[DRAFT] Repeal Promotion of Clean Energy

[Maniacal]

Recognising that the majority of Nations are in favour of some form of effective Clean Energy Legislation.

Believing that the current legislation is fundamentally flawed because it combines potential economic disadvantage with consistently non-binding language.

Noting the presence of unenforceable qualifications such as "urges, implores, encourages" which exist in each clause that presents actionable demands.

Further noting that the only binding clause is rendered void by the ultimately non-quantifiable measurement invoked regarding "good faith effort".

Further believing that this combination overall renders the resolution effectively useless, as no nations would willingly subject their economies to various negative impacts, unless all member nations were uniformly affected.

Questioning the realistic chances of developed nations freely sharing technology wholesale to others after paying the cost of developing that technology themselves.

Hoping that a more effective resolution can be developed to better legislate the progressive and environmentally sustainable development of energy generation the membership of this body demands,

hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #357




So this is my first attempt at putting anything forward, please use small sticks. Any and all suggestions that don't revolve around me sitting on a cactus would be most welcome.

[Louisistan]

Further noting that the only binding clause is rendered void by the ultimately non-quantifiable measurement invoked regarding "good will effort".

This right there is not true. A "good faith effort" (which is what the resolution actually says) is something entirely different than a "good will effort".

[Hannasea]

((OOC: I wonder - is the error Louisistan describes above the reason this proposal was deleted so quickly after its submission?))

[Almonaster Nuevo]

((OOC: I wonder - is the error Louisistan describes above the reason this proposal was deleted so quickly after its submission?))

No.

It was submitted in error.

[Maniacal]

Further noting that the only binding clause is rendered void by the ultimately non-quantifiable measurement invoked regarding "good will effort".

This right there is not true. A "good faith effort" (which is what the resolution actually says) is something entirely different than a "good will effort".

Indeed so. Adjusted.

And Almonaster is correct, this went to queue by mistake. (Thanks for your help with that too).

[Sidgard]

I agree that this is an issue. But wouldn't this take attention away from military?

[Maniacal]

How so?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For reference.

Promotion of Clean Energy
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Vancouvia

Description: The World Assembly,

Conscious of the environmental damage that can and does occur when fossil fuels are burned to create energy and the adverse health effects that can develop due to this release of harmful emissions;

Deeply aware of the impermanent nature of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas;

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

Praising the fact that some forms of clean energy such as solar photovoltaics can be implemented cheaply on a small-scale in rural areas, and are thus incredibly successful in bringing power to areas that may have lacked it otherwise;

Recognizing that many of our member nations have already researched and implemented efficient and effective ways of harnessing clean energy;

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.

Votes For: 11,743 (75%)
Votes Against: 3,897 (25%)

Implemented Thu Feb 4 2016

[357 GA on NS] [Official Debate Topic]

[Maniacal]

Ah, thanks man. In future I'll include that under a spoiler.

[Louisistan]

This right there is not true. A "good faith effort" (which is what the resolution actually says) is something entirely different than a "good will effort".

Indeed so. Adjusted.

Well but now the point your trying to make in that line is completely gone. A "good faith effort" may not be quantifiable, but it is very much possible to distinguish between a good faith effort and a bad faith effort and I do not believe that this renders the clause void.

[Maniacal]

Well but now the point your trying to make in that line is completely gone. A "good faith effort" may not be quantifiable, but it is very much possible to distinguish between a good faith effort and a bad faith effort and I do not believe that this renders the clause void.

No, my point is that a good faith effort is not quantifiable, which by your own assessment is still the case.
You can't have internationally binding law based on a lack of capacity to actually measure compliance.

[Sardennoi]

Well but now the point your trying to make in that line is completely gone. A "good faith effort" may not be quantifiable, but it is very much possible to distinguish between a good faith effort and a bad faith effort and I do not believe that this renders the clause void.

No, my point is that a good faith effort is not quantifiable, which by your own assessment is still the case.
You can't have internationally binding law based on a lack of capacity to actually measure compliance.

Indeed so. Adjusted.

Well but now the point your trying to make in that line is completely gone. A "good faith effort" may not be quantifiable, but it is very much possible to distinguish between a good faith effort and a bad faith effort and I do not believe that this renders the clause void.

I think the point the author is trying to make is that you cannot measure a "good faith effort", and thus that clause is abusable from the original proposal. Do I have that right?

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

"We stand opposed. The spirits of the natural world and of our fathers cannot survive if we poison and dig up our homes. A repeal would invite the same hunger for resources that drove us to the stars in the first place. We would wish this fate on none, even our enemies."

[Maniacal]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that you cannot measure a "good faith effort", and thus that clause is abusable from the original proposal. Do I have that right?

Indeed Sir. My thanks for your timely interpretation.

"We stand opposed. The spirits of the natural world and of our fathers cannot survive if we poison and dig up our homes. A repeal would invite the same hunger for resources that drove us to the stars in the first place. We would wish this fate on none, even our enemies."

Great Leader, it is a false hope that the words previously passed hold to you. There is nothing in place to stop the despoiling of your lands this very moment, for the Promotion of Clean Energy, despite it's name which seems comforting does nothing else to actually protect the planets of the multiverse. The natural spirits and those of your fathers cannot be appeased through sustaining this lie, when leaving it in place will do nothing to save them. Greed proceeds apace for nothing has been proscribed.

[Normlpeople]

"The only reason you would seek this repealed" Clover said "is in an attempt to force expensive and inefficient wind and solar garbage upon the population. This already requires a good faith effort to convert. I'd have to see a replacement that does not require useless arbitrary limits, as well as not requiring useless methods of generation."

[Maniacal]

Esteemed Clover, the Promotion of Clean Energy resolution that currently stands is the culprit attempting to force expensive transition upon your great nation. I would see that revoked, gaining you and others of like mind breathing space. I am unsure of why you are against this Repeal when it does in fact remove the "useless arbitrary limits, as well as not requiring useless methods of generation" which you are vocally concerned about.
A vote for this legislation would see these aspects removed.

[Sanguinius the Angel]

I am in favor of this resolution. I would like to see regulations removed for the sake of sovereignty.

[The Stalker]

I am in favor of this repeal to see a far stronger resolution put in it's place. For we must protect the environment from mankind, for one day demonkind will inherit the earth.

[Maniacal]

So without a tg campaign, we showed that we are in need of more support
Seriously though, are there any suggestions about how this draft could better communicate itself and overcome the title?

[Tinfect]

So without a tg campaign, we showed that we are in need of more support
Seriously though, are there any suggestions about how this draft could better communicate itself and overcome the title?

OOC:
Well, seeing as how your arguments are universally spurious nonsense, lighter fluid and a match?

[Maniacal]

Care to actually elaborate or are going to settle for opinionated generalisation?

[Araraukar]

Care to actually elaborate or are going to settle for opinionated generalisation?

If lighter fluid and matches are not your thing, I do have a flamethrower¹ to speed things up...

¹OOC: Pointing out to those who don't know, Janis does have a flamethrower at hand, it's been well established as one of her instruments for argumentation, but she only ever uses it to incinerate proposals that need to die.

[Hannasea]

"Can I suggest you produce the draft of the intended replacement? I ask for two reasons:

"First, this repeal rests very heavily on such a replacement being produced. You criticize the resolution for only "encouraging", but even that is better than nothing. It's true there is some "non-binding language" in the original, but there won't be any binding language if there's no replacement. And frankly, you risk some fearing a bad-faith effort of your own without such a replacement!

"Second, the repeal may not even be necessary. If the original resolution is truly as toothless as this resolution portrays it to be, then further legislation may not be illegal for duplication - because there's nothing to duplicate. Of course, we couldn't make such a judgment without seeing the draft, but if it were possible to pass it without needing a repeal, that would be much easier for you.

"On both counts then, we think the next step in this repeal is to draft the replacement, rather than to proceed with submission."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD (who is not an ambassador)
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn (who is)
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Umeria]

"On both counts then, we think the next step in this repeal is to draft the replacement, rather than to proceed with submission."

Seconded. I'll support this when I see the replacement draft.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The only reason you would seek this repealed" Clover said "is in an attempt to force expensive and inefficient wind and solar garbage upon the population."

"Inefficient solar garbage?" Schultz exclaims. "That's one of the largest sources of energy (after nuclear, of course) in the Fleets that you're talking about. Solar energy is nearly unlimited and quite plentiful. It beats oil for sure... you know how hard that stuff is to find in space?"

Blackbourne, meanwhile, reads over the proposal. "Isn't being toothless one of the greatest benefits of the original resolution? If the original resolution actually required us to switch to inefficient forms of energy, then I could see sense in repealing it. But instead it pretty much allows us to operate as usual."