Advertisement
by Abacathea » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:00 pm
by Abacathea » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:15 pm
Discoveria wrote:"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."Renewable Energy Installations wrote: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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
by Discoveria » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:42 pm
Abacathea wrote: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.
Abacathea wrote:(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.
Abacathea wrote:(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.
Abacathea wrote:(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.
by Retired WerePenguins » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:10 pm
by Ratateague » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:17 pm
by Glorious Land of Freedom » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:32 pm
by Idantir » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:44 pm
by Isaris » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:12 am
by Suinae » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:20 am
by Adamarian » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:06 am
by James_xenoland_02 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:25 am
by Katzharak » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:08 am
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:16 am
by Libertas Liber » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:38 am
by Araraukar » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:56 am
Ratateague wrote:One small question: What's to stop a large nation from appointing a handful of people to a watermill and calling it a day?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Honkong » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:37 am
by Ratateague » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:46 am
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:12 am
Honkong wrote: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 !
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:13 am
by Flibbleites » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:34 am
Glorious Land of Freedom wrote:Honkong wrote:(....) 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.
Rights and Duties of WA States wrote: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.
by Ratateague » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:02 am
Abacathea wrote:as there is previous legislation in the WA which requires that nations will have researched this
Abacathea wrote:Unless your research turned up solely watermills as effective technology that would service your nation well, this should render your point moot.
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:29 am
Ratateague wrote:Abacathea wrote: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.Abacathea wrote: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.
by The Emerald and Former Crystal Isles » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:33 am
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:36 am
The Emerald and Former Crystal Isles wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement