[PASSED] Promotion of Clean Energy

[Araraukar]

This whole debate can be avoided by the following change:

Cognizant of the existence of alternate forms of energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and hydro, virtually all of which are clean, renewable, and cost-effective in the long-run;

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

OOC That line doesn't name any energy sources, so while there would still be differences in opinion as to which sources are clean or renewable relative to others, there's no need to for a debate over which sources should or should not be used as examples.

On further reflection it's a bad idea to list them anyway, past tech, modern tech and future tech nations would have totally different ideas of what constitutes "clean".

OOC: I'm actually with WCAOAN on this; the "most effective means possible" would be left up to the nation, as well as up to the nation's tech level.

[Separatist Peoples]

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

OOC That line doesn't name any energy sources, so while there would still be differences in opinion as to which sources are clean or renewable relative to others, there's no need to for a debate over which sources should or should not be used as examples.

On further reflection it's a bad idea to list them anyway, past tech, modern tech and future tech nations would have totally different ideas of what constitutes "clean".

OOC: I'm actually with WCAOAN on this; the "most effective means possible" would be left up to the nation, as well as up to the nation's tech level.

OOC: Which means that either the nation can pick and chose it's own parameters of clean energy, which guts this whole thing, or that the implications of "clean" lie in the production of energy and not the extraction of it, and nuclear can be included. Otherwise, any kind of energy production, if we include the extraction or construction, will not fall under the traditional auspices of 'clean'.

[Petrolheadia]

No. Just no.

People don't have a big impact on global warming and at this point such technologies wouldn't be worth it. Plus, I would never take IC cars away from people.

[Separatist Peoples]

No. Just no.

People don't have a big impact on global warming and at this point such technologies wouldn't be worth it. Plus, I would never take IC cars away from people.

OOC: The first half of that sentence is either so subjective it hurts, or so ignorant of modern research that it hurts. One can continue to allow IC cars in a clean-energy world, so nobody is taking your guns cars.

[Tinfect]

People don't have a big impact on global warming and at this point such technologies wouldn't be worth it.

OOC:
Now, that's just straight up wrong. You still getting your information from a book by a guy? You might want to do some research.

Plus, I would never take IC cars away from people.

This isn't mandating that, it's only a Clean Energy Resolution. Even if you cars have pathetic fuel economy, and produce unholy levels of pollution, they'll still be legal, if that sort of thing is legal in your nation, anyway.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC: Which means that either the nation can pick and chose it's own parameters of clean energy, which guts this whole thing, or that the implications of "clean" lie in the production of energy and not the extraction of it, and nuclear can be included. Otherwise, any kind of energy production, if we include the extraction or construction, will not fall under the traditional auspices of 'clean'.

Rational Nation Theory

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Which means that either the nation can pick and chose it's own parameters of clean energy, which guts this whole thing, or that the implications of "clean" lie in the production of energy and not the extraction of it, and nuclear can be included. Otherwise, any kind of energy production, if we include the extraction or construction, will not fall under the traditional auspices of 'clean'.

Rational Nation Theory

Means what?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Which means that either the nation can pick and chose it's own parameters of clean energy, which guts this whole thing, or that the implications of "clean" lie in the production of energy and not the extraction of it, and nuclear can be included. Otherwise, any kind of energy production, if we include the extraction or construction, will not fall under the traditional auspices of 'clean'.

Rational Nation Theory

Ooc: the REASONABLE nation theory is an axiom that basically states a reasonable nation will not misinterpret a resolution to the point of it no longer benefiting them to do so. It's an assumption that authors accept to avoid dealing with unreasonable issues, such as lowering the age of majority to 0.

From the NSWiki:

Reasonable Nation Theory is a concept in WA legislating whereby proposal authors operate under the assumption that most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass. This means that authors, when trying to close up loopholes in their proposals, need not account for every ridiculous, unrealistic or unlikely situation or scenario that could occur within an uncooperative member state.

Using nuclear power use isn't unreasonable, and a very real question as to whether it counts as clean energy exists, so I have no idea why you dropped a phrase with no supporting argument and thought it counted as any kind of rebuttal.

Good lord, UFoC was right about the quality of debate slipping here...

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

No. Just no.
People don't have a big impact on global warming and at this point such technologies wouldn't be worth it. Plus, I would never take IC cars away from people.

OOC: The first half of that sentence is either so subjective it hurts, or so ignorant of modern research that it hurts. One can continue to allow IC cars in a clean-energy world, so nobody is taking your guns cars.

OCC: This proposal makes no reference to global warming and there are plenty of other forms of pollution, lets not start another pointless argument.

Means what?

OOC: Means we can assume good faith interpretation and application of legislation. That is, this legislation doesn't need to account for nations that will define "clean" in a way that allows them to power streetlamps with whale oil when they have access to solar panels. It doesn't have to be kennyproofed.

Using nuclear power use isn't unreasonable, and a very real question as to whether it counts as clean energy exists, so I have no idea why you dropped a phrase with no supporting argument and thought it counted as any kind of rebuttal.

OOC: And I have no idea why you want so badly for Vancouvia to legislate on something that is in your own words "a very real question."*
Regardless I was assuming you would be familiar with the phrase and that further explanation wouldn't be needed.

*Just kidding, of course. I was here earlier you see.

[Separatist Peoples]

Using nuclear power use isn't unreasonable, and a very real question as to whether it counts as clean energy exists, so I have no idea why you dropped a phrase with no supporting argument and thought it counted as any kind of rebuttal.

OOC: And I have no idea why you want so badly for Vancouvia to legislate on something that is in your own words "a very real question."*
Regardless I was assuming you would be familiar with the phrase and that further explanation wouldn't be needed.

*Just kidding, of course. I was here earlier you see.

OOC: I made that argument in response to your gem that further discussion was pointless because of this edit:

This whole debate can be avoided by the following change:

Cognizant of the existence of alternate forms of energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and hydro, virtually all of which are clean, renewable, and cost-effective in the long-run;

You further claimed that there is no need for debate. I've demonstrated pretty clearly that there is need for such debate. Without input from active debate, the OP has a lot less to work off of for legislation. Don't conflate encouraging and participating in debate with demanding OP action.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Don't conflate encouraging and participating in debate with demanding OP action.

OOC: If you're not going to talk about the proposal then it doesn't belong here. If you want to debate the merits of nuclear energy then there's two whole boards for that.

[Separatist Peoples]

Don't conflate encouraging and participating in debate with demanding OP action.

OOC: If you're not going to talk about the proposal then it doesn't belong here. If you want to debate the merits of nuclear energy then there's two whole boards for that.

OOC: it's almost as if you're determined to ignore all of the bits I've tied into this proposal and the GA in the continuing proposal. If you've got an issue with the debate here, don't come to this thread, but don't try to derail it by deliberately misunderstanding the nature of the debate.

[Araraukar]

If you want to debate the merits of nuclear energy then there's two whole boards for that.

OOC: NSG and what?

don't try to derail it by deliberately misunderstanding the nature of the debate.

OOC: We derailed it since we moved it to OOC comments. It's barely anywhere near the topic anymore.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

If you want to debate the merits of nuclear energy then there's two whole boards for that.

OOC: NSG and what?

OOC: The general board for OOC discussion and the NationStates board for IC

It's almost as if you're determined to ignore all of the bits I've tied into this proposal and the GA in the continuing proposal. If you've got an issue with the debate here, don't come to this thread, but don't try to derail it by deliberately misunderstanding the nature of the debate.

Derail? By proposing an actual change to the language to end a fruitless, barely relevant argument?

[Mousebumples]

I'll renew the concern expressed by other players earlier in this thread, as this proposal is set to go to vote in a little over an hour:

The active clauses (i.e. non-preamble) of this proposal state:

Urges member nations to seek to simultaneously dis-incentivize the usage of fossil fuels and incentivize the usage of clean energies, through methods available to them such as taxation, business and consumer subsidies, active governmental research and involvement, and dissemination of information concerning the advantages of clean energy;

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

Implores member nations which have access to superior forms of clean energy to share those technologies with nations that inhabit the same environment, as pollution from fossil fuel usage is non-discriminatory concerning national boundaries;

Encourages member nations to create legislation and policy that works in other ways to decrease the nation's overall carbon footprint, and to continue to seek out new advantageous technologies to increase the sustainability and longevity of their environments.

Most of those are encouragy-mild type phrasing. Only one clause (the underlined requires clause) mandates anything for any nations - and that only applies to some WA nations and not all. (i.e. those that have efficient forms of clean energy available) How do we feel that this fits (or doesn't fit) the Significant/Strong strength associated with Environmental: All Business.

I know that Vancouvia made a statement that the previously repealed legislation was "just as strong in it's text" (or something to that effect), but I wouldn't necessarily rely on that as precedent. Also, weight is a subjective thing and I was most certainly not involved in moderation discussions at that time, so I can't be certain what discussions were had at that time about the content/strength, if any. Are there any other arguments we should consider on either side in the next ... hour or so?

[Vancouvia]

I'll renew the concern expressed by other players earlier in this thread, as this proposal is set to go to vote in a little over an hour:

The active clauses (i.e. non-preamble) of this proposal state:

Urges member nations to seek to simultaneously dis-incentivize the usage of fossil fuels and incentivize the usage of clean energies, through methods available to them such as taxation, business and consumer subsidies, active governmental research and involvement, and dissemination of information concerning the advantages of clean energy;

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

Implores member nations which have access to superior forms of clean energy to share those technologies with nations that inhabit the same environment, as pollution from fossil fuel usage is non-discriminatory concerning national boundaries;

Encourages member nations to create legislation and policy that works in other ways to decrease the nation's overall carbon footprint, and to continue to seek out new advantageous technologies to increase the sustainability and longevity of their environments.

Most of those are encouragy-mild type phrasing. Only one clause (the underlined requires clause) mandates anything for any nations - and that only applies to some WA nations and not all. (i.e. those that have efficient forms of clean energy available) How do we feel that this fits (or doesn't fit) the Significant/Strong strength associated with Environmental: All Business.

I know that Vancouvia made a statement that the previously repealed legislation was "just as strong in it's text" (or something to that effect), but I wouldn't necessarily rely on that as precedent. Also, weight is a subjective thing and I was most certainly not involved in moderation discussions at that time, so I can't be certain what discussions were had at that time about the content/strength, if any. Are there any other arguments we should consider on either side in the next ... hour or so?

The fact which you stated that there's precedent and...

This is forced into the environmental category all businesses category by its nature. It's strange that anything in this category would have to be fitted as significant when there's literally no option to pick a strength when submitting a proposal in this category. In an ideal world I'd pick environmental and a strength but that option just wasn't presented to me. I had to pick an industry affected instead of strength, and this is the correct industry affected.

[Vancouvia]

The recently repealed resolution was voted in on Feb 20 2012.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=104306&p=5748053#p5748053 was written May 25, 2011.

The current language in this draft is equal to or stronger than the repealed resolution which was written under the same category.

And this is the relevant post with the precedent, which wasn't even followed for the resolution this is attempting to replace

[Mousebumples]

You say that there's precedent, and then you link to Ard's post which doesn't seem to be covered by your proposal much, if at all.

Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements.

Where in your proposal is industry having to pay for these environmental improvements? It talks about "incentivizing" clean energy and "sharing forms of clean energy" and "seeking out new technologies." Where is the "industry having to pay for environmental improvements" factoring in?

Third, the strength. The categories that don't give you a choice of saying Mild, Significant or Strong are treated as being automatically Strong. You should therefore write proposals in those categories with very broad international effect and/or inescapable phrasing -- requires, insists, mandates, prescribes, rather than encourages, recommends, advises, applauds.

This is covered above.

Regarding precedent, you're not even linking to the repealed proposal in an attempt to "prove you're right" but are instead linking to Ard's statement which only undermines your position further, in my view. (For the record, that repealed resolution is here.) And while you each have "one clause each" ... that does not mean that you have "equal to or stronger than" in terms of strength.

The "Instructs" clause within that resolution reads, "Instructs World Assembly nations to devote sufficient funding in order to make a meaningful and good faith effort towards researching renewable energy." It makes clear that funding is involved and it applies to all WA nations (and not just a subset of those). I am not convinced that your proposal does the same on an equal strength level.

[Vancouvia]

The precedent statement occurred before a resolution was enacted that didn't follow the precedent. What I'm saying is that precedent wasn't/isn't being followed.

Here's a link to a very similar resolution that is weaker/the same strength as mine in the same category: viewtopic.php?p=8784352#p8784352

And funding is clearly implied by "Urges member nations to seek to simultaneously dis-incentivize the usage of fossil fuels and incentivize the usage of clean energies, through methods available to them such as taxation, business and consumer subsidies, active governmental research and involvement, and dissemination of information concerning the advantages of clean energy"

[Wrapper]

The precedent statement occurred before a resolution was enacted that didn't follow the precedent. What I'm saying is that precedent wasn't/isn't being followed.

Here's a link to a very similar resolution that is weaker/the same strength as mine in the same category: viewtopic.php?p=8784352#p8784352

Oops, you're proving Mouse's point with that:

2) Encourages nations to enact policies on fossil-fuel burning power plants to commit a minimum 5% from their expenditure to further renewable energy research and to develop ways to better utilize alternative energy sources

That's a cost to industry, a cost that fossil fuel plants can pass down to all industries. Thus, the category fits.

[Vancouvia]

"dis-incentiviz[ing] the usage of fossil fuels" is a cost to "all industry"

[Vancouvia]

For the record I find it a bit ridiculous that I'm forced into speed round defend your proposal at literally the 11th hour because of a statement written five years ago in a draft thread. Could I request that next time this occurs at the 10th hour

[Wrapper]

"dis-incentiviz[ing] the usage of fossil fuels" is a cost to "all industry"

No, disincentives mean lower demand, as incentives are applied to other sources, which would make energy cheaper for industry (the nations are paying for it). A 5% fee is an increase in the cost of doing business, making it more expensive for industry (industry is paying for it). Big difference.

[Mousebumples]

For the record I find it a bit ridiculous that I'm forced into speed round defend your proposal at literally the 11th hour because of a statement written five years ago in a draft thread. Could I request that next time this occurs at the 10th hour

I figured this was preferable to having this debate after it reached a vote. My apologies, but my attention has been elsewhere this weekend for various reasons. This thread was not bumped upon submission - which used to be standard practice when I was a more active author - and I hadn't even noticed it had been submitted or reached quorum until earlier this evening.

The concerns were raised earlier by other delegates and representatives. You dismissed them. That doesn't make them non-applicable.

[Wrapper]

For the record I find it a bit ridiculous that I'm forced into speed round defend your proposal at literally the 11th hour because of a statement written five years ago in a draft thread. Could I request that next time this occurs at the 10th hour

This issue was brought up weeks ago.