[PASSED] Vehicle Emissions Convention

[Abacathea]

I had this idea during the recent enviro debate and wanted to put it to paper before I lost track of the core elements of it, it's something I like, sensible and seems like an international issue. Furthermore, I believe the last drafting period taught me an awful lot about patience and feedback, so both of which will play a big factor in this endeavor

Vehicular CO2 Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Recognising the commitment of member nations to improving the quality of the environment and the willingness of nations to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of CO2 emissions is an issue with no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude.

Noting that among the biggest pollutants known to nations is the automotive industry generally accepted as the car, bus and rail industries both private and industrial and wishing to address these issues specifically;

Defining for the purpose of the act;

(i) automobile as; a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) CO2 Emissions as; the incombustible gas bi-product released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of coal, gas, diesel and petrol via an internal combustion engine or likewise device.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates a reduction of exhaust emissions from automobiles to a maximum level of 120g/kilometer (or equal unit of distance).

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore sets a target of 5 years (or equal time measurement) for this to be achieved.

(iii) Mandates that all HGV's (heavy goods vehicles) be fitted with a speed limiting device, which will reduce the vehicles ability to produce significant levels of CO2 emissions.

(iv) Mandates in line with clause (iii) the fitting of emission reduction filters to all newly constructed trains, boats and jet engines to reduce CO2 emissions until such a time as mandates (i) and (ii) can be achieved.

(v) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target of 90g/km (or equal unit of distance) to be achieved.

(vi) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (v) and furthermore to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce a lower carbon emission than vehicles pre-existing in the marketplace.

(vii) Encourages the automotive industry to set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset carbon emissions from their products

.

Vehicular Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Recognizing the commitment of member nations to improving the quality of the environment and the willingness of nations to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of CO2 emissions is an issue with no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude.

Noting that among the biggest pollutants known to nations is the automotive industry generally accepted as the car, bus and rail industries both private and industrial and wishing to address these issues specifically;

Defining for the purpose of the act;

(i) Automobile as; a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) CO2 Emissions as; the incombustible gas bi-product released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of coal, gas, diesel and petrol via an internal combustion engine or likewise device.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates a reduction of exhaust emissions in all newly constructed automobiles by at least a quarter of each nations current average vehicular emissions.

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore encourages the automotive industry to strive for the target set in clause (i) while mandating regular figures to be provided to government agencies reflecting said improvements and ensuring that all entities are actually progressing towards this goal.

(iii) Mandates that governments allocate an official/official body to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively.

(v) Mandates the fitting of emission reduction filters to all newly constructed trains, boats, HGV's (heavy goods vehicles) and jet engines (which produce CO2 emissions and do not yet hit the target outlined) to reduce CO2 emissions until such a time as mandate (i) can be achieved.

(vi) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

(vii) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (vi) and furthermore to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce a lower carbon emission than vehicles pre-existing in the marketplace.

(viii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset carbon emissions from their products.

.

Draft 3:

Vehicular Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Commending the efforts of many WA member nations to improving the quality of the environment and their willingness of to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of waste emissions from the automotive sector is an international issue with significant climate implications, no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude towards improving.

Noting that waste products/emissions from mechanical forms of transportation such as cars, buses, trains, shipping, and air travel, constitute a significant source of atmospheric pollutants.

Intending to reduce the environmental impact made by WA member nations through their automotive industries and general automotive operations,

Defines for the purpose of this act;

(i) "Automobile" as a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) "Emissions" as the harmful gas bi-products released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of carbon-based fuels (such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum products) via an internal combustion engine or likewise device equivalent in function ie; carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore encourages the automotive industry to adhere to the progressive schedule of reduction as much as is practicable while mandating regular figures to be provided to government agencies reflecting said improvements and ensuring that all entities are actually progressing towards this goal.

(iii) Mandates the creation of the "International Vehicular Emissions Authority" committee to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively.

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

(v) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (iv).

(vi) Encourages governments to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce lower emissions than others available on the market.

(vii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset emissions from their products.

All thoughts welcomed

[Hittanryan]

To be frank, any attempt at limiting CO₂ emissions that ignores coal-based power plants is severely lacking. Even if you promote electric vehicles, it'll be for naught if the electricity is all coming from burning coal.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Should we tell developing economies with few to no access to renewable energy to F off while we're at it?

Against.

[Abacathea]

Should we tell developing economies with few to no access to renewable energy to F off while we're at it?

Against.

I fail to see how that is any way relevant to limiting CO2 emissions from automobiles

To be frank, any attempt at limiting CO2 emissions that ignores coal-based power plants is severely lacking. Even if you promote electric vehicles, it'll be for naught if the electricity is all coming from burning coal.

This act is specifically tackling the automotive industry, and not advocating the use of one power source over another in this instance, simply restricting the output of harmful bi-products. If i were to attempt to tackle power plants etc... as a whole, this would a be a significantly broader act and tougher challenge and not one ultimately I feel I have the knowledge base for.

[Atest]

To be frank, any attempt at limiting CO₂ emissions that ignores coal-based power plants is severely lacking. Even if you promote electric vehicles, it'll be for naught if the electricity is all coming from burning coal.

This is incorrect when one looks at recent developments for electrical power. Solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric power, and tidal-electric power are all sufficient supplements to cushion the emissions of the coal industry. Perhaps the law should propose a certain economic stability before having to enforce this legislation, since alternative power measures are rather expensive as of yet.

[Hittanryan]

To be frank, any attempt at limiting CO₂ emissions that ignores coal-based power plants is severely lacking. Even if you promote electric vehicles, it'll be for naught if the electricity is all coming from burning coal.

This is incorrect when one looks at recent developments for electrical power. Solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric power, and tidal-electric power are all sufficient supplements to cushion the emissions of the coal industry. Perhaps the law should propose a certain economic stability before having to enforce this legislation, since alternative power measures are rather expensive as of yet.

As of 2008 roughly 82% of global electricity production came from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Renewables are not yet in a position to supplant fossil fuels, and measures must be taken to curb the growth of coal power if the WA is at all serious about emission control.

EDIT: That said, renewables are more expensive, and forcing developing member states to adopt measures they cannot afford is obviously not ideal. The WA Development Foundation had this same problem, making aid conditional on members changing domestic policy, effectively politicizing development aid. Setting criteria for economic stability will be the crux of the problem, different people will want different metrics for it.

[Atest]

This is incorrect when one looks at recent developments for electrical power. Solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric power, and tidal-electric power are all sufficient supplements to cushion the emissions of the coal industry. Perhaps the law should propose a certain economic stability before having to enforce this legislation, since alternative power measures are rather expensive as of yet.

As of 2008 roughly 82% of global electricity production came from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Renewables are not yet in a position to supplant fossil fuels, and measures must be taken to curb the growth of coal power if the WA is at all serious about emission control.

EDIT: That said, renewables are more expensive, and forcing developing member states to adopt measures they cannot afford is obviously not ideal. The WA Development Foundation had this same problem, making aid conditional on members changing domestic policy, effectively politicizing development aid. Setting criteria for economic stability will be the crux of the problem, different people will want different metrics for it.

I implore you to read my post before addressing it, Hittanryan.

[Aligned Planets]

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the World Assembly has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Delegates Omigodtheykilledkenny and Abacathea deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative on this issue and previous, now repealed, legislation.
.
It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. For instance, the total amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere in Aligned Planets each year from natural sources is some 600 billion tonnes, while the figure resulting from human activities is only 26 billion tonnes. In relative terms that is not very significant. Equally we know that the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere date from the start of our own industrial revolution. And we know that those concentrations will continue to rise if we fail to act.

Nor do we know with any precision the extent of the likely warming in the next century, nor what the regional effects will be, and we can't be sure of the role of the clouds.
There is a continuing mystery about how atmospheric carbon, including the small extra contribution from people sources, continuing mystery about how that is being absorbed: is most of it going into the ocean, as used to be thought? Or is it being increasingly absorbed by trees or plants, of soils, especially in our forested northern hemisphere? These are questions that need answers, sooner rather than later.

Climate change within limits need not by itself pose serious problems—our nation has after all seen a great deal of climate change over the centuries. And it's notable that the blue-green algae which dominated the Pre-Ankarian period at the dawn of life are still major components of the marine phytoplankton today. Despite the climate changes of many millions of years, these microbes have persisted on earth virtually unchanged, pumping out life-giving oxygen into the atmosphere and mopping up carbon dioxide.

The real dangers arise because climate change is combined with other problems of our age: for instance the population explosion; — the deterioration of soil fertility; — increasing pollution of the sea; — intensive use of fossil fuel; — and destruction of forests, particularly those in the tropics.

Aligned Planets will continue to play a leading role in trying to answer the remaining questions, and to advance our state of knowledge of climate change. This year, we have established in the United Federation the Roslin Centre for Climate Prediction and Research for this purpose. We need to improve in particular our understanding of the effect of the oceans on our weather, improve too our capability to model climate change.

We must also make sure that research is carefully targeted. Too many people can do the same thing, and at the same time vital problems can be neglected. The task of WA-wide observation is immense. It will require a coordinated effort more ambitious than any attempted before, and far beyond the scope of this one Bill.

[Abacathea]

While I appreciate the input of nations up until now, I fear I need to steer this back in the direction I had intended it, the goal here is not to mandate or regulate fossil fuels, as I said previously, I don't have the understanding of those workings in order to do so.

The area of effect I wish to regulate here is specifically the automotive industry, if either of the two of you would like to tackle the other side of the fence, you are more than welcome to, but in this particular instance I only see to regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles. Please try and keep feedback and suggestions that way inclined

[Hittanryan]

As of 2008 roughly 82% of global electricity production came from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Renewables are not yet in a position to supplant fossil fuels, and measures must be taken to curb the growth of coal power if the WA is at all serious about emission control.

EDIT: That said, renewables are more expensive, and forcing developing member states to adopt measures they cannot afford is obviously not ideal. The WA Development Foundation had this same problem, making aid conditional on members changing domestic policy, effectively politicizing development aid. Setting criteria for economic stability will be the crux of the problem, different people will want different metrics for it.

I implore you to read my post before addressing it, Hittanryan.

You said the use of renewables can cushion the effects of coal. I said that this is simply not the case when you have such a lopsided ratio of coal to renewable sources of energy throughout the world. This goes double when you consider that renewables are more expensive and less efficient.

What is the issue here?

EDIT: Better stay on topic. Automobiles it is.

[Abacathea]

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the World Assembly has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Delegates Omigodtheykilledkenny and Abacathea deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative on this issue and previous, now repealed, legislation.

Many thanks for that dearest ambassador

.
It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

Then your expertise is welcomed.

Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. For instance, the total amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere in Aligned Planets each year from natural sources is some 600 billion tonnes, while the figure resulting from human activities is only 26 billion tonnes. In relative terms that is not very significant. Equally we know that the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere date from the start of our own industrial revolution. And we know that those concentrations will continue to rise if we fail to act.

We are inclined to agree, hence why we feel regulating what we can identify as the contribution through sentient beings is a must.

Nor do we know with any precision the extent of the likely warming in the next century, nor what the regional effects will be, and we can't be sure of the role of the clouds.
There is a continuing mystery about how atmospheric carbon, including the small extra contribution from people sources, continuing mystery about how that is being absorbed: is most of it going into the ocean, as used to be thought? Or is it being increasingly absorbed by trees or plants, of soils, especially in our forested northern hemisphere? These are questions that need answers, sooner rather than later.

Climate change within limits need not by itself pose serious problems—our nation has after all seen a great deal of climate change over the centuries. And it's notable that the blue-green algae which dominated the Pre-Ankarian period at the dawn of life are still major components of the marine phytoplankton today. Despite the climate changes of many millions of years, these microbes have persisted on earth virtually unchanged, pumping out life-giving oxygen into the atmosphere and mopping up carbon dioxide.

The real dangers arise because climate change is combined with other problems of our age: for instance the population explosion; — the deterioration of soil fertility; — increasing pollution of the sea; — intensive use of fossil fuel; — and destruction of forests, particularly those in the tropics.

Aligned Planets will continue to play a leading role in trying to answer the remaining questions, and to advance our state of knowledge of climate change. This year, we have established in the United Federation the Roslin Centre for Climate Prediction and Research for this purpose. We need to improve in particular our understanding of the effect of the oceans on our weather, improve too our capability to model climate change.

We must also make sure that research is carefully targeted. Too many people can do the same thing, and at the same time vital problems can be neglected. The task of WA-wide observation is immense. It will require a coordinated effort more ambitious than any attempted before, and far beyond the scope of this one Bill.

We agree this one bill is a drop in the ocean in terms of what does inevitably need done. But even babysteps, are still considered progress on the path no?

[Atest]

I implore you to read my post before addressing it, Hittanryan.

You said the use of renewables can cushion the effects of coal. I said that this is simply not the case when you have such a lopsided ratio of coal to renewable sources of energy throughout the world. This goes double when you consider that renewables are more expensive and less efficient.

What is the issue here?

I suggested that nations capable of economically supporting a transition to clean energy should be specifically targeted, and not all nations as a whole.

[Point Breeze]

As of 2008 roughly 82% of global electricity production came from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Renewables are not yet in a position to supplant fossil fuels, and measures must be taken to curb the growth of coal power if the WA is at all serious about emission control.

EDIT: That said, renewables are more expensive, and forcing developing member states to adopt measures they cannot afford is obviously not ideal. The WA Development Foundation had this same problem, making aid conditional on members changing domestic policy, effectively politicizing development aid. Setting criteria for economic stability will be the crux of the problem, different people will want different metrics for it.

Under this act, governments themselves really don't have much required of them, most of the burden lies on the private sector, assuming automobile, rail, and other industries aren't public enterprises.

[Hittanryan]

You said the use of renewables can cushion the effects of coal. I said that this is simply not the case when you have such a lopsided ratio of coal to renewable sources of energy throughout the world. This goes double when you consider that renewables are more expensive and less efficient.

What is the issue here?

I suggested that nations capable of economically supporting a transition to clean energy should be specifically targeted, and not all nations as a whole.

That wasn't clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Abacathea]

As of 2008 roughly 82% of global electricity production came from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Renewables are not yet in a position to supplant fossil fuels, and measures must be taken to curb the growth of coal power if the WA is at all serious about emission control.

EDIT: That said, renewables are more expensive, and forcing developing member states to adopt measures they cannot afford is obviously not ideal. The WA Development Foundation had this same problem, making aid conditional on members changing domestic policy, effectively politicizing development aid. Setting criteria for economic stability will be the crux of the problem, different people will want different metrics for it.

Under this act, governments themselves really don't have much required of them, most of the burden lies on the private sector, assuming automobile, rail, and other industries aren't public enterprises.

That is correct, this is more regulation of the industry than governments unless as you pointed out the government is invested in them, which we feel shouldn't be significantly unpopular.

[Araraukar]

If the goal is to concentrate on cars specifically, you need to change the proposal title to reflect that. Right now it reads as a general CO2 emissions regulation attempt.

[Aligned Planets]

If the goal is to concentrate on cars specifically, you need to change the proposal title to reflect that. Right now it reads as a general CO2 emissions regulation attempt.

Seconded.

[Grays Harbor]

You said the use of renewables can cushion the effects of coal. I said that this is simply not the case when you have such a lopsided ratio of coal to renewable sources of energy throughout the world. This goes double when you consider that renewables are more expensive and less efficient.

What is the issue here?

I suggested that nations capable of economically supporting a transition to clean energy should be specifically targeted, and not all nations as a whole.

Unfortunately, WA rules do not permit for specific targetting of select nations. Resolutions effect all WA nations. Period. This is why resolutions must be written to accomodate that.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz:
Overall a good idea, so let's have a look at it.
First of all: It's a good thing you didn't listen to the people who want to put restrictions on coal power plants, because that would not fit the category.

(i) Mandates a reduction of exhaust emissions from automobiles to a minimum level of 120g/kilometer (or equal unit of distance).

I'm not a Native speaker of English. Wouldn't that mean that all vehicles should emit at least 120g/km? Shouldn't that be the maximum level?

Recognizing the commitment of member nations to improving the quality of the environment and the willingness of nations to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Really? What makes you think every member nation is committed to that? In fact, I doubt it very much.

Now here are a few things that will pop up during the debate although I don't give a damn about them. But they're gonna come up and you should think of answers to them:

• (insert crying here) But what about us Past Tech / Future Tech people? What about people not from our planet?
• Just because pollution happens in the real world it doesn't mean it happens in NS (Which is bullshit because there are automobiles in NS... so yeah, there's pollution. Nonetheless, somebody will bring that up)
• There are arbitrary numbers in it (120 g/km, 90g/km)

The Confederacy of Louisistan supports this proposal!

[Abacathea]

If the goal is to concentrate on cars specifically, you need to change the proposal title to reflect that. Right now it reads as a general CO2 emissions regulation attempt.

Duely noted. Many thanks.

[Atest]

I suggested that nations capable of economically supporting a transition to clean energy should be specifically targeted, and not all nations as a whole.

Unfortunately, WA rules do not permit for specific targetting of select nations. Resolutions effect all WA nations. Period. This is why resolutions must be written to accomodate that.

If that is true, then the most recently passed resolution's clause concerning the economic ability of nations requires immediate revision. Unless, of course, I read it incorrectly.

[Abacathea]

Unfortunately, WA rules do not permit for specific targetting of select nations. Resolutions effect all WA nations. Period. This is why resolutions must be written to accomodate that.

If that is true, then the most recently passed resolution's clause concerning the economic ability of nations requires immediate revision. Unless, of course, I read it incorrectly.

I think what Grays is hinting at is In terms of mandates and clauses there's no reason they can't be semi specific ie the clause you've referred to;

(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.

The econonomically exemption there, is only for as long as a nation cannot afford to comply, they will still eventually be required to comply should they acquire funds. But more specifically, all nations statistics are affected no matter what once a law is passed, in that regards you cannot specify specific nations, the effect is wide sweeping.

Edit - If you want to discuss this further I'd be happy to maintain it in telegrams, I'd really like to try and keep this thread on topic as much as possible though. There's already been some good suggestions made, I don't want them getting lost in obscurity

[Atest]

The econonomically exemption there, is only for as long as a nation cannot afford to comply, they will still eventually be required to comply should they acquire funds. But more specifically, all nations statistics are affected no matter what once a law is passed, in that regards you cannot specify specific nations, the effect is wide sweeping.

Edit - If you want to discuss this further I'd be happy to maintain it in telegrams, I'd really like to try and keep this thread on topic as much as possible though. There's already been some good suggestions made, I don't want them getting lost in obscurity.

It is entirely relevant to the post, since the quoted clause within the resolution is of the same nature as my suggestion.

[Paper Flowers]

We find the one size fits all nature of this proposal to be far too arbitrary in regards to the ability of industry to meet these targets, in particular the author seems to be quite willing to ignore technological ability of nations to produce such vehicles and to simply assume that industry can afford such radical changes.

We are also concerned that under the letter of the law in this draft we would also be required to make these changes to all existing automobiles, I assume we should jail our citizens who don't purchase a new vehicle or cannot afford to have their old one upgraded?

Ambassador Saunders

(OOC: Doing a bit of research it's not for another 7 years that the EU expects countries to be under your current target and as recently as 2011 the UK would not have met your target.)

[Abacathea]

We find the one size fits all nature of this proposal to be far too arbitrary in regards to the ability of industry to meet these targets, in particular the author seems to be quite willing to ignore technological ability of nations to produce such vehicles and to simply assume that industry can afford such radical changes.

We are also concerned that under the letter of the law in this draft we would also be required to make these changes to all existing automobiles, I assume we should jail our citizens who don't purchase a new vehicle or cannot afford to have their old one upgraded?

Ambassador Saunders

(OOC: Doing a bit of research it's not for another 7 years that the EU expects countries to be under your current target and as recently as 2011 the UK would not have met your target.)

Dearest Ambassador Saunders,

We would ask that you look at clause (ii) where we specifically acknowledge that these things do in fact take time, we also state that we encourage governance to encourage it's citizens to purchase these new vehicles as they become available, through incentives etc... we by no means aim to be punitive with this at all.

However please do note, it is only a first draft, the second of which will be produced within the coming hours as we ourselves have identified wording we would like to change in addition to comments already noted.

OOC: I suspect in that instance the 5 year target might be a bit ambitious, perhaps a 15 year target for the targets i've set with at least noticeable improvements to be shown between now and then, I'll have to chose the wording carefully on it though. As it stands even my own car is pushing at 127g/k (Ireland has a tax system in place for cars registered from 2008 that judges the value of tax at the carbon emissions whereas anything pre that was based solely off engine size. My old car was a 1400CC petrol engine, and cost me 340 euro a year to tax, my new one is a 1988cc diesel engine, and costs me 227 a year, the incentive was there for me to swap and as a result i did, this is fundamentally where I took the idea from truth be told my own personal experiences with cause and effect as it were.)