaust emissions, is still a reduction of 3, if you cannot reduce to 75% then obviously this reduction is not applicable. But the clauses have to be far reaching to include the majority rather than trying to work around the minority who may already have reached these targets.

Abacathea wrote:I'm inclined to agree with Ossitania here, the law of diminishing returns seems inapplicable, if emissions could be reduced from 1 to 0, then this is still a practical and effective schedule of events. If emissions cannot be reduced further ie; below 0 then there is no practical and effective solution therefore, mandate is non applicable.

I would argue that just because we can reduce emissions from 1 to 0, it does not mean we should, or that it is economically feasible.

Auralia wrote:

Abacathea wrote:I'm inclined to agree with Ossitania here, the law of diminishing returns seems inapplicable, if emissions could be reduced from 1 to 0, then this is still a practical and effective schedule of events. If emissions cannot be reduced further ie; below 0 then there is no practical and effective solution therefore, mandate is non applicable.

I would argue that just because we can reduce emissions from 1 to 0, it does not mean we should, or that it is economically feasible.

I fail to see why, essentially zero emissions would be ideal, in fact, it would be bloody brilliant! I don't understand why that shouldn't be a target, as for economic viability, no one is asking these nations to do it overnight, they've been given pretty good time constraints in which to obtain the desired effect here.

I am for this proposal!

Resubmitting with telegram campaign

Rewording and new title resolves the issues I had with the proposal earlier.

Hittanryan wrote:Rewording and new title resolves the issues I had with the proposal earlier.

Happy to have your support, just spotted the endorsement

The useless committee and the mandatory emissions reduction schedule remain. Opposed.

It is the duty of the WA to ensure the protection of the environment, and this legislation stands to reduce harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, which can only be a good thing as rates of respiratory illnesses rise in the world due to people breathing in the polluted air, furthermore ancient heritage buildings are being damaged by acid rain caused by water mixing with the sulphur dioxide, therefore Khayr Var approves this proposal.

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

"Micromanagement, opposed." Was the harsh judgement from Pardesi Delegate Lady Malréd of the Quendi.

(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

And for that we are against.

~Guyuan WA Ambassador,Johan Swer

I'd advise the author to make the progressive schedule an encouraged feature and get rid of IVEA. The 75% clause is actually probably unnecessary now that I'm having a second look.

Ossitania wrote:I'd advise the author to make the progressive schedule an encouraged feature and get rid of IVEA. The 75% clause is actually probably unnecessary now that I'm having a second look.

Telegram sent.

I'm concerned by the contradictions already explained above by other posters.

Additionally, I'm worried that the resolution’s definition of “automobile” includes many boats, airplanes, and rockets.

Also, I think the proposal depends a lot on the automative industry choosing to take action, even though it is unlikely to do so.

The wording of the proposal is often confusing, as well. (Like in the last class, what exactly is the proportionate research supposed to be proportionate to?)

For these reasons, I am opposed.

Since it is likely to attain quorum, and may be passed because it seems to have a fair amount of support, I will be working on a pre-emptive draft of a repeal and will post it if/when the proposal attains quorum.

Isalenoria wrote:I'm concerned by the contradictions already explained above by other posters.

Additionally, I'm worried that the resolution’s definition of “automobile” includes many boats, airplanes, and rockets.

Also, I think the proposal depends a lot on the automative industry choosing to take action, even though it is unlikely to do so.

The wording of the proposal is often confusing, as well. (Like in the last class, what exactly is the proportionate research supposed to be proportionate to?)

For these reasons, I am opposed.

Since it is likely to attain quorum, and may be passed because it seems to have a fair amount of support, I will be working on a pre-emptive draft of a repeal and will post it if/when the proposal attains quorum.

A repeal seems a little over the top with all due respect ambassador. The objectives of this act are quite specific and goal oriented and are likel to be easily interpreted.

The act was pulled two days ago and resubmitted to address some of auralia's objections and specific grammar notes. So not all advice to date has been ignored.

You're correct in your assumption though that this does cover boats planes and rockets as there is no rational I can think of to exempt them from the objectives sought under this act. Why would you feel it a bad idea to want to suppress the harmful emissions from such vehicles?

Also (I just can't seem to load it on my phone here) I believe the last clause states proportionate funding which was a better way in our view of addressing this than giving any specific figure or percentage.

Furthermore you state this is conditional on the automobile industry choosing to take action. I believe a mandate removes the premise of "choice" here and the comittee following up ensures it.

If you feel you must repeal so be it, we will fight it tooth and nail, mainly because we do not see anything here that would warrant it. If its not your nations cup of tea that's fine, but overall its hardly sufficient in our view to warrant repealing.

On the emissions schedule, in RL one solution to carbon dioxide emissions has been to calculate the permissible carbon emissions per capita that the environment can sustain, and then distribute these by nation. All nations are initially allowed to produce emissions at current levels regardless of development. Then, over many years, emissions from each nation are capped, with developing nations allowed to produce relatively more emissions per capita according to their level of development, while developed nations must make larger reductions in their emissions per capita. Eventually all nations are meant to reach a point where each nation is limited to producing the same level of emissions per capita as all other nations. The total emissions at this point are not zero but remain within acceptably sustainable limits.

OOC: I heard about this in the documentary "The Age of Stupid". This is the best solution to the arbitrary 75% reduction that I have heard.

Discoveria wrote:On the emissions schedule, in RL one solution to carbon dioxide emissions has been to calculate the permissible carbon emissions per capita that the environment can sustain, and then distribute these by nation.

Unfortunately, that's very difficult to calculate in the case of carbon dioxide.

Auralia wrote:

Discoveria wrote:On the emissions schedule, in RL one solution to carbon dioxide emissions has been to calculate the permissible carbon emissions per capita that the environment can sustain, and then distribute these by nation.

Unfortunately, that's very difficult to calculate in the case of carbon dioxide.

And given the varying degree of nations, past tech, present tech, future tech and so forth would have been a damnable nightmare to try to account for in the text.

As I discussed with with Auralia, 75% of 4 grams, is still a reduction of 3 grams, which as was pointed out to me, may not be viable at that time, but it is still only an encouragement clause and not unworthy of working towards all the same. Hence the reason I opted in the end not to remove it. Even if nations were producing only 1 gram of carbon dioxide, reducing that by 75 % would be next to zero emissions, and a fantastic achievement, not something to be frowned upon.

The committee within the act is present to ensure that an awful lot of the "progressive scheduling" and so forth are actually implemented. Hence why it remained too.

Hence why we feel Isalenoria's threat of a repeal is a little premature.

I was considering lending my support to this proposal, until I read this clause:


Proportionate to what? I am not going to support a proposal that has a provision I do not understand: AGAINST.

Christian Democrats wrote:I was considering lending my support to this proposal, until I read this clause:

(vii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset emissions from their products.

Proportionate to what? I am not going to support a proposal that has a provision I do not understand: AGAINST.

I'm concerned about this too.

I would have thought the understanding here would have been simple. In essence to set aside a portion (or proportionate) amount of funding. The reason I chose the term proportionate specifically was to avoid the argument "you can't ask potentially weak companies or dying companies to set aside profit etc..."

I personally find it concerning when two of this esteemed body's heavy hitters are nitpicking at a singular word choice.