[PASSED] Renewable Energy Installations Act

[Shemiki]

AGAINST

Anyone ever heard of free market?

[Abacathea]

AGAINST

Anyone ever heard of free market?

There's nothing in the act that prevents free market, in fact the act specifically mandates equality between both that the government couldn't favor one about the other. That sounds definition of "free" market to me

[Abacathea]

"I must protest strongly against the passage of this resolution," said Matthew angrily. "Our office agrees with the delegations from Ossitania and Cowardly Pacifists regarding the effect of this resolution. We also agree with the Christian Democratic ambassador that nuclear power represents the best solution to the future demand for energy. I therefore vote AGAINST the resolution and encourage all ambassadors to do the same."

Recognizing the issues posed by fossil fuels as an energy source, the threat of a catastrophic failure of nuclear power and the need to have a sustainable power source which is cost effective, clean and sustainable.

Further recognizing the boost to economies, industries and employment that the undertaking of renewable energy projects would provide in both the short and long term.An unsupportable assertion, which is true or false depending on the economy of the nation in question, and not a generally true statement.

Aiming to avert international power and fuel crisis by ensuring nations have access to self sustaining power applications within their borders, and to ensure any and all businesses which make environmental impacts to utilize natural resources for power requirements.My phone has a "self sustaining power application". It's an app that tells me how much battery power is left...

Clarifying for the purpose of the act Renewable energy installations (henceforth noted as R.E.I's) as facilities which will generate power derived from naturally occurring resources that will have the least impact and damage on the environment through their operation. Two problems here. The placement of the modifying clause "that will have the least impact..." applies it to the naturally occurring resources, such that the meaning of the clause is 'REIs are power-generating facilities, using naturally occurring resources - resources that will have the least impact and damage on the environment through their operation. It makes no sense to describe the resources per se as being non-damaging during operation. This definition is fundamentally flawed because the use of the English language here is flawed. Secondly, one may read "least impact" to mean 'zero impact' - after all, the least impact X can have on Y is none at all. Therefore, REIs as defined here cannot possibly exist. Even Cowardly Pacifist's "mule" interpretation would not count because the mere existence of the mule would impact its immediately surrounding environment!

Encouraging Nations who have the provisions to do so, to build as many forms of R.E.I's as practical in order to ensure maximum potential for consistent environmental energy supply to the grid,

Hereby mandates;

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance. In addition to Ossitania's land-seizing objection, I note that this mandate only applies to "Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's". So, by building a single REI, a nation is immediately released from the obligation to identify further areas where REIs can be built.

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so. Again, nations which already possess one REI no longer need to comply with this clause.

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy. Few forms of renewable energy can be said to have a "steady output of energy". This may well be impossible to comply with.

(iv) Nations to provide it's citizens with information regarding these energy sources and to provide users the option to switch energy providers should they wish, without penalty.

(v) Irrespective of governmental control or privatization of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers. Minimal cost = free, right? Or just shy of no-cost.

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy. This would likely apply to the vast majority of businesses. It's anti-business, which Discoveria can understand but does not agree with in this context.

Further encourages nations who are capable of constructing and producing a surplus of renewable energy not only to do so, but to effect through sale, trade or the spirit of goodwill the supply of renewable energy or it's technology to nations unable to do so without assistance

"Should it pass, the Utopian Commonwealth will be reluctantly complying with this proposal by designating one of our pre-existing wind farms as an REI, thereby being excused from the obligations in (i) and (ii). We will look forward to a quick repeal."

OOC: It's poorly written and needed more work before submission.

We are inclined to disagree, we feel it went through a proportionate drafting process where most if not all advice/feedback we received was taken on board.

IC:

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy. This would likely apply to the vast majority of businesses. It's anti-business, which Discoveria can understand but does not agree with in this context.

It's anti businesses who are harming the environment in some shape or form, if that affects the majority of businesses, why is that a bad thing? To commit to usage in some form of renewable energy wouldnt be asking any business to lop off a limb really.

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance. In addition to Ossitania's land-seizing objection, I note that this mandate only applies to "Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's". So, by building a single REI, a nation is immediately released from the obligation to identify further areas where REIs can be built.

If we had used the singular, we would be inclined to agree, however we didn't, and as a result would expect that would in itself be indicative of the fact that a singular facility is not what this act's agenda is, unless such a nation could only facilitate a single installation. We feel this also affects your concern raised over mandate (ii) however, we will state for the record, that we do not intend to target nations solely who are already committed to renewable energies, but those who aren't moreso.

(v) Irrespective of governmental control or privatization of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers. Minimal cost = free, right? Or just shy of no-cost.

Minimal cost is exactly what it says on the tin, any business operator, government or individual with any knowledge of economics would know minimal cost still has to factor in expenses incurred, much like petrol, or diesel at minimal cost would still never be free.

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy. Few forms of renewable energy can be said to have a "steady output of energy". This may well be impossible to comply with.

In this case, the mandate refers to steady in the operative sense not ensuring a constant stream. We know (as was joked about in one instance) few nations (short of Eireann Fae) can make the sun shine year round, or rain fall on demand, but a spike in power levels or a failure in the delivery could be problematic, hence steady referred to the operations and it's outputs, not the assurances that the weather will prevail as needed.

[Discoveria]

OOC: It's poorly written and needed more work before submission.

We are inclined to disagree, we feel it went through a proportionate drafting process where most if not all advice/feedback we received was taken on board.

OOC: You started this thread on 2 Jan. It's now 12th Jan where I am. That's 10 days. Most ambassadors here will advise you that you need to allow weeks, if not months, for a draft to reach a reasonable level of quality. The fact that you took most advice and feedback on board is commendable but does not mean your draft was good enough. It doesn't matter how long you spend drafting - if your proposal is still flawed then, by virtue of that fact, you haven't spent long enough.

IC:

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy. This would likely apply to the vast majority of businesses. It's anti-business, which Discoveria can understand but does not agree with in this context.

It's anti businesses who are harming the environment in some shape or form, if that affects the majority of businesses, why is that a bad thing? To commit to usage in some form of renewable energy wouldnt be asking any business to lop off a limb really.

Because it's vague. Almost any business could be said to have a negative environmental impact, no matter how small. Can you think of a business with zero negative environmental impact, because I'm not sure I can.

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance. In addition to Ossitania's land-seizing objection, I note that this mandate only applies to "Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's". So, by building a single REI, a nation is immediately released from the obligation to identify further areas where REIs can be built.

If we had used the singular, we would be inclined to agree, however we didn't, and as a result would expect that would in itself be indicative of the fact that a singular facility is not what this act's agenda is, unless such a nation could only facilitate a single installation. We feel this also affects your concern raised over mandate (ii) however, we will state for the record, that we do not intend to target nations solely who are already committed to renewable energies, but those who aren't moreso.

Then we disagree over English language comprehension. Let's look at an analogy.

"Persons who do not already possess cats must blink twice."

If I possess one cat, do I need to blink twice?

I will argue that most people reading that sentence would say that anyone possessing one cat would indeed be excused from having to blink twice. That's the everyday interpretation of such a sentence.

Alternatively I could concede your objection. In that case, the Utopian Commonwealth will designate one of its pre-existing wind farms as a set of two separate wind farms in the same place, with half the turbines in farm A and half in farm B. Now we have two REIs and are excused from the obligations of the proposal.

(v) Irrespective of governmental control or privatization of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers. Minimal cost = free, right? Or just shy of no-cost.

Minimal cost is exactly what it says on the tin, any business operator, government or individual with any knowledge of economics would know minimal cost still has to factor in expenses incurred, much like petrol, or diesel at minimal cost would still never be free.

You're not the only person interpreting the words on the tin. I stand by my original reading of the term 'minimal cost'. But I will concede this objection as it does seem excessively pedantic right now, even to me.

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy. Few forms of renewable energy can be said to have a "steady output of energy". This may well be impossible to comply with.

In this case, the mandate refers to steady in the operative sense not ensuring a constant stream. We know (as was joked about in one instance) few nations (short of Eireann Fae) can make the sun shine year round, or rain fall on demand, but a spike in power levels or a failure in the delivery could be problematic, hence steady referred to the operations and it's outputs, not the assurances that the weather will prevail as needed.

Again we will have to disagree on the interpretation of your words. If you really meant "steady in the operative sense" (whatever that means - I guess reducing the risk of not being able to operate?) then perhaps you should have worded the clause as something like "to ensure both their safety and their ability to continue sustainably operating and providing energy".

(I appreciate that the Discoverian delegation was not present earlier in the debate to offer suggestions, but the fact is, we (the World Assembly) now have to decide whether the draft you are offering us now should pass or not. My position is that it is not, and the right thing to do is to vote against so it can be redrafted.)

[Retired WerePenguins]

I am really getting tired of people making resolutions for categories that they clearly have no clue what those categories do. While I don't knee jerk react to the most powerful industry killing category there has to be a good benefit to explain why anyone in their right mind would want to decimate their industries in the manner that the category and strength suggest. I'm not suggesting that this is a "violation" but properly considered, this resolution is HORRID.

James Blonde enters the chamber and reads a prepared statement. "The Nifty Fraternity of Retired WerePenguins, although generally more in favor of nuclear power, does not object to those who wish to supplement their needs with renewable energy. We do not think this should come at the expense of all our various industries. We firmly believe that renewable energy should compete in the 'free market' of ideas and thus create a more efficient and effective system. Therefore I have voted against this resolution and encourage everyone else to vote likewise. Any delegate of over 100 votes who votes against this can see me in the stranger's bar and I'll buy them a nice gin martini, shaken, not stirred."

[Ratateague]

One small question: What's to stop a large nation from appointing a handful of people to a watermill and calling it a day?

[Glorious Land of Freedom]

Another thing, for some nations, this is simply not feasible. Nations in Antarctica and regions with a similar climate and geography simply cannot have reliable R.E.I.s. For example, we have no flowing rivers, so hydroelectric won't work, wind turbines tend to freeze in the extreme cold, and the sun only shines for half of the year. Geothermal is the only remotely possible option, but the Earth's crust lies beneath miles of ice that we must drill through before we even hit the earth itself. From there it could be many more miles to the stores of heated water which would likely cool on its way to the surface. Nuclear and fossil fuel plants are the only source of energy we can rely on that does not cost more energy than it produces.

Nuclear is by far the best option for us, as it is extremely efficient and also very, very safe despite the fact you may think otherwise. Although fission reactions are not entirely renewable, much of the spent fuel canbe recycled and used again and again. Also, scientists across the globe are working to figure out cold fusion, which will provide a literally inexhaustible source of power. We are willing to comply with this resolution IF nuclear energy will be accepted as an R.E.I.

[Idantir]

After extensive consideration, the Royal Circle of the Kingdom of Idantir has directed that our nation vote against this resolution. We do not have an issue with improving the environment. In fact, there is a certain synergy in the resolution with our own plans to overhaul and decentralize our electric grid. However, we feel that GA Resolution 182 adequately covers renewable energy issues by encouraging nations to pursue renewable energy policies, presumably including electricity generation. Our opinion remains that nations should be encouraged to adopt clean energy policies, not forced to by mandate.

Furthermore, we question the short-term boost to economies that this resolution recognizes. Even if changes made in this name of the resolution are minimal, somebody will still have to pay the cost of making those changes. The idea of both creating a cleaner energy grid and a short term economic boost because of it seems too good to be true, like the saying goes: having your cheese and eating it too.

We recognize that these points have already been brought up and discussed earlier in this debate. These are merely the factors that led to our decision.

[Isaris]

Isaris votes against this resolution due to the incorrect usage of "it's" in Article IV. "It's" means "it is", "its" is the possessive form of "it". "Nations to provide it is citizens with information . . ." does not make sense. Thank you.

[Suinae]

The Federation of Suinae objected to this proposal on several grounds:

1) Our economy is laissez-faire.

2) The proposal states that nuclear power is non-renewable. The Federation wishes to remind the WA of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: All real processes lead to an increase in the entropy of the universe; there is no such thing as "renewable" energy in the actual universe. Hydrogen fusion is the most efficient means of energy production available according to physics.

[Adamarian]

I have always been an advocate for finance and wealth. Coal and nuclear power have and will remain the principal energy source for my nation. I strongly advise other WA members to vote the same, Eco-friendly energy is costly, spatially demanding and takes far too long to find a profitable return, not including the costs of maintenance required for wind farms and the like. Vote against, regards; kingdom of adamarian

[James_xenoland_02]

Unfortunately, in addition to... misleading assertions about nuclear power, this resolution fails to distinguish between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. (both nonstarter issues)

Against.

[Katzharak]

We recognize the goals of the act and applaud them. Environmental issues are particularly difficult as they seldom are addressed, yet the impact is undoubtedly all-consuming and extremely hard to alter.

However, where we disagree is in the implementation. We agree that, as they are defined, the promotion of R.E.I.s is necessary as they are currently underutilized. However, we approach environmental issues from an engineering standpoint. That is, we do not assume that a set of mechanisms are the end-all solution to our troubles - these are non-scalable methods of analysis that are useful only in this current moment in time. Instead, we approach the problem with a single guiding principle: "How must we act such that human growth and development may coexist within the environment?"

It is a fine distinction, but the approach assumes that what holds true now may not be the case in the future (it is future-oriented in its focus on growth and development). It also does not operate on extremes and more importantly accounts for the sustainability of a given implementation and its environmental cost (which is why sprawling wind farms are not the wisest of ideas and solar farms are extremely costly to the environment due to environmental damage from production as well as the sustainment of these machines). Where the distinction widens is the use of nuclear energy - we prefer to look at the issue objectively and evaluate the subject matter with an understanding of the engineering principle of confidence and the psychological principle in which more vivid disasters causes increased aversion in people despite a marked decrease in incidence rate. Nuclear energy is extremely safe and the concerns laid upon it are from those who selectively believe that things simply don't fail. The world is based on acceptance of risk; engineering seeks to mitigate this risk until it is acceptable. Nuclear energy thus far has met a much higher standard regarding risk - if we were to follow such standards in every engineering endeavor, we would still be in the Dark Ages. We simply do not find this irrationality viable or welcome in policy, hence our support of nuclear energy.

Regarding the specific points in the resolution, we would like to bring attention to:

Mandate (i): This clause is too simple. Our delegation would like to note that R.E.I.s, while useful in the present, also impose their own environmental costs in production, installment, and sustainment (not operation - this involves degradation of supply, processing, allocation of human resources, etc.). The directive to place in areas that provide the least environmental impact is wholly ambiguous and will serve to only confuse administrations - is it simply the least environmental impact at the moment of installment, or is it the projected impact of sustainability over all of eternity? Will economic factors be required to factor into the analysis? What types of environmental "disturbance" are acceptable and what aren't? How may they be judged against each other (i.e. noise pollution vs. aerosol release)? Without additional detail nor any body or organization to further define the parameters, governments must rely on this dubious guideline under the compulsion of a mandate.

Mandate (ii): This clause ignores cost over time. By its word, the moment a nation identifies locations and is able to afford just the installment of a mechanism, it is then compelled to construct and implement some form of R.E.I. Because the criteria of "least environmental impact" is a slave to the criteria of economic feasibility, it is likely that governments will take the view that it refers to the "least impacting R.E.I. at the soonest possible moment in which an analysis has been made," which in the case of only a single R.E.I. being economically feasible makes this clause behave not as intended.

Mandate (v): This clause exacerbates the issues found in Mandate (ii). Forcing industries or services to sustain an operation at minimal cost while mandating that they must install at the soonest possible moment any R.E.I. that is economically feasible to install only serves to further prohibit the ultimate feasibility of any given option.

We would like to work with the proposing parties to further hone this act. As it stands, however, we do not believe that it will ultimately serve its purpose. We also believe that it will hamper more rational, scientific efforts to handle the environmental question and as such we currently reject this act.

The Delegation of Katzharak

When your family consists of division directors and senior research leads in the USEPA and the MEPPRC, you might get a little agitated at the typical (Environmental Science) approach (however noble, a bit misguided) regarding environmental policy.

[Abacathea]

At this stage in the process we would like to note we are paying very specific attention to the points raised in this debate thread. Should you'd act fail, while we hope it doesn't. You can count on seeing a reformed act in its stead in the coming weeks with points duely noted.

That is all we have to say at this exact moment in time aside from a thank you to those who have voted yes while a further thank you to those who have voted no but taken the time to contribute feedback constructively as to why.

[Libertas Liber]

The Republic has voted AGAINST this resolution.

The resolution forces nations to use Renewable Resources as a source of energy regardless of cost or efficiency in their output. As well, there is no clarification how many R.E.I.s a nation must possess in order to be in compliance with this resolution.

The Republic has neither the revenue or infrastructure to ensure that businesses across all industries are in compliance with this resolution. It would simply be nightmare!

The Republic is not a facilitator of business. We will not waste our time and money providing information to our citizens or provide our citizens the option. The option to switch energy providers is always open to our citizens, but not through the government.

Lastly, this resolution calls for "energy ... to be provided at a minimal cost." And, if fellow member nations have not already guessed, the Republic will not institute price controls.

We ask all nations to join us in voting against this resolution for its lack of clarification, requirement of greater government oversight, and disregard for a nation's economic system and policy.

[Araraukar]

One small question: What's to stop a large nation from appointing a handful of people to a watermill and calling it a day?

Nothing, if you feel that's the best way for your nation. Go for it.

[Honkong]

As far as I can see know, the Renewable energy Act sadly will be passed with a wide majority...

What a pity!

So my government wants to encourage as much as possible delegates depregatinged theinstant Act to thing about an contemporary repealing.

Who is willing to prepare a repealing proposal yet?

My government assert that the delegate writing a repealing proposal gains the most potential assistence of my government if requested.

Let´s repeal this damnable and sovereignty limiting Act !

[Ratateague]

One small question: What's to stop a large nation from appointing a handful of people to a watermill and calling it a day?

Nothing, if you feel that's the best way for your nation. Go for it.

So, in essence, this resolution is toothless. Some of the biggest offenders may get away with bloody murder, while developing countries are forced to adapt technology they haven't reached yet.

[Abacathea]

As far as I can see know, the Renewable energy Act sadly will be passed with a wide majority...

What a pity!

So my government wants to encourage as much as possible delegates depregatinged theinstant Act to thing about an contemporary repealing.

Who is willing to prepare a repealing proposal yet?

My government assert that the delegate writing a repealing proposal gains the most potential assistence of my government if requested.

Let´s repeal this damnable and sovereignty limiting Act !

Honkong,

I ask you to consider this, the act requires the building of R.E.I's, that is correct, because without it, the act itself would do nothing, and therefore be illegal.

You could argue that every act in the WA is an affront to sovereignty if you really wanted to be pedantic about it, but the teeth in this act is that it forces nations to comply with something they otherwise wouldn't and in some cases haven't done until now. Had I simply said "we encourage you to build these facilities" this would have changed nothing about the status quo.

If you feel a repeal is in order, so be it. I will come back with this act, probably even stronger and better than it is now, but the next act will still make the same requirements, that these installations will be built. It is the very foundation of the act.

[Abacathea]

Nothing, if you feel that's the best way for your nation. Go for it.

So, in essence, this resolution is toothless. Some of the biggest offenders may get away with bloody murder, while developing countries are forced to adapt technology they haven't reached yet.

There's no reason any member nation of the WA should not have reached this technology yet, as there is previous legislation in the WA which requires that nations will have researched this, unless your research turned up solely watermills as effective technology that would service your nation well, this should render your point moot.

[Flibbleites]

(....) nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites"


....sorry, that was it!
In fact my county supported your Act until now, this sentence leads to the fact that we can not allow this Act to pass...

Honkong can no accept, that the WA is trying to dictate my county that renewable energy installations HAVE TO be built.

That´s clearly an huge encroachment into my countrys´ sovereignty
I support the try to mark regions where R.E.I.s maybe can be built.. but the decision if and when construction activity start, this decision in my opinion doesn´t belong to the WA or its assigned bord... sorry - we are voting with AGAINST and start praying that as much as possible of my dear delegate-collegues realize, what part of sovereignty they are in act of giving unnecessary away !

My thoughts EXACTLY. This act tread too far on the sovereignty of individual nations, especially those with very capitalist economies. Requiring the government to provide power simply doesn't fit into their economic system.

Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, states in Article 2: "Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

The resolution at vote violates this by requiring governments to set up R.E.I.s in their country which goes against certain types of governments, particularly one's that take a very laissez faire approach to their nation's economy. The Armed Republic of Glorious Land of Freedom votes AGAINST this resolution, and encourages all others to do the same as this resolution violates one of the most basic resolutions that establishes the rights of our nations, and protects us from being completely controlled by the World Assembly.

Spoken like someone who has no clue what they're talking about. First off, you've quoted Article 1 of Rights & Duties there not Article 2. Article 2 says this,

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Now, that last bit there, "subject to the immunities recognized by international law," is very important. That phrase means that the WA can and does overrule National Sovereignty. So basically there's no contradiction between this and Rights & Duties.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Ratateague]

as there is previous legislation in the WA which requires that nations will have researched this

Which makes it a house of cards, more or less. Without said legislation, this would be little more than a polite suggestion; an ineffective standalone.

Unless your research turned up solely watermills as effective technology that would service your nation well, this should render your point moot.

Seeing as there are no minimal baselines, no proportional requirements, and no WA oversight committees established by this resolution, there is in fact, no enforcement except by their own respective nations. I can respect national sovereignty and all, but you don't need a GA legislation to leave nations to their own devices. I feel that, all in all, that renders this entire proposal quite moot. This is little more than a placeholder (or blocker) for a more effective renewable energy legislation.

[Abacathea]

as there is previous legislation in the WA which requires that nations will have researched this

Which makes it a house of cards, more or less. Without said legislation, this would be little more than a polite suggestion; an ineffective standalone.

Unless your research turned up solely watermills as effective technology that would service your nation well, this should render your point moot.

Seeing as there are no minimal baselines, no proportional requirements, and no WA oversight committees established by this resolution, there is in fact, no enforcement except by their own respective nations. I can respect national sovereignty and all, but you don't need a GA legislation to leave nations to their own devices. I feel that, all in all, that renders this entire proposal quite moot. This is little more than a placeholder (or blocker) for a more effective renewable energy legislation.

To be a little clearer, given I've apparently caused some confusion here, which I will accept responsibility for.

This act is not a house of cards, as i pointed out earlier in the thread to prevent that accusation be levied. The house of cards theory is based that if you repealed the research commitment act, this would fall down, however it stands alone on it's own merits, therefore not a house of cards.
In relation to proportionate requirements, it was once a mandate in the earlier drafts that nations had been set a target of 10% supply to the grid to be reached, this was deemed unfair on feedback and hence scrapped. Now nations are arguing that it doesn't give a proportionate figure. Fundamentally I can't make provisions for both, there can be no assessment based on nation size etc... that would be mirco-managing to the extreme. Resultantly the lesser of two evils had to win out. We feel that nations are clever enough to know what is being asked of them here with out us having to directly mandate every singly proportion of it to them. Maybe this was an oversight on our part. If it was, we will certainly be addressing it should the act fail.

As i've said previously, if this act does not pass, I feel strongly enough by it that I will redraft and I will resubmit, considerably more comprehensive legislation on the same bloodline. I wonder then though, will nations cry out in unison that it is far too specific in it's tactile approach?

Edit: Furthermore on review, I noted your comments regarding a WA oversight council, it is our view that legislation should require as little gnomes as possible when drafting. The creation of a committee is rather.... non-essential in our view and we would be reluctant in any legislation drafted to form a committee to oversee nations.

[The Emerald and Former Crystal Isles]

I fear that this resolution will cripple my nation's economy, which heavily relies on the mining of uranium. Almost all of our energy still comes from nuclear power, despite our best efforts.This resolution has come too soon for my nation to be prepared to face the effects. We need to delay this resolution until more countries become less dependent on fossil fuels or nuclear power.

[Abacathea]

I fear that this resolution will cripple my nation's economy, which heavily relies on the mining of uranium. Almost all of our energy still comes from nuclear power, despite our best efforts.This resolution has come too soon for my nation to be prepared to face the effects. We need to delay this resolution until more countries become less dependent on fossil fuels or nuclear power.

Dearest Ambassador,

Please note before you cast your vote, that this does not, in any way impact on your uranium mining. This legislation does not force you to cease and desist or lower your mining industry. It asks for co-existance between the two, not favorability between either.