[PASSED] Ban on Leaded Fuel

[Elke and Elba]

Without FanT wanking, I doubt it. Lead is neurotoxic, and the banning of leaded fuels in the UK has been associated with an apparent drop in violent crime and anger - suggesting that an environment with a high lead content is bad for animal development in the womb and through childhood.

OOC: That's for Terran biology, which ain't really a thing here in the NS world. I mean, what is zis UK you speak of?

That's obviously not OOC, if you actually understand what OOC means.

[Lexicor]

This is a very well written resolution, but Lexicor shall vote against it on political and moral principle. We firmly believe in the deregulation of the market and deny the existence of man made climate change and find the notion of the banning of a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly product to be absurd!

OOC: I believe in climate change irl, but this nation is based entirely on an Anarcho Capitalist/Libertarian ideology.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is a very well written resolution, but Lexicor shall vote against it on political and moral principle. We firmly believe in the deregulation of the market and deny the existence of man made climate change and find the notion of the banning of a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly product to be absurd! ;)

OOC: I believe in climate change irl, but this nation is based entirely on an Anarcho Capitalist/Libertarian ideology.

Lead pollution doesn't have anything to do with "climate change".

[Lexicor]

This is a very well written resolution, but Lexicor shall vote against it on political and moral principle. We firmly believe in the deregulation of the market and deny the existence of man made climate change and find the notion of the banning of a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly product to be absurd!

OOC: I believe in climate change irl, but this nation is based entirely on an Anarcho Capitalist/Libertarian ideology.

Lead pollution doesn't have anything to do with "climate change".

Ya damn environmentally friendly liberal hippies and yer interferin of the market!

OOC: Again, IRL I know this but climate change deniers aren't too smart

[Imperializt Russia]

Without FanT wanking, I doubt it. Lead is neurotoxic, and the banning of leaded fuels in the UK has been associated with an apparent drop in violent crime and anger - suggesting that an environment with a high lead content is bad for animal development in the womb and through childhood.

OOC: That's for Terran biology, which ain't really a thing here in the NS world. I mean, what is zis UK you speak of?
IC: Life doesn't always manifest itself in carbon-based form. But that's really a small issue, I think. It could (somewhat) undermine the whole resolution, but I don't believe anyone in this assembly belongs in that category.

I frequently lapse between OOC and IC. So much so that I'm not certain I can really delineate a point at which I transition.

Real-world evidence is the only real way to settle most disagreements in WA discussions, or I wouldn't use them. I've been able to use real-world data, events and processes to make arguments in various chemical and nuclear limitation proposals that have passed through here.

[Defwa]

Without FanT wanking, I doubt it. Lead is neurotoxic, and the banning of leaded fuels in the UK has been associated with an apparent drop in violent crime and anger - suggesting that an environment with a high lead content is bad for animal development in the womb and through childhood.

OOC: That's for Terran biology, which ain't really a thing here in the NS world. I mean, what is zis UK you speak of?
IC: Life doesn't always manifest itself in carbon-based form. But that's really a small issue, I think. It could (somewhat) undermine the whole resolution, but I don't believe anyone in this assembly belongs in that category.

OOC: Well the reason most known life is carbon based is because carbon is one of those elements that can easily bond to other ones The molecules that are used for energy are relatively simple and abundant in the universe. Carbon can easily bind with hydrogen, oxygen, and even other carbon through simple chemical processes making it an easily accessible source of chemical reactions and thus energy for carbon based bodies.
Carbon is also small and light for an element so versatile. Its the lightest element with four external electrons just ready for bonding. CH4 (methane) and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are gaseous chemicals. Light, comparatively speaking. Both used and useable in the creation and usage of energy. Carbon reacts with hydrogen and oxygen to provide energy and is expelled in a format that doesn't (under ordinary circumstances) impede our ability to gain more energy. This reaction by the way is via breathing or breaking down food. This size also allows it to bond stably with many atoms.
Now here's where it gets fun: Lead and silicon also have this outer electron arrangement but there are some very important problems. Lets start with one you hear more commonly...
You'll note many theorize about silicon based life. You know what would happen to a silicon based life form that breathed oxygen? Silicon oxide. Sand. A silicon life form would take a breath and then hack out a bunch of sand- if it had lungs of course. It would need a very interesting respiratory apparatuses. This is because, in part, the size of a silicon atom. Due to the way atoms keep their electrons (so many tiny enormous forces) the electron shell of a carbon atom is pretty big allowing it to share electrons with other atoms. Silicon, on the other hand, while having way more electrons, has a cloud closer to it's nucleus. Its simply too fat to make friends. Thus it has extreme difficulty forming complex bonds without flying apart. Larger atoms are simply worse at bonding- so lead is right out of the question because such a structure could not keep itself together or would be so heavy it would never get anywhere.
And why do I assume oxygen? Oxygen is reactive very easily and will bond with everything it can- but while doing so, it can still have another electron free for bonding with something else, allowing for longer chains. When, say chlorine bonds to anything, its done. It's run out of electrons it can share and just sits there. Anything in its column is going to have the same problem. Flourine, iodine, bromine. They can end a chain, usually in a stable fashion, and form like a rock or something. Whatever they've given up on life (or forming life), even though its initial bonding may have been exciting. Lets try the column on the other side. Nitrogen, phosphorous, arsenic. They don't bond actively enough- but we do use them for some things. Its just not the best at its job. In order to gain the same energy potential as oxygen via breathing nitrogen, you'd have to breath a lot more- its great though for forming those long lived complex chains. I wish I could find an article but I did once read one that suggested a silicon based life form would respirate via column 15 elements. Carbon can bond to nitrogen and from there form more complex highly reactive chains but doing so increases the complexity of the base and thus making everything harder and it would probably end up closing off the line with oxygen anyway. A life form like that would have to inhale six times as much nitrogen as a human breaths oxygen in order to power the same brain because of the low energy created by nitrogen's bond with silicon (or carbon for that matter). But because nitrogen doesn't react as readily as oxygen, it would need to breath even more to keep the reaction rates up. And that takes even more energy to do. So a silicon life form would be giant and mostly lung, basically.
An now we get to why lead really fails. We carbon based life forms need all our proteins and such so we can continue to break down molecules for energy and replicate cells. A silicon based life form and its proteins would be hard to manufacture and hard to keep, going back to the problem with size. Another fact about silicon and its usage in the universe- Carbon atoms outnumber silicon atoms in our universe 10 to 1. On earth, silicon outnumbers carbon 1000 to 1. And yet, we're still carbon based pointing to the idea that silicon is just ill suited for earthlike environments.
Its been theorized that a silicon life form can kind of get around its bonding and stability problem via a silicone- a chain of silicon and oxygen for the base chain but you've immediately made life about three times as complex as it was before and that's usually a convincing stopper.
I've explained all this with what I hope is just a highschool understanding of molecular bonding but I've gone on long enough on an off topic subject so google it.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

What about "PERMITS the use of leaded fuels in vehicles which unavoidably cannot be used without leaded fuels and bear historical or cultural significance"?

Technically speaking you don't need lead (even in those vehicles that used to depend on it) ... you need SCIENCE!

OOC: There are lots of lead alternatives for engines that need fuel lubrication for the cylinders. A quick Google revealed "LED LEAD SUBSTITUTE."

LED Lead Substitute additive for all gasolines. With LED Lead Substitute you can run unleaded gasoline in older engines with soft valve seats originally designed to run on leaded gasoline or use it in high performance, high compression engines to help prevent valve seat wear. Safe to run in that street rod with catalytic converters or in that hard charging high RPM marine engine. Have a screaming high performance small engine in a dirt bike or go-cart? 2 stroke or 4 stroke, LED Lead Substitute will help that little monster stay together. This advanced formulation also keeps fuel injectors and carburetors clean as well as reducing intake valve and port deposits.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

OOC: The Permanent Representative was elected to speak, not to be a mechanic. ^^

[Bears Armed]

Having considered some recent comments, I'm wondering whether to change "that can run only on leaded fuel" to "that require leaded fuel for efficient operation": Do you agree that this would be a better choice of wording?

[Elke and Elba]

Having considered some recent comments, I'm wondering whether to change "that can run only on leaded fuel" to "that require leaded fuel for efficient operation": Do you agree that this would be a better choice of wording?

Given that lead is usually added to fuels to increase efficiency of operation (not sure if I'm right here) - except for those running on catalytic converters as lead clogs up - it isn't wise to do so.

Additionally, we don't believe there's any need to add any exemption whatsoever, given that Aba's Reducing Automobile Emissions would have caused some changes to the vintage vehicles, anyhow.

[Normlpeople]

Having considered some recent comments, I'm wondering whether to change "that can run only on leaded fuel" to "that require leaded fuel for efficient operation": Do you agree that this would be a better choice of wording?

OOC: Depends what for. Lead was primarily in fuel to increase octane, and had the unforeseen side-effects of lubricating the valve seats. Octane can be boosted in other ways, and the auto manufacturers simply began using hard valve seats instead of softer ones. Such a switch wouldn't be too difficult, especially in mass-produced civilian vehicles, with proper R&D to implement. With that in mind, your change may be a better one. Perhaps introducing financial assistance to facilitate a switch (or to assist with research to alternative, non-leaded fuels) could help too...

[Free State of New Market]

We in the Free State of New Market have a concern over this resolution, as written.

One of the larger civic groups within our borders are classic car collectors. These ladies and gentlemen have spent long hours restoring old cars from the previous century into near mint to mint condition. These cars, unfortunately, require lead for their engines to function correctly in the long term. These owners, when confronted with the prospect of unleaded-only fuel, have to use a lead fuel additive in order to have their cars function properly.

Now, our interpretation of this resolution is these fuel additives would still be legal to use, as it is an additive and not the fuel itself. If this is the case, we would be more apt to support the resolution. However, if these additives are banned, then we cannot support this proposal.

Would those desiring passage of this resolution explain how this would work in the scenario we have presented?

[Lexicor]

We in the Free State of New Market have a concern over this resolution, as written.

One of the larger civic groups within our borders are classic car collectors. These ladies and gentlemen have spent long hours restoring old cars from the previous century into near mint to mint condition. These cars, unfortunately, require lead for their engines to function correctly in the long term. These owners, when confronted with the prospect of unleaded-only fuel, have to use a lead fuel additive in order to have their cars function properly.

Now, our interpretation of this resolution is these fuel additives would still be legal to use, as it is an additive and not the fuel itself. If this is the case, we would be more apt to support the resolution. However, if these additives are banned, then we cannot support this proposal.

Would those desiring passage of this resolution explain how this would work in the scenario we have presented?

OOC: We have the same flag but we are not related in anyway to each other.

[Jarish Inyo]

We would have to vote no on this proposal. We do not believe that four years would be a sufficient amount of time to retool the entire automotive industry is some nations.

[Normlpeople]

We in the Free State of New Market have a concern over this resolution, as written.

One of the larger civic groups within our borders are classic car collectors. These ladies and gentlemen have spent long hours restoring old cars from the previous century into near mint to mint condition. These cars, unfortunately, require lead for their engines to function correctly in the long term. These owners, when confronted with the prospect of unleaded-only fuel, have to use a lead fuel additive in order to have their cars function properly.

Now, our interpretation of this resolution is these fuel additives would still be legal to use, as it is an additive and not the fuel itself. If this is the case, we would be more apt to support the resolution. However, if these additives are banned, then we cannot support this proposal.

Would those desiring passage of this resolution explain how this would work in the scenario we have presented?

"Since these fuel additives contain a lead alternative, and not lead itself in most cases, I cannot see why they would be banned."

OOC: IRL they don't actually contain lead, IIRC , they usually use stuff like potassium...

We would have to vote no on this proposal. We do not believe that four years would be a sufficient amount of time to retool the entire automotive industry is some nations.

"Actually, retooling the automobiles to run on unleaded fuels is just one possible method of compliance. As lead is added to gasoline during the distillation process, it would be quite simple to use a lead alternative instead. Perhaps the proposal could be altered to provide or encourage nations to share research or data regarding lead alternatives?"

[Jarish Inyo]

We see this proposal doing more harm then good. We must remember that in some nations, there are people barely getting by. By placing more cost on fuel by banning leaded fuel and having them purchasing lead alternatives, we could be putting more strain on them then they can bear.

[Wrapper]

We see this proposal doing more harm then good. We must remember that in some nations, there are people barely getting by. By placing more cost on fuel by banning leaded fuel and having them purchasing lead alternatives, we could be putting more strain on them then they can bear.

Yes, that is much more of a strain on your constituents than, say, cancer.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it is. If we strain the budget of those people, they will have to choose fuel over food, housing and health care. Cancer has been around nearly as long as life. I do not think one can truly link cancer with leaded fuel.

[Imperializt Russia]

[There is no IC in this post, to be completely clear, for once]

Actually, it is. If we strain the budget of those people, they will have to choose fuel over food, housing and health care. Cancer has been around nearly as long as life. I do not think one can truly link cancer with leaded fuel.

Possibly not, but (IRL) tenuous links are beginning to be made between brain development and leaded fuels.

Leaded fuels have only recently been removed from widespread use in the UK and other parts of the world, and remain widely in use in other countries - so studies can only really start now to try and assess the impact of lead-free vehicle emissions.
What has been noted in the UK is that violent crime had a notable drop some 20 lag-years after leaded fuels were largely phased, and there was also a notable increase in violent crime about 20 lag-years after they were introduced in the mid-1920s.

Lead is neurotoxic and has long been known to be dangerous to children both in the womb and born, mothers and their reproductive organs, brain development and IQ.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

[Wrapper]

Actually, it is. If we strain the budget of those people, they will have to choose fuel over food, housing and health care. Cancer has been around nearly as long as life. I do not think one can truly link cancer with leaded fuel.

OOC: You cannot be serious. Do some research. Please.

IC: You realize you're talking about pennies a day, right?

[Jarish Inyo]

OOC: I am serious. Three of my grandparents were in the medical field. They smoked, drank, ate all the meat they wanted. None of them died of cancer, liver failure, or heart attack. I'd rather ask the advice of the people living in their nineties and hundreds then someone in the medical profession. My great grandfather and great grandmother lived until their late nineties. And they did everything that medical professionals say not to do now. The list of things that are and not healthy change daily. What gives or doesn't give cancer changes too. I'm not one to follow the latest medical trend.

IC: To some, it's not penny's a day. It's them putting food on the table for their families. Making sure that they have fuel to get to work. It's nice that you think it is.

To Imperializt Russia. Sorry, I don't there is a link between leaded fuels and brain development. Lets say from 19o0's to the 1980's as the heyday of leaded fuel. Lets look at what was achieved by the people who was being affected by that fuel, shall we? National power grids, radios, airplanes, TV, the nuclear bomb, nuclear power, computers, cell phones, space travel, and the internet to name a few. Don't think that leaded fuels had any ill affects on brain development.

You don't acknowledge that other factors could play into the rise and fall in violent crime other then leaded fuel? The UK in the mid 40's was just ending a war. Entire sections of cities destroyed. Food shortages. Unemployment. None of that could have had a role in the rise of violent crime?

Lets look at the last 20 years. It's the rise of the game console and social media. People going home to jump on their computer or game console and spending hours couldn't have played a role in the decrease in violent crimes?

[Applebania]

Joshua sits in his chair, coughing after a rather large car went driving past him, putting large amounts of smoke in his lungs. He could only say one word before breaking down into a coughing fit.

"Support!"

[The Dark Star Republic]

Lead poisoning is not some fringe hypothetical: it can be experimentally observed.

Anyway:

Begin at once to restrict the numbers of vehicles that can run only on leaded fuel which it produces and imports, so that the annual average number of such vehicles in use for civilian purposes within its borders for any year after one year has elapsed since the date of this resolution’s passage will be no higher than the annual average number of them in use there for the year immediately before that date of passage, and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that date of passage no such vehicles at all are produced there for civilian use;

Nothing in this clause bans imports. Is that intentional? If not, unlimited importing of foreign produced vehicles seems permitted. Even if in four years they won't have any fuel to run on, it's an odd dichotomy.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Begin at once to restrict the numbers of vehicles that can run only on leaded fuel which it produces and imports, so that the annual average number of such vehicles in use for civilian purposes within its borders for any year after one year has elapsed since the date of this resolution’s passage will be no higher than the annual average number of them in use there for the year immediately before that date of passage, and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that date of passage no such vehicles at all are produced there for civilian use;

Nothing in this clause bans imports. Is that intentional? If not, unlimited importing of foreign produced vehicles seems permitted. Even if in four years they won't have any fuel to run on, it's an odd dichotomy.

Consider the possibility of imports for conversion to run on other types of fuel, imports simply for scrapping, and antique or 'classic' vehicles being imported for [unmodified] inclusion in museums and private collections. Those probably wouldn't affect the "in use" figures during the transition period much anyway, not unless there were a LOT of private collectors willing to pay for vehicles that they knew would have no more fuel available within just a few years time, and once there's no more fuel for them to run on what harm in allowing continued importation for any of those reasons?

[Sciongrad]

Recognising that internal combustion engines burning various organic fuels, such as short-chain hydrocarbons, are a method widely used for propelling vehicles,

"This clause has a very bizarre phrasing. What about 'recognising that internal combustion engines, which burn various organic fuels such as short-chain hydrocarbons, are widely used for propelling vehicles.' I had to read the current wording twice just to get the meaning.

Aware that burning short-chain hydrocarbons in engines of some common types can cause irregularities in the combustion cycle, a phenomenon called ‘knocking’ that not only reduces fuel-efficiency but also increases wear on the engines,

I would suggest adding a 'the' between 'in' and 'engines,' but that's your call. However, the last bit of the phrase 'that only reduces fuel-efficiency...' is a non-restrictive clause, so you should use 'which,' not that."

Also, the three operative clauses are not very easy to read, so I would suggest writing them in language that is more clear and less verbose. Overall though, you have the full support of Sciongrad. Good luck!"