[PASSED] Reducing Automobile Emissions

[Retired WerePenguins]

...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."

And yet it does no such thing. In large quantities it can cause problems, but everything in large quantities causes problems. Water is generally double plus good, but when a flood hits your area, it causes problems. The resolution is so worded as to either assume that everything is an emission because in large quantities everything causes harm or that only a limited set of emissions are considered. Now these limited sets of emissions actually do cause harm to people and the environment ... DIRECTLY. Eliminating them is a good thing.

[Retired WerePenguins]

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.

Absolute and total nonsense. Let's look at the real numbers! Of all man made CO2 emissions ...
43.9% - Electricity Generation and Heating
18.2% - Manufacturing and Construction
15.9% - Road transport - Cars Trucks and Busses

SOURCE

Globally, road transport is responsible for about 16% of man-made CO2 emissions. It is a common misconception that global warming is mainly caused by cars and trucks. It is important to understand that there are other, larger, contributors and ALL sources of CO2 emission must be addressed if the problem is to be solved.

If you want to solve the CO2 problem, write a resolution on electricity generation, heating, manufacturing and construction.

If you want to solve sick and dying people in most nation's inner cities, then try not to hijack this resolution with cow manure.

[Abacathea]

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.

Absolute and total nonsense. Let's look at the real numbers! Of all man made CO2 emissions ...
43.9% - Electricity Generation and Heating
18.2% - Manufacturing and Construction
15.9% - Road transport - Cars Trucks and Busses

SOURCE

Globally, road transport is responsible for about 16% of man-made CO2 emissions. It is a common misconception that global warming is mainly caused by cars and trucks. It is important to understand that there are other, larger, contributors and ALL sources of CO2 emission must be addressed if the problem is to be solved.

If you want to solve the CO2 problem, write a resolution on electricity generation, heating, manufacturing and construction.

If you want to solve sick and dying people in most nation's inner cities, then try not to hijack this resolution with cow manure.

There's definitely a significant quantity of bulltwottle alright but I suspect you're mistaking its source.

You've quoted an rl source to deal with an ns population ratio. Really.

The act is fine. It does what it's intended to do, it reduces emissions from vehicles and ergo to some degree atmospheric pollutants. It establishes a body to recommend how and to what levels. The why is clearly a point of contention for your delegacy but at this stage that's become irrelevant. Your no vote has been noted.

We thank your delegacy for its time and debate.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Let's continue this math, for a moment. My data indicates that we have a man made emission of roughly 30 billion metric tonnes. So 15% of that is roughly 4.5 billion metric tonnes. Human breathing contributes roughly 3 billion metric tonnes. If this (reducing automobile CO2 emissions) is so critical then why isn't the elimination of all sentient life forms on the planet equally as critical? Well?

For the good of the planet, my nuclear arsenal is standing by.

[Retired WerePenguins]

You've quoted an rl source to deal with an ns population ratio. Really.

OOC: And you are trying to god mod a problem out of thin air. I'm trying to compare apples to apples. I'm sure that if we had enough time and resources we could determine how many nations have selected the non fossil fuel burning options on their daily issues and how many nations have actually banned cars from the roads in the first place and do all the complex math to actually come up with NS numbers, given the complexity of the multiverse in general and how some people don't want to kink daily issues or NS nation stats to the way they role play their nation.

Or we can use use the RW as an example. I prefer the later.

[Abacathea]

You've quoted an rl source to deal with an ns population ratio. Really.

OOC: And you are trying to god mod a problem out of thin air. I'm trying to compare apples to apples. I'm sure that if we had enough time and resources we could determine how many nations have selected the non fossil fuel burning options on their daily issues and how many nations have actually banned cars from the roads in the first place and do all the complex math to actually come up with NS numbers, given the complexity of the multiverse in general and how some people don't want to kink daily issues or NS nation stats to the way they role play their nation.

Or we can use use the RW as an example. I prefer the later.

OOC: I'm not entirely sure why you appear to be taking this so personally, you clearly don't share my view that vehicular emissions are a considerable pollutant. Not saying they're the biggest, but my plan was actually to tackle the relevant issues across a period of time rather than than attempt to do a massive undertaking of sweeping and potentially "one size fits all" proposal. We obviously disagree in ooc terms regarding the proposal, and thats allowed, and I apologise if I've somehow gotten your goat up outside of IC, however,

IC: Dear delegate, would you mind looking at the frenequesta quote in your sig?

We look forward to seeing you in the strangers bar Mr Blonde, we'll buy you a drink, stirred not shaken.

[Retired WerePenguins]

OOC: I'm not entirely sure why you appear to be taking this so personally, you clearly don't share my view that vehicular emissions are a considerable pollutant.

Quite the opposite, although apparently no one seems to care abut real pollutants. Let's look at some of the more common ones.

Mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. It may also aggravate existing heart disease.

When oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight, ground level ozone is formed, a primary ingredient in smog.

Ozone is beneficial in the upper atmosphere, but at ground level ozone irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.

Chronic (long-term) exposure to benzene (C6H6) damages bone marrow. It can also cause excessive bleeding and depress the immune system, increasing the chance of infection. Benzene causes leukemia and is associated with other blood cancers and pre-cancers of the blood.

The health effects of inhaling airborne particulate matter have been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. Because of the size of the particles, they can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs.

These are serious pollutants that cause serious problems to people and the environment. Ozone can cause significant crop damage. And you want to crap this important topic by bringing up CO2? You might as well tell everyone to stop breathing, as opposed to stop polluting. Perhaps that is why I am worked up; there really is a real issue here. I think the sick and dying people are a little more important than the ones who don't like the weather a few degrees hotter and the oceans a few feet higher. If you don't like it; move to the Antarctic.

Personally, if I was a delegate to a feeder region where my votes are actually important, I would probably vote for this resolution. But I'm not and the general regional consensus is "it's disgusting."

So I'll be happy to see this pass. I just get annoyed when someone shouts, "Another victory against global warming!" Be thankful most of the people don't visit the forums; otherwise this would be crashing and burning!

[Abacathea]

OOC: I'm not entirely sure why you appear to be taking this so personally, you clearly don't share my view that vehicular emissions are a considerable pollutant.

Quite the opposite, although apparently no one seems to care abut real pollutants. Let's look at some of the more common ones.

Mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. It may also aggravate existing heart disease.

When oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight, ground level ozone is formed, a primary ingredient in smog.

Ozone is beneficial in the upper atmosphere, but at ground level ozone irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.

Chronic (long-term) exposure to benzene (C6H6) damages bone marrow. It can also cause excessive bleeding and depress the immune system, increasing the chance of infection. Benzene causes leukemia and is associated with other blood cancers and pre-cancers of the blood.

The health effects of inhaling airborne particulate matter have been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. Because of the size of the particles, they can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs.

These are serious pollutants that cause serious problems to people and the environment. Ozone can cause significant crop damage. And you want to crap this important topic by bringing up CO2? You might as well tell everyone to stop breathing, as opposed to stop polluting. Perhaps that is why I am worked up; there really is a real issue here. I think the sick and dying people are a little more important than the ones who don't like the weather a few degrees hotter and the oceans a few feet higher. If you don't like it; move to the Antarctic.

Personally, if I was a delegate to a feeder region where my votes are actually important, I would probably vote for this resolution. But I'm not and the general regional consensus is "it's disgusting."

So I'll be happy to see this pass. I just get annoyed when someone shouts, "Another victory against global warming!" Be thankful most of the people don't visit the forums; otherwise this would be crashing and burning!

Minus the "disgusting" remark, I share your concerns on a lot of what you raised, but as I said, I'd rather work through several proposals that as a whole deal with the issues raised than one that mightn't do it effectively at all. Overall, I genuinely do actually thank you for your feedback, does seem we may have been on the same page to a degree after all, although I shouldn't have in my stupor pushed the co2 button, it was 8 am, and i grabbed the first straw i could, and then throughout the day defended it rather than expanded.

[Lillitania]

Opposed. Strongly opposed.

Why must the World Assembly micromanage? I say without a doubt that Lillitania will not abide by this resolution.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

[Araraukar]

Of all man made CO2 emissions ...
43.9% - Electricity Generation and Heating
18.2% - Manufacturing and Construction
15.9% - Road transport - Cars Trucks and Busses

So make proposals to cover the other ones, rather than complaining that this one doesn't make the mistake of trying to get everything done at once. Have you even visited the archive of the "silly and illegal proposals"? It's full of overreaching fantasy acts. Taking one segment at a time is a much better approach to anything as diverse and annoying as the multiple nations and dimensions that make up the World Assembly and bits attached to thereof.

Why must the World Assembly micromanage?

Because people will say "oh, you didn't define what an automobile is, now I can make up my own definitions and ignore this resolution entirely". And because there's a fine line between micromanagement and trying to be precise. This one is nowhere near as micromanagey than the one about toothpaste...

[Sanctaria]

I believe a question similar to this has been asked already, but I don't recall the esteemed author responding to it. I'd like to bring it up again, just for clarification more than anything else, as I'm sure the Ambassador has a perfectly adequate response already lined up.

If I may call Ambassadors attention to the following:

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

And so, my question to the author. If a nation decided that any reduction in automobile emissions was economically non-viable, that would be perfectly legal, yes? By that I mean, who decides what is and isn't an economically viable measure. I trust that there should be some measure of self-policing on this, and I would agree with that to a large extent, but surely any nation would be able to bypass this mandate by simply stating that any action that brought about a reduction in automobile emissions would be harmful to their economy, thereby falling under the protection of the "economically viable measures" portion of that clause.

While I totally endorse the principle in play here, I'm not sure that this clause is helpful, and will probably be a hindrance in the execution of this resolution. Any nation that has incredibly high levels of gaseous emissions from their automobile, and care little about reducing it, can simply state to do so would be economically non-viable, allowing it to bypass the most important aspect of this resolution, effectively rendering it useless.

Until the author can allay my fears, which I'm sure is likely, my vote against this piece of legislation will have to remain in place. The principle is sound, yes, but the legislation is flawed, and I cannot support flawed legislation.

[Retired WerePenguins]

What I am saying, Araraukar, is that there are a number of real emissions of automobiles that actually harm the environment directly and hurt/kill people directly. This resolution appears to do just that.

If, however, you are attempting a stealth back door global warming solution; not only is it hard to prove that the resolution demands that CO2 be included, but the complete elimination of all automobiles would only give you a 16% reduction in the problem. From a practical standpoint, reducing emissions won't get you squat. (It will have a major impact on the other gasses, however.) If you really want to have a solid CO2 impact, write a resolution on power generation, not automobile emissions. This resolution won't in its wildest dream, assuming that it actually does that, do anything significant.

It's sort of like going to a chain smoker and trying to convince him that going into a bingo parlor is bad (you know all that second hand smoke). Not going to help any.

As for me, I have no intent on writing such a resolution, nor do I have the desire. That's a good thing, folks, because I don't think you would like my solution. My solution would be a substitution resolution; one that replaces the CO2 emission generators with generators that emit no CO2 whatsoever. My solution would be that of the Iron Lady's. My solution would promote the hell out of nuclear power.

Do you want my solution? I didn't think so.

[Abacathea]

I believe a question similar to this has been asked already, but I don't recall the esteemed author responding to it. I'd like to bring it up again, just for clarification more than anything else, as I'm sure the Ambassador has a perfectly adequate response already lined up.

If I may call Ambassadors attention to the following:

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

And so, my question to the author. If a nation decided that any reduction in automobile emissions was economically non-viable, that would be perfectly legal, yes? By that I mean, who decides what is and isn't an economically viable measure. I trust that there should be some measure of self-policing on this, and I would agree with that to a large extent, but surely any nation would be able to bypass this mandate by simply stating that any action that brought about a reduction in automobile emissions would be harmful to their economy, thereby falling under the protection of the "economically viable measures" portion of that clause.

While I totally endorse the principle in play here, I'm not sure that this clause is helpful, and will probably be a hindrance in the execution of this resolution. Any nation that has incredibly high levels of gaseous emissions from their automobile, and care little about reducing it, can simply state to do so would be economically non-viable, allowing it to bypass the most important aspect of this resolution, effectively rendering it useless.

Until the author can allay my fears, which I'm sure is likely, my vote against this piece of legislation will have to remain in place. The principle is sound, yes, but the legislation is flawed, and I cannot support flawed legislation.

Apologies, this question had been asked and I can't recall myself whether I answered it or not. In any case, you are correct that any "small reduction" as it were would essentially be complying with the act. And while any reduction is good, we had the same concerns. This ultimately is what led to the newest layer of WA gnomery soon to come into effect. It'll be it'd job to compile information and national data and make recommendations and implement strategies with nations.

Our goal was something that wouldn't put pressure on developing nations nor make those already on target for lowest possible emissions bound to this act. Essentially to be as practical but non invasive as possible.

[Sanctaria]

Apologies, this question had been asked and I can't recall myself whether I answered it or not. In any case, you are correct that any "small reduction" as it were would essentially be complying with the act. And while any reduction is good, we had the same concerns. This ultimately is what led to the newest layer of WA gnomery soon to come into effect. It'll be it'd job to compile information and national data and make recommendations and implement strategies with nations.

Our goal was something that wouldn't put pressure on developing nations nor make those already on target for lowest possible emissions bound to this act. Essentially to be as practical but non invasive as possible.

I'm sorry, Ambassador, perhaps I was unclear, as you seem to have misunderstood me.

Your proposal mandates any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions. My question is if a nation decides that any reduction would be economically non-viable, they would still be in compliance with this legislation, no?

To put it another way, your proposal only mandates that nations take measures they decide are economically viable. If a nation decides no measure is economically viable, then no reduction is made in automobile emissions, and yet they remain in compliance with this legislation. My fear is that the very nations you are targeting might exploit this apparent loophole, and the resolution is rendered ineffective.

Is this an incorrect reading of the resolution, Ambassador?

[Abacathea]

Ah my apologies dear ambassador, I am indeed with you now. This was something that was indeed considered, but we balanced using a few considerstions. Initially there is the "good faith compliance" that is expected from nations with legislation. There is also the proviso that nations are encouraged to share practices with one another for reductions. Which should make it more cost effective to nations struggling to make significant progress. And of course the committee oversight to whit nations would be expected to explain and justify the aforementioned non compliance.

Outside of that, there wasn't much more we could do that wouldn't have caused issues of some sort to arise in terms of being too invasive or not. We accepted ultimately that some nations would attempt non compliance, especially with what you've pointed out but this is usually the case in acts nations disfavour anyway and the greater good would prevail.

I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy entirely to acquire a yes vote, but we of course will remain understanding as to why and certainly diplomacy between our nations will prevail dear Sanctaria

[Sanctaria]

The principle of "good faith", and indeed "reasonable nations" although you didn't mention it, is all very well and good, and while I'd agree that under those theories compliance should be expected, I would be hesitant to put my full trust in them, simply because the crux of the matter involves economics.

I'm sure we've all heard the saying that it's impossible to get economists to agree on anything, and the term "economically viable measures" is very subjective and vague, to be truthful, so it is entirely conceivable that we would find a reasonable nation applying the resolution under good faith (thereby fulfilling RNT and good faith) saying "well, any measure we take would unfortunately be economically non-viable". It's also not outside the realm of possibility for these nations to have rather high levels of gaseous emissions.

I admit that in most cases we should see a drop in levels of emissions produced, but I'm still not confident that this legislation will be entirely effective while nations are permitted to evade producing high levels of gaseous emissions simply by claiming it is economically non-viable. It's highly likely that the nations who produce most automobile emissions are the ones whose economies rely on it the most - any adverse effect on those economies could be claimed to be economically non-viable, and even that would be considered a good faith reading and enactment of the resolution. The result of which being not much difference being made in the place where it's needed most.

[Abacathea]

You raise a fair point. But also areas that legislation could be prepared for which as a package could achieve the same if not better results. So far the REI and now RAE have opened the door for something to come in and tidy this all up and you have given me an idea for something to compliment it all neatly. Watch this space I suppose dear ambassador.

[Sanctaria]

You raise a fair point. But also areas that legislation could be prepared for which as a package could achieve the same if not better results. So far the REI and now RAE have opened the door for something to come in and tidy this all up and you have given me an idea for something to compliment it all neatly. Watch this space I suppose dear ambassador.

Hopefully you can now understand my hesitation to support this particular resolution, but if you can produce something that does allay my concerns, providing there is nothing else objectionable, something like that should attract my, and my nation's, support.

As for this particular resolution, however, I'm afraid I will have to stick with my against vote. I thank the Ambassador for the discussions, it's refreshing to return to the Assembly after a brief hiatus and see its members to be as cordial as ever. Then again, it was usually I who was the brusque and unpleasant one.

Anyway, yes, apologies but I am opposed.

[Abacathea]

You raise a fair point. But also areas that legislation could be prepared for which as a package could achieve the same if not better results. So far the REI and now RAE have opened the door for something to come in and tidy this all up and you have given me an idea for something to compliment it all neatly. Watch this space I suppose dear ambassador.

Hopefully you can now understand my hesitation to support this particular resolution, but if you can produce something that does allay my concerns, providing there is nothing else objectionable, something like that should attract my, and my nation's, support.

As for this particular resolution, however, I'm afraid I will have to stick with my against vote. I thank the Ambassador for the discussions, it's refreshing to return to the Assembly after a brief hiatus and see its members to be as cordial as ever. Then again, it was usually I who was the brusque and unpleasant one.

Anyway, yes, apologies but I am opposed.

As is your diplomatic right to be. Please accept this box of kittens and we shall inform you when the next work is being drafted. I have quite enjoyed the discussion and look forward to your future input with me on the floor. Enjoy the kittens!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I'm sure we've all heard the saying that it's impossible to get economists to agree on anything, and the term "economically viable measures" is very subjective and vague, to be truthful, so it is entirely conceivable that we would find a reasonable nation applying the resolution under good faith (thereby fulfilling RNT and good faith) saying "well, any measure we take would unfortunately be economically non-viable".

We did mention this (also less clearly and explicitly than yourselves):

(i) Requires all member nations to take any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions;

Everything in this sentence hinges on the word viable. Is it viable to wreck your economy to reduce automobile emissions? Probably, although it's also utterly stupid. Either that, or it's not viable, in which case practically nothing is viable; which makes this proposal of uncertain effect. You can't give absolute wording without an absolute result.

The question we would like to ask is whether this proposal should be repealed (assuming it passes)?

[Abacathea]

Assuming it passes? Have you looked at the vote margin?

The reality is, during the drafting process for the original act, the one that was repealed nations didn't like the idea of a set reduction amount. Primarily because it was deemed it would hurt nations. This act has proven far more popular than its previous form an is the least invasive. I personally see no reason for a repeal and naturally would not support one. Wereas I DID support the previous effort.

[Riasy]

To put it another way, your proposal only mandates that nations take measures they decide are economically viable. If a nation decides no measure is economically viable, then no reduction is made in automobile emissions, and yet they remain in compliance with this legislation. My fear is that the very nations you are targeting might exploit this apparent loophole, and the resolution is rendered ineffective.

Initially Riasy has voted FOR this resolution because we believed that it would help to reduce the emission level of automotive transport, but the arguments of esteemed Dr. Christian Ferguson from the Divine Republic of Sanctaria has convinced us that this resolution will not help in alleviating that problem.

Environmentally responsible governments are already working on reducing the emission level of automotive transport, so this resolution will not change anything for them, and all other governments will avoid changing their policies by insisting that any changes would be “economically unviable”.

At least the repealed GAR #239 “Vehicle Emissions Convention” demanded from member-states to "take all practical and effective measures”, what, in our understanding, was a less relative criteria than demand to "take any and all economically viable measures”. At least in theory the real circumstances determine what kind of measures can be “practical and effective” for achieving some goal, but the “economic viability” of any measure is determined by the economic doctrine of the national government. It is always possible to accept economic theories according to which interference into some specific sphere of economic activity is economically unsustainable approach (and thus any such interference would be absolutely "economically unviable").

Therefore Riasy changes its vote to AGAINST.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Your proposal mandates any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions. My question is if a nation decides that any reduction would be economically non-viable, they would still be in compliance with this legislation, no?

In the ideal world, clauses 2(i) and 2(ii) probably should have been swapped and the new 2(ii) (formerly 2(i)) should be changed to "all economically viable measures, as determined by the IAEC." That would require a line in the new 2(i) (formerly 2(ii)) to define the role of economic assessment of all potential measures and I don't know how close this is to the word count limit as it is. Note that in the "Ideal world" resolutions would be so long that no one would be able to read it and "we have to pass this resolution to find out what is in it."

OOC: And, frankly, what's the point. It's not like the "military" where other than a line item in the stat system there isn't any mechanism for war. People like to pretend they are hot stuff. Do people here really like to boast that their cities are worse than the streets of Beijing where they have to wear masks because the particulate matter is so high? No matter what clever plots you have in mind, your automobile industry stats will go down in the same way and your population will continue to increase in a manner oblivious to any of your actions. Eventually you hit the wall of the resolution limit and you hit the wall of the patience of the players. It is better to have something warm and fluffy that might get people to notice "Well at least I can't be forced to do stupid reductions" than to prevent all sorts of cheaters and in so doing have people think it is too long and too complex.

[Sanctaria]

OOC: And, frankly, what's the point. It's not like the "military" where other than a line item in the stat system there isn't any mechanism for war. People like to pretend they are hot stuff. Do people here really like to boast that their cities are worse than the streets of Beijing where they have to wear masks because the particulate matter is so high? No matter what clever plots you have in mind, your automobile industry stats will go down in the same way and your population will continue to increase in a manner oblivious to any of your actions. Eventually you hit the wall of the resolution limit and you hit the wall of the patience of the players. It is better to have something warm and fluffy that might get people to notice "Well at least I can't be forced to do stupid reductions" than to prevent all sorts of cheaters and in so doing have people think it is too long and too complex.

((OOC: That's true from a stats point of view, as it would be for all resolutions passed. The actual text could be the US national anthem, but as long as it had category/effect, the result would be the same.

What the actual proposal says doesn't mean a thing when it comes to stat changes, and yet, we still have text outlining stuff to be done, because this is all IC and we're RPing. And so I'll continue RPing by pointing out flaws and irregularities in the text of proposed resolutions. The stat changes are all OOC and my IC Ambassador doesn't have a clue about them, as no IC Ambassador would.))

[Abacathea]

Initially Riasy has voted FOR this resolution because we believed that it would help to reduce the emission level of automotive transport, but the arguments of esteemed Dr. Christian Ferguson from the Divine Republic of Sanctaria has convinced us that this resolution will not help in alleviating that problem.

Dr Christian Ferguson highlighted there was the potential for more corrupt gorvernance to escape if needs be with a legitimate excuse rather than simple "we don't like this, so we're not adhering to it" which is the more standard response.

Environmentally responsible governments are already working on reducing the emission level of automotive transport, so this resolution will not change anything for them, and all other governments will avoid changing their policies by insisting that any changes would be “economically unviable”.

Are they? Thats nice, how many legitimate WA law abiding governments have prioritised environmental works do you reckon? They may not have until the passage of this act, and as pointed out to the Sanctaria delegacy, the aforementioned "viable" criteria would still have to be shown to the IVEA when it came time for the committee to collect it's data.

At least the repealed GAR #239 “Vehicle Emissions Convention” demanded from member-states to "take all practical and effective measures”, what, in our understanding, was a less relative criteria than demand to "take any and all economically viable measures”. At least in theory the real circumstances determine what kind of measures can be “practical and effective” for achieving some goal, but the “economic viability” of any measure is determined by the economic doctrine of the national government. It is always possible to accept economic theories according to which interference into some specific sphere of economic activity is economically unsustainable approach (and thus any such interference would be absolutely "economically unviable").

And that act was repealed for the very reason you described. That requirement was deemed vague, and a burden to nations who were already at the relevant tech levels and so forth.

Therefore Riasy changes its vote to AGAINST.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

Do as you need to do, but nothing has changed since the discussion that wouldnt have been present had this been any other act.