[PASSED] Reducing Automobile Emissions

[Abacathea]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We find ourselves ambivalent about this proposal. While promoting emissions reductions is a good thing, we concur with the ambassador from Multor that there are numerous flaws in the wording which may limit the effectiveness of this legislation.

Mostly, though, we cringe at the use of the word "incentivize" in the proposal, and declare that any representative here that abuses the language so ought to be defenestrated.

Dearest delegate,

May the cute one indeed be praised, while we aim to address multor's concerns after work, and hopefully your own. (And that of our dear penguin friends) and are indeed always a fan of a good defenestration, may we ask what your issue is with the term incentivize? While we tend to switch between those fictional languages of American and Irish english while we're here, mainly because American seems to be the dominant brand and we ourselves use the Irish one, what exactly is the issue with this term?

Please do clarify for us?

[Aquafireland]

I'm not a WA nation, but I voted FOR this resolution with my puppet WA account. Reducing automobile emissions is what the environment vitally needs.

[The Holonet]

Dear esteemed members of the World Assembly,
We the people of The Holonet do not have any vehicle emissions. Not only do all automobile owners in our nation drive electric vehicles, but we are also proud to maintain an extensive, all electric, public transportation infrastructure. All the energy in our grid comes from solar and wind energy, further reducing any emissions. Ladies, gentlemen, and others of miscellaneous genders, the_holonet has no emissions to reduce, and we find that being burdened by the regulations proposed in this resolution would, in fact, be a step backward for us. Therefore, we are joining our colleagues in Capitalist Paradise region in voting AGAINST this resolution.
However, anyone wishing to lower their emissions by adopting our nation's infrastructure is more than welcomed to contract one of our numerous, highly competitive, well regulated businesses to help overhaul your nation's infrastructure.

Respectfully,
Fluke Airwalker
Lead Project Developer, the_holonet

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: As always, if your nation doesn't have it, in the roleplay sense it doesn't affect your nation. Only effect will be the stats change.

[Retired WerePenguins]

While we tend to switch between those fictional languages of American and Irish english while we're here, mainly because American seems to be the dominant brand and we ourselves use the Irish one, what exactly is the issue with this term?

While I cannot speak for the Eternal Kawaii, I believe it has to do with how the transitive verb is used. Who does the action, who receives the action, and the description of the action. Member nations clearly does the action, but who receives the action? The answer should be automobile manufacturers. "Encourages member nations to incentivize the development of automobile emission reduction technologies" probably should have been written as "Encourages member nations to incentivize their automobile manufactoring to promote ..." Even then, why not just "provide incentives?"

(Please note that the first known use of this word, according to Webster was 1970. The thought that I happen to be older than that word disturbs me. That young whipper snapper of a word. Webster's example is "would incentivize employees with stock options."

[Retired WerePenguins]

We the people of The Holonet do not have any vehicle emissions. Not only do all automobile owners in our nation drive electric vehicles, but we are also proud to maintain an extensive, all electric, public transportation infrastructure. All the energy in our grid comes from solar and wind energy, further reducing any emissions.

Gee, I would hate to see the traffic jams that would develop if your nation experienced a month of cloudy, windless days.

Just saying.

[Alqania]

2: Mandates, under this resolution;
(i) Requires all member nations to take any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions;

"The Queendom regrets having to vote against this resolution", said Princess Christine, genuinely distraught that the quality of environmental resolutions in the GA often forced her hand against things that she greatly cared about, "because with one word, this resolution is made entirely relative and dependant on the status quo, which unfortunately is something with which the Queendom cannot agree."

"It is usually - dare I say always? - a bad idea to require member states to 'reduce' something. A member state that emits, oh let us say, 100 Bads per Backyard could reduce their emission to 99 Bads per Backyard and be compliant, while another member state with a total emission of only 1 Bad per Backyard would also be targeted, even if their single Bad per Backyard would be a completely negligible level of emission in the first place. And as time progresses, do we want to keep forcing member states to get rid of that last Bad per Backyard? Not really and that is why we include caveats like 'economically viable'; in the dream world, all emissions would be so low that no reduction measures would ever be economically viable, meaning that this resolution only works for states in transition, not for states that have already reached the target for this kind of emission. That would perhaps be acceptable for some kind of emergency provisions, but this assembly is not in the habit of addressing crises with emergency laws that have a 'best before' timestamp, this festering snakepit is supposedly devoted to introducing long-term legislation to better the world not just now but also for future generations. So due to the short-sightedness and limited applicability of this resolution, we find ourselves opposed."

[Kian01]

We Kian01 are for the WA resolution of Reducing Automobile Emissions, since we are a leader in Hybrid and Electric Automobiles in both production, and research and are willing to work out deals with any WA Nation Member to start exporting those aforementioned products within 90 days from this posting.

[Dellin]

We the people of The Holonet do not have any vehicle emissions. Not only do all automobile owners in our nation drive electric vehicles, but we are also proud to maintain an extensive, all electric, public transportation infrastructure. All the energy in our grid comes from solar and wind energy, further reducing any emissions.

Gee, I would hate to see the traffic jams that would develop if your nation experienced a month of cloudy, windless days.

Just saying.

I hope you aren't being serious.

[The Holonet]

*snip*

OOC: As always, if your nation doesn't have it, in the roleplay sense it doesn't affect your nation. Only effect will be the stats change.

I may have given an RP reason to vote against the measure, but OOC I don't even want my stats to change because of this measure. I admit I don't fully understand how that works, but my nation is environmentally friendly enough as it is, thank you very much.

[Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat]

For, undoubtedly, but one wonders if the term 'automobile' is rather misleading considering that this resolution is intended to cover a variety of powered vehicles. It also begs the question of where this resolution leaves military-purpose vehicles.

[SkyDip]

I, Ambassador Elias Greyjoy, would like to note SkyDip's vote FOR this proposal as determined by a poll of the peoples of Europeia. I wish the best of the luck to the submitting author.



Elias T. Greyjoy
World Assembly Ambassador of SkyDip, Delegate of Europeia

[Abacathea]

This is why Multor voted against this proposal:

Lets address shall we;

1. emissions are reduced to "gases". Liquid emissions or solid aerosols are not considered. So all Diesel engines will remain largely unbothered. Other emissions that are not gases remain unaddressed as well: abrasives like in brakes may still contain asbestos, rubber from tires may still contain anything, including substances that harm animals or the water around, leaking oil, etc.

While this is all true, they weren't the target. Specifically exhaust based fumes etc... were in consideration during the drafting period of this act, rubber off tires being an emission wasn't one we highlighted as being a significant contributor to the greenhouse gas issue, therefore yes, it was left alone.

2. The term "Automobile" is quite well defined, but there are issues with this definition. Vehicles with internal combustion engines can be considered to be chemically propelled, instead of mechanically as the propellant is basically a liquid fuel of some sort. So the question of "mechanically propelled" remains the one to discuss about.

The definition used by legislators world wide, at least this side of the pond in relation to road traffic, is "mechanically propelled vehicle" which covers a wide range of vehicles from mini motorbikes to trucks and beyond. We believe that to argue it was chemically propelled would be semantic. Chemical might be the catalyst, but it's still the engine that drives it.

3. What ifs:
- the vehicles collect the gases from their exhausts and do not release them into the atmosphere, but liquify them to store them in abundant mines?

Then they're not emitting are they?

- the vehicles collect the gases from their exhausts and release them into death row cells? (Yes, it´s cynical, but possible....)

I'm not even touching that one

- the gases were liquified wthin the vehicles? They could then be released without to be regulated.

the bulk of your argument here seems to be liquids not gases, gases are our focus

- the vehicle is not powered by an internal combustion engine, but by an electric engine? The internal combustion engine in the generator on board is used only to recharge the batteries permanently.
- the vehicle is powered by bio-ethanol or other means of eco-fuel? Those fuels can only release the CO2 that is bound within them through prior purely natural processes. They´re considered to be neutral to the climate. This is nor excluded.
- the vehicle is powered by a hydrogen cell? This way of powering a vehicle creates no no harmful exhaust emissions (just H2O), but requires a huge amount of energy to produce the hydrogen. Issue unaddressed.

I'm lumping all of these in together because it just seems pragmatic to do so, the thing here is not to reduce emissions to zero, but to reduce them eco-friendly levels. Nations and vehicles already at that standard obviously aren't oblidged, this however is decided by the vehicle emissions authority created within the act.

4. Vehicles not designed to carry goods or people remain unadressed. This includes most military vehicles, cranes and other special purpose vehicles. Granted one can argue, that the driver seat indicates the intention to carry at least one person, it is still possible to put the driver with his controls into a trailer or moduke that can be unattached from the vehicle in question. That would circumvent any regulation of this resolution. Drones remain unaffected anyway.

Unmanned vehicles were intentionally left out, however if it carries a driver, it carries an occupant and therefore is required to pollute less. Why would military vehicles be any less identified? Surely they can still be a destructive force without being a pollutant one.

5. It creates an institution that is meant to interfere into Multor´s legislation and reign without to detail the establishment (democraticly voted represesentative of whom? or: 1 reprensentative of every member state? Or What?) or the size of this institution. After all, this will only create a huge pile of paper in an admirably large effort of bureaucracy, and nothing more after all.

I'm really not sure were you're going with this, and it's certainly not the only layer of bureaucracy that has been created by the WA.

6. What is "the natural environment"? There is no definition of that. One could argue that climate change and global warmth is not an issue to the "natural environment" and will only result in damages to civilized areas, not to natural environment. Following this line of argument, there are no gas emissions from vehicles of today, that are harmful to "the natural evironment". Ergo: no regulation from this resolution.

You're shitting me right?

7. What about riot control vehicles that are designed to release tear gas and/or smoke screens? The employment of such equipment would be regulated by this resolution as it is now. Multor doesn´t think it should be and will vigorously fight against this resolution!

Correct, besides, by they're operation, it's the people inside the vehicle who normally release the riot control substances. Or a remote pilot, but even at this rate, it's emissions reductions, and they'd be recommended by the IVEA so i'm sure that council would be able to advise how to deal with this, although it's common sense reduce the exhaust emissions and you've still complied with the act irregardless of how much tear gas you toss around the place.

[Abacathea]

For, undoubtedly, but one wonders if the term 'automobile' is rather misleading considering that this resolution is intended to cover a variety of powered vehicles. It also begs the question of where this resolution leaves military-purpose vehicles.

I see no reason military vehicles should be given a free pass to being gas belching pollutants. Be a destructive force sure, but cut down on the Co2. Makes sense to me, not sure why this is so hard for nations to grasp lol.

[Cin Tracyn]

I see no reason military vehicles should be given a free pass to being gas belching pollutants. Be a destructive force sure, but cut down on the Co2. Makes sense to me, not sure why this is so hard for nations to grasp lol.

Because tanks are big. I'm not kidding you, as it stands there is little equivalency towards a combustion engine for a tank because, well, they're big and heavy. Can you imagine trying to move a 100 something ton hunk of steel with nothing but an electric engine?

[Retired WerePenguins]

Be a destructive force sure, but cut down on the Co2. Makes sense to me, not sure why this is so hard for nations to grasp lol.

I beg your pardon ... the resolution says ...

1: Defines, for the purposes of this resolution;
"automobile" as a mechanically propelled vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered in part or fully by an engine or likewise device, and
"emissions" as gases released into the atmosphere that are established to be harmful to persons or the natural environment,

Can you please explain how CO2 qualifies as an "emission." The gas is not in and of itself harmful to persons or the environment. The change in climate as a result of the gasses may be, but not the gas itself. Last time I heard, CO2 is quite beneficial to plants.

We have voted against it, but not for the reasons you have indicated. Now if you excise me, I'm going to the stranger's bar and getting drunk. I appear to be allergic to morons.

[Dellin]

Be a destructive force sure, but cut down on the Co2. Makes sense to me, not sure why this is so hard for nations to grasp lol.

I beg your pardon ... the resolution says ...

1: Defines, for the purposes of this resolution;
"automobile" as a mechanically propelled vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered in part or fully by an engine or likewise device, and
"emissions" as gases released into the atmosphere that are established to be harmful to persons or the natural environment,

Can you please explain how CO2 qualifies as an "emission." The gas is not in and of itself harmful to persons or the environment. The change in climate as a result of the gasses may be, but not the gas itself. Last time I heard, CO2 is quite beneficial to plants.

We have voted against it, but not for the reasons you have indicated. Now if you excise me, I'm going to the stranger's bar and getting drunk. I appear to be allergic to morons.

...Because it's emitted and causes harm to the environment? Does the resolution say an emission is a gas "that is in and of itself harmful." No, that's what you said. It is perfectly well a gas based on the actual language; it doesn't say causes direct harm. It says "established to be harmful."

[Abacathea]

Because tanks are big. I'm not kidding you, as it stands there is little equivalency towards a combustion engine for a tank because, well, they're big and heavy. Can you imagine trying to move a 100 something ton hunk of steel with nothing but an electric engine?

.

You seem to be operating under the impression that an electric engine is the alternative. I personally drive a 2ltr turbo diesel Avensis, a big, heavy behemoth, which presently has one of the lowest carbon emissions in the motor tax bands. It's costing me less to tax per annum than my parents 1.4ltr civic.

Be a destructive force sure, but cut down on the Co2. Makes sense to me, not sure why this is so hard for nations to grasp lol.

I beg your pardon ... the resolution says ...

1: Defines, for the purposes of this resolution;
"automobile" as a mechanically propelled vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered in part or fully by an engine or likewise device, and
"emissions" as gases released into the atmosphere that are established to be harmful to persons or the natural environment,

Can you please explain how CO2 qualifies as an "emission." The gas is not in and of itself harmful to persons or the environment. The change in climate as a result of the gasses may be, but not the gas itself. Last time I heard, CO2 is quite beneficial to plants.

We have voted against it, but not for the reasons you have indicated. Now if you excise me, I'm going to the stranger's bar and getting drunk. I appear to be allergic to morons.

Co2 was a singular example, and beneficial to plants or not, it is still a contributing environmental factor when produced outside of natural means (just in case you're wondering, no, operating a motor vehicle and burning diesel or petroleum and so forth at the rate humans/sapient beings do is not natural) your no vote is nothing strange to me, nor do I expect it to be in the future, to be frank your decision is for the best, ignorance appears to be contagious in the snakepit lately and you seem to have acquired a potentially fatal amount.

Yours,

[Cin Tracyn]

I used it as an example. So I say again. 100 tons of steel is heavy. Even if your engine is awesome as you describe it to be so, it's still gonna put out a ton of emissions.

EDIT: Pun unintended

[Abacathea]

I used it as an example. So I say again. 100 tons of steel is heavy. Even if your engine is awesome as you describe it to be so, it's still gonna put out a ton of emissions.

EDIT: Pun unintended

Currently in development

[Timsvill]

*james holland's brother (also delegate for timsvill) stands up and says* We here in timsvill all ready banned cars, so yah. As a nation, timsvill vote FOR!

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We find ourselves ambivalent about this proposal. While promoting emissions reductions is a good thing, we concur with the ambassador from Multor that there are numerous flaws in the wording which may limit the effectiveness of this legislation.

Mostly, though, we cringe at the use of the word "incentivize" in the proposal, and declare that any representative here that abuses the language so ought to be defenestrated.

Dearest delegate,

May the cute one indeed be praised, while we aim to address multor's concerns after work, and hopefully your own. (And that of our dear penguin friends) and are indeed always a fan of a good defenestration, may we ask what your issue is with the term incentivize? While we tend to switch between those fictional languages of American and Irish english while we're here, mainly because American seems to be the dominant brand and we ourselves use the Irish one, what exactly is the issue with this term?

Please do clarify for us?

We refer to the comment by the ambassador from Retired WerePenguins: it is a needlessly complex verb construction. One can say the same thing more simply as "provide incentives for". Simplicity and clarity of speech ought to be what we all strive for here.

[Pennswald]

While I still agree with the sentiment, the draft presented for voting still suffers from grammatical negligence, if not outright malfeasance.

Pennswald regretfully votes "Nay".

Please note that our research into matter transmission is extremely promising. With widespread adoption, matter transmission will significantly reduce the need for traditional motorized transport. The energy requirements are, however, substantial. We theorize that 1.21 Gigawatts will be required for each transport...

[Sciongrad]

(ii) The establishment of the International Automobile Emissions Commission (IAEC) with the following mandate:
-to create procedures for the collection and publishing of automobile emissions data by member nations and automobile manufacturers,
-to establish recommended automobile emissions standards based on this data,
-to submit an annual report to the World Assembly on automobile emissions in member nations, including projections of future automobile emissions and progress towards the implementation of IAEC standards;

3: Further requires all member nations and automobile manufacturers to implement IAEC reporting standards;

There are no parameters as to what the IAEC recommends regarding the limitations set on automobile emissions. They're not bounds by feasibility or practicality. If the sole duty of the IAEC to establish procedures that may limit automobile emissions, then something along the lines of "recommending" the use of electric cars by the committee established under this resolution would then translate into a ban on the use of a wide range of automobiles. Unless this interpretation is incorrect, then I'm afraid that Sciongrad must regrettably oppose this. That, and the wording and spelling of this resolution could do with some polishing.

[Multor]

Lets address shall we;

Multor appreciates your consideration.

While this is all true, they weren't the target. Specifically exhaust based fumes etc... were in consideration during the drafting period of this act, rubber off tires being an emission wasn't one we highlighted as being a significant contributor to the greenhouse gas issue, therefore yes, it was left alone.

If the resolution doesn´t cover all emissions, what´s it for then? The greenhouse gas issue is not mentioned in the resolution. Don#t get Multor wrong, we are not against reducing pollution or emissions, but this resolution just doesn´t that.

The definition used by legislators world wide, at least this side of the pond in relation to road traffic, is "mechanically propelled vehicle" which covers a wide range of vehicles from mini motorbikes to trucks and beyond. We believe that to argue it was chemically propelled would be semantic. Chemical might be the catalyst, but it's still the engine that drives it.

Semantics are, what will allow Multo to fully ignore this resolution, even if the majority of WA-members voted for it. This resolution will not reduce as much emissions as thei laser printers of this newly founded bureaucracy will will put into the air...

Then they're not emitting are they?

Yes, they are emitting, but just not into the air around them.

the bulk of your argument here seems to be liquids not gases, gases are our focus

That´s the problem. The resolution focusses one isolated issue within a far more complex environment of issues. Liquids and solids are emissions as well and mus be addressed as well. Changing a gas into something else doesn´t make it harmless.

I'm lumping all of these in together because it just seems pragmatic to do so,

You´re welcome. Multor only made all of these objections, because no one else did. Those are just ideas to go around this resolution.

the thing here is not to reduce emissions to zero, but to reduce them eco-friendly levels.

Define the level. If you want other nations to reduce something, say how much. One Nation might say: "What ever you emit, it has an impact on environment. As long as there are emissions, it can´t be eco-friendly". Another nation might say: "As long as you can the headlamp through the smoke, it isn´t considered pollution". So, whatever the mystic ragulatory body might come up with is then put as a law on Multor? Inacceptable for a sovereign Nation!
Why not reduce emissions tio zero? What´s wrong with that in the long run?
Btw: The word "pollution" never appears in the resolution. Is that intentionally?

Nations and vehicles already at that standard obviously aren't oblidged, this however is decided by the vehicle emissions authority created within the act.

Wow, which TechLevel does a Nation need to be left alone by this obviously monolithic "authority" that is trying to interfere with the sovereignity of the Oppressed Peoples of Multor?
What if: - Multor would stop selling Diesel fuel and will switch to sunflower oil. Works just as well. Does that ommit Multor from being regulated by this almighty "authority"?
What if: - Multor will add 1% of bio-ethanol to all fuels. As bioethanol is considered CO2 neutral (comes from CO2 bound in plants that are transferred to bio-etahnol), will that reduce the amount of regulated emission by 1% as well? If so, Multor´d do that and ignore the rest of this resolution forever. There´s no long term effect in this resolution as well. As soon as a Nation has reduced its emissions, it´s left alone. As soon as §2.(i) of this resolution is fullfilled, can we be unbothered by this "authority" then?

Unmanned vehicles were intentionally left out, however if it carries a driver, it carries an occupant and therefore is required to pollute less. Why would military vehicles be any less identified? Surely they can still be a destructive force without being a pollutant one.

I translate this: "Whatever you nuke, you nuke, but watch out for jolly polar bear!" - This might sound harsh, but that´s ridiculous! What do you want? A green war? Maybe one regulated by the health and safety team of the WA? Let´s stay reasonable. Whenever Multor conquers, there will always be impacts on the environmental quality of the invaded land. Plundering is Multor´s favourite method for comquering terrain. Will we have to limit CO2 emissions from towns we burn down along our way, too? Come on! Compared to that, some CO2 from battletanks do not make that much of a difference.

What is the reason to leave unmanned vehicles out?

I'm really not sure were you're going with this, and it's certainly not the only layer of bureaucracy that has been created by the WA.

Multor will not accept yet another foreign, unlegitimized "authority" that runs Multor. How will it be founded? Who will be in it and how is membership determined and/or established? We will only accept this "authority" (a term unused in the resolution) if it is run exclusively by Multorians.
Besides, in the resolution, the "authority" is called "International Automobile Emissions Commission (IAEC). Were you actively trying to avoid words like "authority" in wording the resolution?
If so, every other WA member should feel threatened by this regulatory body that enforces laws and regulation upon other sovereign Nations. Yes, we´re talking semantics here!
What is the IVEA? A secretly introduced second "authority"? International Vehicle Emissions Authority?

You're shitting me right?

No, sorry. This is an easy way to let this resolution run into nothing. Actually, this is a point you must address.

Last point: We could turn all internal combustion engines into stationary generators that put electricity to a grid, that provides electricity to electric cars. We could ban internal combustion from the street completely in compliance with this resoltion without to reduce a single mg of CO2.
There are just too many holes in this resolution to justify the introduction of yet another "authority". There are way too many ways to circumvent it easily and there´s no definition of the target of this resolution.