[PASSED] Renewable Research Commitment

[HenryVonHoffman]

I love how this thread starts out with actual lengthy discussion when the proposal was being drafted, by people actually concerned with the WA and everything that comes with, and has since dissolved to single-line or single-paragraph replies from people who never bothered to participate in the discussion of the bill when it was still in the drafting stage and who obviously do not care as much about the WA or what it has going on.

I say 'obviously' because these are the same people bringing up such petty points as raider/defender orientation on such a thing as Renewable Energy; the same people that ignore the discussion stage of proposals where their input really matters; the same people who vote 'no' against every proposal that enters the WA solely on the principle that the WA is inherently flawed, instead of trying to fix the problem in a constructive manner by getting involved in discussions and drafting their own resolutions.

Of course, this post comes from a person who does not try to fix the problem by getting involved in discussions and the drafting of resolutions, but then what concern do I have for what restrictions the WA places on my WA nation? I ignore most of what goes on in the WA, as a general rule, but this resolution won't hurt my nation in any way; won't hurt the way it acts or continues on and in fact leaves it open for my nation to interpret it the way it wishes to.

The Act is left open for interpretation so that the people who do not wish or are not able to put much effort into renewable energy don't have to at the same time as giving those who do want to more incentive to do so. I think that in this stage of the resolution, people should pay more attention to the discussions of the first page and a half of this thread while discarding the rest due to a lack of meaningful discussion. It's just post after post of people giving their own personal reasons why they don't like this particular proposal and does really nothing to promote the WA or it's function as a guiding body instead of a ruling thumb.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I'm surprised by how many conflicting points of view there seem to be on whether this resolution "does anything." Some folks have been saying how unfair it is to their economic model or the economic models of developing nations; those nations seem to think this resolution does a lot (and a lot of "bad," as it were). Others have said that the act is largely aspirational (it is) and that the one mandate is too loose to accomplish anything.

My reading of this strikes a middle road. I realize it doesn't do much, but it requires everybody do something. Nations must "devote sufficient funding" to "make a meaningful and good faith effort" toward researching possible sources of renewable energy. $0 is not sufficient to show a meaningful and good faith effort. $1 is probably not enough either. And for poorer nations and those with an economic model that not supportive of renewable energy, there's a lot of middle ground where they can make some good faith donation toward renewable energy without breaking the bank or undermining their economic base.

I'll admit most of the resolution is feel-good fluff, and I regret the speed with which it has been pushed through. I imagine some of the grammatical errors may one day be woven into a repeal. But I believe the Act does something in pursuit of its stated goal to promote renewable energy research. And what it does is necessarily flexible precisely because any "hard" commitments would be impossible or unfair for nations that are poor, nuclear powered, or have an oil-based economy.

The resolution is "mild" and it announces principles that I think we should all be receptive to. It goes about those principles with a profoundly light touch, but it pursues them nonetheless.

Best Regards.

[General Hein]

We agree with the Cowardly Pacifists that the air of the prose dances lightly and with ease, but is it not odd how it doesnt mention Nuclear Power explicitly? A lot of regions would be attracted to the ire it would raise if it enumerated nuclear among the list of proposed forms of power.

[Rzeczpospolita Polska IV]

ALL IN FAVOR OF A SOVEREIGN ECONOMY, SAY YEA!!!
Industry should by no means be limited in favor of "renewable research". The environment is important, but industry is what keeps our nations alive and our economies strong. It's what provides an opportunity for job creation, high wages, efficient infrastructure, and innovative technology. Mankind's creativity and manufactured goods must be equally distributed among the vast populations of the nation. Otherwise, you import more than you export and are unable to pay a deficit which adds up exponentially every year in public debt. Think twice before making this decision or any other decision on matters of the industry!

[Ossitania]

ALL IN FAVOR OF A SOVEREIGN ECONOMY, SAY YEA!!!
Industry should by no means be limited in favor of "renewable research". The environment is important, but industry is what keeps our nations alive and our economies strong. It's what provides an opportunity for job creation, high wages, efficient infrastructure, and innovative technology. Mankind's creativity and manufactured goods must be equally distributed among the vast populations of the nation. Otherwise, you import more than you export and are unable to pay a deficit which adds up exponentially every year in public debt. Think twice before making this decision or any other decision on matters of the industry!

Kid, if you're in favour of a sovereign economy, you might want to leave the WA. There's already tons of laws that stipulate how you need to run your economy.

[Elduran]

Why would any nation with a strong economy vote this through? It will harm the world economies and I believe that is not something that can be afforded. Endorsements and region aside, I cannot approve or even begin to consider this legislation without a proper bill aimed at strengthening the economies of the world THROUGH renewable resources. Anything aside from that is a waste of time and a bog on global economies. DON"T PASS THIS BILL.

It's all about the MARKETS!

[Evill (Ancient)]

I hope that we will vote with our brains and not our hearts. Evill votes no.

[Geilinor]

Geilinor already uses signinifcant amounts of nuclear power and hydro, we support.

[Ertae]

I don't particularly enjoy the format, but I support its message and intention. For.

[Splendiferousness]

It is truly unjust to force a nation to contribute a minimum percentage to the development of renewable energy. Regardless of your position on the research and advancement of green energy, it is still unjust to force a nation to contribute 10% of their budget to a cause that they may not even believe in. This is an unjust attack on the freedoms of a nation. You cannot dictate to a nation how to spend their own money. While I acknowledge that there is a place for the advancement of green energy, as fossil fuels will eventually run out; but this proposal harms industry for no defined cause, and more importantly, you are attacking the freedom of a nation. Every day you attack a nations freedom is bringing you one step closer to a day that there will be no difference between the governments of nations, and therefore bringing us closer to a day with no freedom to make our own choices whatsoever.

[Goobergunchia]

I love how this thread starts out with actual lengthy discussion when the proposal was being drafted, by people actually concerned with the WA and everything that comes with, and has since dissolved to single-line or single-paragraph replies from people who never bothered to participate in the discussion of the bill when it was still in the drafting stage and who obviously do not care as much about the WA or what it has going on.

I say 'obviously' because these are the same people bringing up such petty points as raider/defender orientation on such a thing as Renewable Energy; the same people that ignore the discussion stage of proposals where their input really matters; the same people who vote 'no' against every proposal that enters the WA solely on the principle that the WA is inherently flawed, instead of trying to fix the problem in a constructive manner by getting involved in discussions and drafting their own resolutions.

We suggest that junior ambassadors learn their history before casting aspersions on the motivations of their senior colleagues.

We frankly felt this proposal to be beneath our consideration at drafting stage. As stated earlier, it is feel-good fluff that will likely pass but not actually accomplish anything. We have much better uses of our time than to discuss such a trivial proposal, especially one that was rushed to submission with scant time for prior discussion. Frankly, it would be difficult to improve without drawing complaints from the micromanagement crowd, and we are loathe to suggest that an ambassador completely redirect their resolution to focus on a perhaps more worthy topic (e.g. some kind of transnational renewable research agenda).

And quite frankly, we believe that the potential for a proposal to be eased to a vote, by first securing the Delegacies of regions that may otherwise be hostile to said proposal and then having such Delegacies supporting it, is a matter completely worthy of our attention as intelligent ambassadors. While we prefer to cast our vote on policy grounds, on a resolution as pathetically toothless as this one we reserve the right to take into account other factors.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Sponsor, H. Res. #22
Sponsor, S.C. Res. #4

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

renewable energy

Hmmm... and just how renewable is renewable? Is wind power, from the sun, renewable? Is nuclear power, from other suns, renewable? Is fission power, imitating suns, renewable? Is coal power, from the sun, renewable? We are of the opinion that they all are, if you apply a fairly long time scale; and none are, if you apply an infinite one. Therefore renewable energy research becomes a theological matter.

We object to this proposal on the grounds above, but it has so few teeth that we're not too bothered. By the normal sense of the word, we don't like fossil fuels anyway and we do like solar panels.

[Gantilgrim]

Global warming is cause by the sun, raised CO2 is caused by global warming, anthropological co2 is negligible with regards to the warming of the earth. This bill has no grounds to exist.

[The 500]

Against. The 500 feels that this bill infringes on the independent rights of individual nations. If we want to destroy our environment to make a buck, we should not be forced to instead go around hugging trees and paying crooked scientists to spew "global warming" propaganda. What of the corporate conglomerates?

Nations should not be forced to do this, this is blackmail. The only way to avoid it would be dropping out of the WA. It shatters the RP element.

[Sweet Dawn]

I love how this thread starts out with actual lengthy discussion when the proposal was being drafted, by people actually concerned with the WA and everything that comes with, and has since dissolved to single-line or single-paragraph replies from people who never bothered to participate in the discussion of the bill when it was still in the drafting stage and who obviously do not care as much about the WA or what it has going on.

I say 'obviously' because these are the same people bringing up such petty points as raider/defender orientation on such a thing as Renewable Energy; the same people that ignore the discussion stage of proposals where their input really matters; the same people who vote 'no' against every proposal that enters the WA solely on the principle that the WA is inherently flawed, instead of trying to fix the problem in a constructive manner by getting involved in discussions and drafting their own resolutions.

We suggest that junior ambassadors learn their history before casting aspersions on the motivations of their senior colleagues.

We frankly felt this proposal to be beneath our consideration at drafting stage. As stated earlier, it is feel-good fluff that will likely pass but not actually accomplish anything. We have much better uses of our time than to discuss such a trivial proposal, especially one that was rushed to submission with scant time for prior discussion. Frankly, it would be difficult to improve without drawing complaints from the micromanagement crowd, and we are loathe to suggest that an ambassador completely redirect their resolution to focus on a perhaps more worthy topic (e.g. some kind of transnational renewable research agenda).

And quite frankly, we believe that the potential for a proposal to be eased to a vote, by first securing the Delegacies of regions that may otherwise be hostile to said proposal and then having such Delegacies supporting it, is a matter completely worthy of our attention as intelligent ambassadors. While we prefer to cast our vote on policy grounds, on a resolution as pathetically toothless as this one we reserve the right to take into account other factors.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Sponsor, H. Res. #22
Sponsor, S.C. Res. #4

So, you're calling out Henry for not knowing history while making assumptions that, based on history are non-sensical at best, malicious at worst. While the practice of taking delegacies for the sake of GA/SC affairs may seem probable to you, given the UDL's practice of securing regions for events such as Unibots commendation... such actions are beneath our own region (as evidenced by the fact that we do vote on applicable policy, rather than personal grudges).

Would it make more sense to raid regions for the sake of WA Delegate approvals or would it make more sense to just simply create said regions? The latter resulting in more secure holdings for this purpose (as defenders would know, having done just that for commend Unibot) that are also far easy to create. Hence, the latter option makes more sense. Given Europeia's policy against having colonies and the like (preferring to focus energies on the improvement of the region), this "potential" that you believe as a possibility is doubly non-sensical.

The Rt. Hon. Rachel Anumia
Grand Admiral and Senator of Europeia,
The Land of Peace, Freedom and Equality

[Goobergunchia]

While it is all well and good for Europeian ambassadors to insist that they do not seize other Delegacies for the purposes of altering World Assembly votes, the fact remains that seizing a Delegacy automatically alters a World Assembly vote by its very nature, notwithstanding intent. The records-keeping function of a region's Delegacy [OOC: the Gameplay side] and the voting function of Delegacies are fundamentally intertwined. (Indeed, the large against vote recorded by the occupying delegate of Belgium, which was supported by Europeian forces, early in the other chamber's "Commend Unibot" vote demonstrates this effect very well.)

Furthermore, the doctrine of "invader unity" suggests that while Europeian nations may not themselves intend to manipulate World Assembly, they would support the efforts of other groups that would seize the Delegacies of regions that they are not usually affiliated with for that purpose. Such groups have existed before; they may well exist again.

However, this is a side issue. We would in fact vote on policy grounds if the resolution had any measurable policy impact. Sadly, it does not. I have been informed by our Joint Committee on the World Assembly that should this pass, there will be no need for an Implementation Act, for the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic is already in compliance. Nor do we believe there will be any real impact on other member states. With nothing of substance to vote upon, how else would the ambassador from Sweet Dawn suggest we determine our vote? I am long past the stage where I gain a pleasant glow of satisfaction from voting for a resolution that shares my policy goals but does nothing effective to achieve their ends.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[OOC: You're talking to my WA Ambassador, not my Gameplay persona nor my OOC self. Lord Evif is a good deal more stubborn than I am. As such I've reparsed your comments in a way that make sense from an (admittedly loose) IC perspective.]

[Monsters From The Id]

From the Entity Regional Message Board:

"If nations wish to destroy their natural environments and make every square inch of their territory a 'concrete jungle' of skyscrapers...they have full right to do so. If they wish to make buildings themselves illegal within their borders, and so force everyone to live in trees...it is also their right. The Mob wishes to impose their set of views on others...and that is not their right.

Burn the bill. And burn its advocates, in effigy."

[Discoveria]

I love how this thread starts out with actual lengthy discussion when the proposal was being drafted, by people actually concerned with the WA and everything that comes with, and has since dissolved to single-line or single-paragraph replies from people who never bothered to participate in the discussion of the bill when it was still in the drafting stage and who obviously do not care as much about the WA or what it has going on.

I say 'obviously' because these are the same people bringing up such petty points as raider/defender orientation on such a thing as Renewable Energy; the same people that ignore the discussion stage of proposals where their input really matters; the same people who vote 'no' against every proposal that enters the WA solely on the principle that the WA is inherently flawed, instead of trying to fix the problem in a constructive manner by getting involved in discussions and drafting their own resolutions.

Of course, this post comes from a person who does not try to fix the problem by getting involved in discussions and the drafting of resolutions, but then what concern do I have for what restrictions the WA places on my WA nation? I ignore most of what goes on in the WA, as a general rule, but this resolution won't hurt my nation in any way; won't hurt the way it acts or continues on and in fact leaves it open for my nation to interpret it the way it wishes to.

The Act is left open for interpretation so that the people who do not wish or are not able to put much effort into renewable energy don't have to at the same time as giving those who do want to more incentive to do so. I think that in this stage of the resolution, people should pay more attention to the discussions of the first page and a half of this thread while discarding the rest due to a lack of meaningful discussion. It's just post after post of people giving their own personal reasons why they don't like this particular proposal and does really nothing to promote the WA or it's function as a guiding body instead of a ruling thumb.

Discoveria hopes that HenryVonHoffman will think twice before posting an ad hominem attack on all members of future debating chambers. The involvement or absence of a nation in the drafting stage of a proposal is irrelevant to the logical argument of the debate over whether said proposal should be carried by the World Assembly. Discoveria has made a decision to participate in the World Assembly debates at a level that suits its government and will not be pressured into additional commitments simply to improve its 'influence' in this chamber.

[Sigoynere]

Sigoynere finds that being green, is something so thoroughly in the realm of common sense that there should be no tax or expenditure to achieve it. As such, we are contra.

[7th Wonderland]

I'll be voting against this because:

It INSTRUCTS the Assembled nations to distribute vague amounts of resources towards such efforts.

It uses arbitrarily determined numbers where numbers are appropriate, without any suggestion from where they emerge.

It does not define what technologies aside from fossil fuels are being sought after.

I believe that legislation such as this, whether intentionally or not, shows every indication of likely serving as a means of economic predation on smaller nations. One article suggests persuasively that the green systems already in place over much of the world have been dismal failures, providing in the neighborhood of 1% of projected yields, putting poor populations at risk of exposure just to satiate a feel-good itch of emotional reactionism.

We do not make these arguments for our own sake, having already converted over to nuclear systems that satisfy our populations needs. We do find the appeal to emotion of this pervasive meme repugnant, however, and urge countries to find their own solutions to their energy needs, whatever those might be.

[Southron]

I can vote in favor of this.

It is flowery, does little, quantifies little, and relies on good faith.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

The bill does practically nothing (especially since the WA Seat does not produce its own power), so I'm voting against due to the fact that the formatting makes me cringe. Nothing personal, but that's literally the only thing about this with enough substance for me to form an opinion on it.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Ladies and gentlemen of this bloated, pathetic, utopian institution:
(No, really, even simple diplomacy isn’t worth the effort on you folks.)

How can I begin to describe this pile of organic compost that is being debated before us? How can I begin to describe the moronic lemmings who have mind numbingly agreed to this festering pile of garbage? Do you even understand this resolution? Apparently not.

So you are all willing to decimate all of your national industries and for what? A “mother may I” plea to spend money on developing pie in the sky technology? Well, believe me, that’s not going to happen.

So let me tell you what is going to happen. Your economies will be ruined. The research monies will never happen. Non WA member nations will continue to pump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere because now that you are using less, (lower demand without lowering supply) they will find the costs cheaper to do so!

That is what this resolution will do, and clearly this resolution is going to pass.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go and try to explain this all to my First Navigator. She is not going to like it.

[Murray the Evil Skull]

How can I begin to describe this pile of organic compost that is being debated before us?

Murray was sitting on his barstool next to the desk of Senator Sulla, his eyes glowed a manevolent red as he began to speak,

"I'd say 100 pounds of manure stuffed into a 50 pound sack would be an apt description, Mortal!"

The EVILEST Talking Skull in the Festering Snakepit chuckled evilly.

[Aetrina]

We would conclude that the basic premise of this act is correct. We DO disagree with external mandates on how our budget should be spent however. Renewable energy is a laudable goal but surely each Nation should be allowed to research and develop it in it's own time and method. As was stated earlier there are surely many nations with advanced science that rely wholly on renewable sources of energy and thus have no need of this kind of mandate. Other less advanced Nations are either not interested or simply do not yet possess the technology required. Aetrina votes NO.