NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:40 am**

Tank you for the clarification. In my region, the votes are almost dead even, but it looks as if this vote will pass, considering all WA votes. I will remain undecided and let the resolution pass without intervention.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:52 am**

Abacathea wrote: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.

Thank you for responding to my concerns. I respect your want for fairness. However, I fear you may have buckled too far to demands of nations who would have not voted for any form of statistical accountability. While a flat 10% may have been too high, there are other means of proportional scalability.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:55 am**

Ratateague wrote:
Abacathea wrote: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.

Thank you for responding to my concerns. I respect your want for fairness. However, I fear you may have buckled too far to demands of nations who would have not voted for any form of statistical accountability. While a flat 10% may have been too high, there are other means of proportional scalability.

I will most certainly bear that in mind should a redraft be required.

Many thanks for your concerns. They're always welcomed regardless of how I may feel.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:05 am**

Abacathea wrote: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.

You are clearly wrong.

This will impact the uranium mining business; it will impact the furniture restoration business; it will impact the wood chipping business; it will impact the fishing business; it will impact all businesses! All will suffer!

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:44 am**

Retired WerePenguins wrote:
Abacathea wrote: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.

You are clearly wrong.

Category: Environmental ... Industry Affected: All Businesses

This will impact the uranium mining business; it will impact the furniture restoration business; it will impact the wood chipping business; it will impact the fishing business; it will impact all businesses! All will suffer!

Ironically there is no renewable energy business ... if there was one it too would SUFFER as a result of the resolution. How's that for irony.

I know there are are those who don't look at their nation's stats and never even look at the game outside of these forums, but some people do actually take their stats semi seriously. All we ask is just a little RESPECT.

Perhaps it would be worth speaking to the techies and getting the environment category updated.

In relation to the actual mandates within the act though, it does not by our hand prevent that nation from mining uranium, it would however imply that the uranium industry use some form of renewable energy in it's purposes.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:45 am**

Owing to the increased amount of debate regarding this resolution, and, of course, seeing the obvious grammatical error in the proposal -- which, although most likely unintentional, does obviate Article Four -- the People's Republic, although dedicated to the advancement of protection of the environment, will vote againstthis proposal.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:32 pm**

My nation is already on the record in opposition to this proposal, so I'll make this brief:

Abacathea wrote: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.

This statement is at best misleading and at worst a lie. We know for a fact that this environmental proposal will come at the expense of businesses and industry. Telling nations that their vote for this proposal will provide a "boost to economies, industries and employment" is simply decietful. We all know this proposal will have no such positive economic effect.

I like to think the Abacathean delegation did not intend to mislead, but all the same this statement in the proposal is not true. By definition, this proposal to improve the environment will come at the expense of industry.

Abacathea wrote:(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.

Emphasis mine. As we have pointed out before, being in an "economically viable position" to do something is simply a matter of national budgets. If my nation has no room in its budget for building REI's, we are not "in an economically viable position to do so." Loophole-ing this proposal is incredibly easy for any nation that exercises control over its taxation and spending policy (which, I'd imagine, is just about all of us).

Unless your nation's government runs at a profit, it is unlikely that there is simply free, unallocated money just floating around in your budget to build REI's with. If all the funds in your budget are allocated to other projects, you're simply not in an economically viable position to build new (likely redundant) energy facilities.

We think this proposal had promise and we wish it would have been subjected to more than a 10 day drafting period. As a nation near the top of the Eco-friendly scale, we will not be too upset if this passes and will not mount a repeal campaign against it. We're just bummed out that a good idea was rushed through, resulting in what we feel is a significantly-flawed final article.

AGAINST

Best Regards,

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:35 pm**

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:My nation is already on the record in opposition to this proposal, so I'll make this brief:

Abacathea wrote: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.

This statement is at best misleading and at worst a lie. We know for a fact that this environmental proposal will come at the expense of businesses and industry. Telling nations that their vote for this proposal will provide a "boost to economies, industries and employment" is simply decietful. We all know this proposal will have no such positive economic effect.

I like to think the Abacathean delegation did not intend to mislead, but all the same this statement in the proposal is not true. By definition, this proposal to improve the environment will come at the expense of industry.

Abacathea wrote:(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.

Emphasis mine. As we have pointed out before, being in an "economically viable position" to do something is simply a matter of national budgets. If my nation has no room in its budget for building REI's, we are not "in an economically viable position to do so." Loophole-ing this proposal is incredibly easy for any nation that exercises control over its taxation and spending policy (which, I'd imagine, is just about all of us).

Unless your nation's government runs at a profit, it is unlikely that there is simply free, unallocated money just floating around in your budget to build REI's with. If all the funds in your budget are allocated to other projects, you're simply not in an economically viable position to build new (likely redundant) energy facilities.

We think this proposal had promise and we wish it would have been subjected to more than a 10 day drafting period. As a nation near the top of the Eco-friendly scale, we will not be too upset if this passes and will not mount a repeal campaign against it. We're just bummed out that a good idea was rushed through, resulting in what we feel is a significantly-flawed final article.

AGAINST

Best Regards,

Dear pacifists,

Our intention, which in hindsight should have been clear in terms of boosts to employment and economy, was due to the construction and maintenance of these facilities as their construction phases alone should generate significant employment chances over what we suspect will not be a small amount of time.

That said, we have discussed our views with you on the rest, and will be telegraming you momentarily. Please standby.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:23 pm**

Regretfully, I must instruct our Ambassador to the World Assembly to vote against the proposed legislation in its current form. Whilst the United Federation of Aligned Planets supports, in principle and through our own primary legislature, the continuing reduction in the use of fossil fuels and the expansion of renewable energy sources we find the mandatory language within the Act objectionable. Further, technological advances and improvements of efficencies in current systems have the capacity to extend the lifespan of current fuel stocks allowing for a more managed transition to better and more efficient renewable energy sources.

Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable energy sources of supply; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.

Targets on their own are not enough. They have to be achievable. Promises are easy. Action is more difficult. For our part, we have worked out a strategy which sets us on the road to achieving the target. We propose ambitious programmes both to promote energy efficiency and to encourage the use of cleaner fuels. We already in Aligned Planets require, by law, that a substantial proportion of our electricity comes from sources which emit little or no carbon dioxide, and that includes a continuing important contribution from nuclear energy.

The differences can't be drafted away in that famous phrase so beloved of diplomats "a form of words". They need to be resolved by tolerant and sympathetic understanding of our various positions. Some of us use energy more efficiently than others. Some are less dependent on fossil fuels. We each have our own economic characteristics, resources, plans and hopes for the future. These are the realities that we must face if we are to move forward towards a successful conclusion to our negotiations.

Every nation will need to make its contribution to the world effort, so I want to tell you how Aligned Planets intends to contribute, either by improving our own national performance in protecting the environment, or through the help that we give to others, and I shall tell you under four headings.

First, we shall be introducing over the coming months a comprehensive system of pollution control to deal with all kinds of industrial pollution whether to air, water or land.

We are encouraging United Federation industry to develop new technologies to clean up the environment and minimise the amount of waste it produces—and we aim to recycle 50 per cent of our household waste by the end of the century.

Secondly, we will be drawing up over the coming year our own environmental agenda for the decade ahead. That will cover energy, transport, agriculture, industry—everything which affects the environment.

With regard to energy, we already have a RR2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations. We shall be looking more closely at the role of non-fossil fuel sources, including nuclear, in generating energy. And our latest legislation requires companies which supply electricity positively to promote energy efficiency.

On transport, we shall look for ways to strengthen controls over vehicle emissions and to develop the lean-burn engine, which offers a far better long-term solution than the three-way catalyst, in terms of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect.

We have already eliminated the tax on lead-free petrol to encourage its use. That is an example of using market-based incentives to promote good environmental practice and we shall see whether there are other areas where this same principle can be applied.

With regard to agriculture, we recognise that farmers not only produce food—which they do with great efficiency—they need to conserve the beauty of the priceless heritage of our countryside. So we are therefore encouraging them to reduce the intensity of their methods and to conserve wild-life habitats.

We are planting new woods and forests—indeed there has been a 50 per cent increase in tree planting in Aligned Planets in the last ten years.

We also aim to reduce chemical inputs to the soil and we are bringing forward measures to deal with the complex problem of nitrates in water. All that is part of our own ten-year programme coming up to the end of the century.

Third, we are increasing our investment in research into global environmental problems. In addition we are supporting our own scientists', and in particular the United Federation Antarctic Survey's crucial contribution to the World Ocean Circulation Experiment, as well as the voyages of our aptly-named research ship, the ‘Jaresh-Inyo’.

We have also provided more money for the Climate and Environment Satellite Monitoring Programmes of the World Assembly Coordination of Space Consortium (C.O.S.C) .

Fourth, we help poorer countries to cope with their environmental problems through our Aid Programme.

We shall give special help to manage and preserve the tropical forests. We are already assisting in twenty countries and have recently signed agreements with the Kingdom of Meztere.

And as a new pledge, I can announce today that we aim to commit a further RR200 billion bilaterally to tropical forestry activities over the next three years, mostly within the framework of our Tropical Forestry Action Plan. That is what we are doing in Aligned Planets under those four headings. All of those things.

Thank you for your time.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:26 pm**

Why not solar? Otherwise I do agree.

Nigia Warriors

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:54 pm**

Wow,

Most of the bigwigs have voted against this one, and yet it looks like it is still going to pass.

Congratulations Ambassador Chombers.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:47 pm**

The pro market opinion of our government does not support the interference or subsidization of industries that are not capable of standing on its own. We vote no, and implore members of the WA to look at free market solutions and not government bureaucracy as a means to promote green energy.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:05 pm**

Rickgrad wrote:
(Image)
Empire of Rickgrad
Imperial Ambassador to the World Assembly

Please stop posting your seal in WA posts. You're presumably sitting in a chamber discussing this, not passing diplomatic notes between nations. Leave the seals and diplomatic boilerplate in the Diplomacy forums.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:16 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Rickgrad wrote:
(Image)
Empire of Rickgrad
Imperial Ambassador to the World Assembly

Please stop posting your seal in WA posts. You're presumably sitting in a chamber discussing this, not passing diplomatic notes between nations. Leave the seals and diplomatic boilerplate in the Diplomacy forums.

edited, what if the ambassador couldn't make it to the floor and submitted a formal letter of our intentions

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:25 am**

I, Vinage v. Grey-Anumia, will be voting NAY on this one after a 1/7 internal vote decided said action. We find the infringement on National Sovereignty, especially through clause ii, to be too much.

Regards,

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 am**

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

Uhh... what?

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:02 am**

Nigia Warriors wrote:Why not solar? Otherwise I do agree.

Last time I checked, solar power was considered a renewable energy source. Nothing prevents your nation from deciding that solar panels or a solar tower powerplant are the best options for you.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:10 am**

Abacathea wrote: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.

The problem is, I could build 2 R.E.I.s and be in compliance with this resolution. Nothing is defined. How much power does it have to produce?

Also, in relation to:

"(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."

Negative environmental impact is broad. Besides, every industry makes some negative environmental impact. A grocery store runs fully on solar panels and wind power, but the trucks delivering to the store use fossil fuels. Does the grocery store now cause a negative environmental impact? Also, "negative environmental impact" is not define. I assume it's up to each nation's discretion then?

Nothing in this resolution is clear. And, as said before by another nation, this will mostly hurt developing nations, while developed ones will get away with it.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:41 am**

Libertas Liber wrote:
Abacathea wrote: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.

The problem is, I could build 2 R.E.I.s and be in compliance with this resolution. Nothing is defined. How much power does it have to produce?

Also, in relation to:

"(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."

Negative environmental impact is broad. Besides, every industry makes some negative environmental impact. A grocery store runs fully on solar panels and wind power, but the trucks delivering to the store use fossil fuels. Does the grocery store now cause a negative environmental impact? Also, "negative environmental impact" is not define. I assume it's up to each nation's discretion then?

Nothing in this resolution is clear. And, as said before by another nation, this will mostly hurt developing nations, while developed ones will get away with it.

The issue, as has been answered a few times by now, is that there originally was mandates relating to how much was required, specifically enough installations to run 10% of the electrical grid of a nation. This was inevitably removed as it was determined, that this particular clause was indifferent towards small/large nations. It seems that in being fair, we've somehow given the impression that we're not. Resultantly, should this fail, which is a possibility, this provision will be going back into the act.

Ironically, you've answered your own question with the supermarket analogy though, because the exact situation you've outlined, is the exact situation we want. If a business is contributing to environmental degrading, even through for example it's delivery outlets, then if they balance it out through renewable energy, ie; solar panels etc... then yes, thats perfect.

Also, "negative environmental impact" is not define. I assume it's up to each nation's discretion then?

This seems a bit.... of an objection for the sake of an objection. How many variances on the definition of negative environmental impact can there actually be? No matter what way you might want to spin it, it's base principal will always fall into what it is. It seems a fundamentally black and white sentence fragment you've outlined here.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:02 am**

Abacathea wrote:The issue, as has been answered a few times by now, is that there originally was mandates relating to how much was required, specifically enough installations to run 10% of the electrical grid of a nation. This was inevitably removed as it was determined, that this particular clause was indifferent towards small/large nations. It seems that in being fair, we've somehow given the impression that we're not. Resultantly, should this fail, which is a possibility, this provision will be going back into the act.

I understand that this was originally included but the problem is that the resolution is not clearly defined. We can say, "Well that's just common sense/black & white, etc." But the problem is, when things are not clearly defined then that just becomes someone else's loophole.

Ironically, you've answered your own question with the supermarket analogy though, because the exact situation you've outlined, is the exact situation we want. If a business is contributing to environmental degrading, even through for example it's delivery outlets, then if they balance it out through renewable energy, ie; solar panels etc... then yes, thats perfect.

Very well. What's the bare minimum of renewable energy that a business must use?

This seems a bit.... of an objection for the sake of an objection. How many variances on the definition of negative environmental impact can there actually be? No matter what way you might want to spin it, it's base principal will always fall into what it is. It seems a fundamentally black and white sentence fragment you've outlined here.

This goes back to my first point. We can "assume" what negative environment impact is, but another nation may think it is perfectly acceptable for birds to drop dead from the sky. Anything that can be interpreted variably provides a loophole.[/quote]

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:21 pm**

Abacathea wrote:
Realistically though, you could argue against any proposal in the environmental all businesses category (of which I note there is a few) of your sole concern is your stats and not the actual resolution itself. I would hope that your objections didn't kick in as soon as you read the category. That said, it is your right to run your nation as you see fit, and object to effects on your nation accordingly, but it does seem surprising to me that the acts merits would be ignored because of limiting classifications. Perhaps it's time the categories reflected the evolution that nations have undergone in terms of creativity etc... but thats a game mechanics conversation I don't really wish to get in to which I hope you'll understand.

So now that I've given you my basic objections to the resolution, seeing that it is going to pass, let me explain to you in very simple terms what this resolution does and why it's noting but a lot of hurt for everyone. First of all, environmentally friendly sites need to be located. We all know where they are, or rather where they are not. That's right, they are not near population centers. They are probably not in the ideal locations either, which means that a resource that is already inefficient is going to be made more so by its inefficient location merely because it has and I quote "the least environmental disturbance."

Now there is a cute joke in section four; no really, there is no such thing as a "green" electron. They all have the same color and all of them get placed on a grid and all of them leave the grid to the customer. The notion that a customer can avoid the not green electrons and take only the green ones is nonsense. It is further more complicated by the forced price rates that said "Green" energy must charge; probably below the actual cost to generate that said energy. This difference would be "paid" for in either brownouts or through government subsidy; in either case business and people must suffer as a result.

The whole irony is that I actually love green energy; the katabatic winds in the Antarctic, especially near the nation's capital are massive in the extreme. This resolution would, ironically, prevent us from using them as they tend to also be major bird routes (yes birds love a good tailwind, doesn't everybody). Instead these generators would be forced to be placed where the winds are far weaker and the energy derived far less, all while increasing taxes for everyone to cover for this folly of a energy fig leaf.

And with that, I yield the floor.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:26 pm**

Retired WerePenguins wrote:So now that I've given you my basic objections to the resolution, seeing that it is going to pass, let me explain to you in very simple terms what this resolution does and why it's noting but a lot of hurt for everyone. First of all, environmentally friendly sites need to be located. We all know where they are, or rather where they are not. That's right, they are not near population centers. They are probably not in the ideal locations either, which means that a resource that is already inefficient is going to be made more so by its inefficient location merely because it has and I quote "the least environmental disturbance."

(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:39 pm**

Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:50 pm**

Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)

I'm going to ignore the fact that my nation is in the antarctic where the nights can be quite long. Instead I will refer you to this lovely argument:

The main concern with a Solar Farm involves the adverse effects on surrounding wildlife and the ecosystem. With solar energy farms in generally arid regions, plants and animals must adapt to very specific harsh environments.

Environmentalists fear that any change, such as a large solar energy farm in the middle of the region could disrupt the ecosystem.

NationStates

[PASSED] Renewable Energy Installations Act

Vote No to Renewable Energy Installations Act

Renewable Energy Installations Act