[PASSED] Reducing Automobile Emissions

[Riasy]

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.

Ambassador Chombers, you have misinterpreted your own proposal. Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards, but they will not be obliged to enforce or even actively encourage the implementation of these standards by industry. And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

At least the repealed GAR #239 “Vehicle Emissions Convention” demanded from member-states to "take all practical and effective measures”, what, in our understanding, was a less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And that act was repealed for the very reason you described.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.

Your proposal is even more vague than the GAR #239.

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.

If this act would have been different the discussion also would have been different. This act is not the way to reduce the emission level of automotive transport, but a simple blocker.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Republic of Greater America]

No. Industry must be protected, and besides, without an economy, no nation can survive.

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

---

To whom it is of concern:

After debate on this proposal, I do hereby commend the effort but suggest a few changes. Firstly, your term for vehicle, although very encompassing has one drawback. What do we do about industrial vehicles, such as mining vehicles, emergency response vehicles, which will have no way to reduce their emissions? What also should we do with military vehicles, where environmental impact is usually not a priority, and is not realistic to implement?

Regards,

Secretary Grozonyo Dimirenzovsky
Undersecretary to Industrial Development
Federal Republic of Autonomous Unified Territories

[Abacathea]

(Image)

---

To whom it is of concern:

After debate on this proposal, I do hereby commend the effort but suggest a few changes. Firstly, your term for vehicle, although very encompassing has one drawback. What do we do about industrial vehicles, such as mining vehicles, emergency response vehicles, which will have no way to reduce their emissions? What also should we do with military vehicles, where environmental impact is usually not a priority, and is not realistic to implement?

Regards,

Secretary Grozonyo Dimirenzovsky
Undersecretary to Industrial Development
Federal Republic of Autonomous Unified Territories

Dearest Secretary,

On this particular question, which has come up a few times, we continue to argue that the term mechanically propelled vehicle is quite encompassing of all vehicles which utilise an engine to power it. This is at least the definition for police almost world wide when deciding what is and isn't covered under road traffic legislation.

In response to your question, there is no vehicle which has "no way to reduce it's emissions" unless they are already at the lowest possible output at the time in question based on the technology available to that nation at that time or have just been pushed to the very base level possible. I have stated more often than once, that military vehicles and even emergency response vehicles should still strive to be emission conscious. As a RL example, I happen to know that the An Garda Siochana fleet (the irish police) currently have for their vehicles among the lowest emission outputs there is, but still have massive pulling power. Whether or not they are the most eco fleet on the RL planet, I do not know, but they are certainly using powerful low emitting engines.

Tanks, and large convey vehicles even now are working on fuel economy engines with large output and low intake requirements, where miles to the gallon is becoming higher with lower costs and negatives.

Yours,

Mr Jon Chombers,

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

Mr. Chambers:

Thank you in advance for your timely response on this matter. I agree with you when you say that most vehicles can be improved in terms of efficiency, however do you have any metrics set regarding this? As the Federal Republic has such an outstanding auto manufacturing industry I have no doubts that we could improve efficiency on all vehicles, but vehicles such as large busses, and other large vehicles, a massive increase in efficiency would not be easy, and would not be cost effective at all.

When you speak of the military, especially on heavy armor, I do not believe any nation has excellent technology for fuel efficiency on these platforms. In the modern world main battle tanks such as the M1A2 SEP Abrams get such abysmal fuel efficiency, due to engines that are required to power exceptionally heavy vehicles. Although our Armed Forces is rapidly modernizing with the assistance of western technology, I truly believe we cannot improve many of our vehicles beyond a small amount, as the technology is just not there yet.

My Regards,

Secretary Grozonyo Dimirenzovsky,
Undersecretary to Industrial Devleopment
Federal Republic of Autonomous Unified Territories

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

Our misgivings about the use of words like "incentivize" notwithstanding, we shall be voting "aye" with the consensus of our region.

[Abacathea]

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

Our misgivings about the use of words like "incentivize" notwithstanding, we shall be voting "aye" with the consensus of our region.

We appreciate your vote dear Delegate. Although we still personally don't feel the term is out of place. But alas, one individuals syntax is another's semantics no?

please accept this box of kittens.

[Gruulonic-Simica]

I have myself only recently stepped onto the international scene as the Leader of a minnow-like nation, but I would like to make my own comment if at all possible.

Some seem to have put forth the idea that reducing automobile emissions by meas of government control can drastically effect the economy. Now, while I agree that is possible, it isn't very likely. In fact, forcing automobile emissions to be reduced can stimulate economies in a number of ways. New jobs are introduced for automobile emission inspectors, factories and auto shops are given new tasks, consumers take one more factor into the purchase of their vehicles. Making the national air healthier can only be a benefit, and reducing automobile emissions does not necessarily mean destroying the automobile industry altogether. Rather, it makes the automobile industry more competitive, for those who can live up to the emission standards, profits will skyrocket over time.

[Retired WerePenguins]

((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.))

OOC: But the other problem is the in game restriction to the size of a resolution. As a result, the "Reasonable Nation" assumption has to be the assumed. In addition we also have to assume mandatory enforcement. It's more than just a stat wank problem; it's a problem due to the limitation of resolution size. Resolutions have to be both "fuzzy" (in order to account for all the insane role play we do here ... I mean, seriously, I play people who turn into penguins and I'm generally speaking not extreme compared to others) and require the reasonable nation assumption in order to both fit the text limitations and to have any chance of passage. When you start breaking either one of these curtains you wind up getting into places few people want to go.

[Sanctaria]

((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.))

OOC: But the other problem is the in game restriction to the size of a resolution. As a result, the "Reasonable Nation" assumption has to be the assumed. In addition we also have to assume mandatory enforcement. It's more than just a stat wank problem; it's a problem due to the limitation of resolution size. Resolutions have to be both "fuzzy" (in order to account for all the insane role play we do here ... I mean, seriously, I play people who turn into penguins and I'm generally speaking not extreme compared to others) and require the reasonable nation assumption in order to both fit the text limitations and to have any chance of passage. When you start breaking either one of these curtains you wind up getting into places few people want to go.

((OOC: As my post said, even under RNT it can be assumed some nations will find it economically non-viable, especially as economics is totally subjective depending on who interprets it and isn't as clean cut as other resolutions which try and enforce an ethical or moral standard under which RNT and good faith can be more appropriately applied.

My post was actually continuing the assumption of both RNT and good faith, as it said. I take it into account whenever I read a proposed resolution, and even when I write resolutions it's something one must rely on. That hasn't changed in my application of it here, it's just that the wording itself is flawed, and that's something neither good faith nor RNT can fix.

I'm actually pretty confident that the author could have written someone much more appropriate within the text limit, and sufficiently "fuzzy" enough, to use your wording.

EDIT: I notice the author still had around 1000 characters left to play around with, so I'm not sure why you have concerns surrounding the text limit.))

[Dictatorship Of Serdaristan]

Emissions requirements are flawed.
The US EPA for example has banned the sale of some extremely fuel efficient cars because they emit higher PPM's of contaminants, while at the same time using much less fuel.
Say a vehicle is offered for sale in both Europe and the US, the Eurospec version will be much more fuel efficient.
US vehicles often suffer from awful fuel efficiency due to ridiculous EPA requirements.

I think this should be considered before passing any resolutions.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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.

Honoured Ambassador, when you write a proposal, if your proposal contains ambiguous wording is it common, even if your proposal is passed by an overwhelming margin, for the repeal to also be passed by an overwhelming margin. This is because most nations accept in good faith that the drafting process has produced a watertight resolution, and if they are shown that it hasn't, they get rid of the offending proposal.

[Riasy]

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.

Ambassador Chombers, you have misinterpreted your own proposal. Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards, but they will not be obliged to enforce or even actively encourage the implementation of these standards by industry. And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

Ambassador Chombers, I’m still waiting for your response.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Abacathea]

Ambassador Chombers, you have misinterpreted your own proposal. Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards, but they will not be obliged to enforce or even actively encourage the implementation of these standards by industry. And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

Dear delegate,

It seems almost laughable that you feel i would misinterpret my own work, but I'll humor you none the less.

(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;

I quote this particular passage to counter something you yourself state

Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards

This is incorrect, the IAEC will esablishted recommended emissions standards, not governance. Governments will be required to submit data to the IAEC for the IAEC's feedback. Data which will subsequently be fed back to the WA body itself.

And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

This is only a half truth, governments will still have to inform the IAEC of the fact that it's currently financially viable or not as the case may be to introduce any practices or proceedures, but this would still need to be a valid and true statement, it's unlikely the IAEC will accept a simple "sorry, can't pay the rent this month" at face value. Would you?

You are correct though that it has no authority to do anything about this, but that was by design. As I've stated prior, the act was determined to be the least invasive while still accomplishing it's goal on a grander scale, nations who would use this "economic viability" waiver as an excuse not to comply when it's clear thats not the case, are nations that would otherwise have not complied with the bill anyway. For the most part, the good faith obligation on nations to comply will win out in the end. Of this I have no question.

Yours,

Ambassador Jon Chombers.

[Riasy]

Ambassador Chombers, you have misinterpreted your own proposal. Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards, but they will not be obliged to enforce or even actively encourage the implementation of these standards by industry. And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

Dear delegate,

It seems almost laughable that you feel i would misinterpret my own work, but I'll humor you none the less.

(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;

I quote this particular passage to counter something you yourself state

Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards

This is incorrect, the IAEC will esablishted recommended emissions standards, not governance. Governments will be required to submit data to the IAEC for the IAEC's feedback. Data which will subsequently be fed back to the WA body itself.

How this is different from what I have said?

And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.

This is only a half truth, governments will still have to inform the IAEC of the fact that it's currently financially viable or not as the case may be to introduce any practices or proceedures, but this would still need to be a valid and true statement, it's unlikely the IAEC will accept a simple "sorry, can't pay the rent this month" at face value. Would you?

No, you are not correct about that. Governments are only obliged to inform IAEC about the measures that they actually implement. They have no obligation to inform about their reasons to not implement some measures. If some government will consider some measures to be “economically unviable” it will have no reasons to report its decision to IAEC. Please read the text of your own resolution.

You are correct though that it has no authority to do anything about this, but that was by design. As I've stated prior, the act was determined to be the least invasive while still accomplishing it's goal on a grander scale, nations who would use this "economic viability" waiver as an excuse not to comply when it's clear thats not the case, are nations that would otherwise have not complied with the bill anyway. For the most part, the good faith obligation on nations to comply will win out in the end. Of this I have no question.

Yours,

Ambassador Jon Chombers.

If resolution had actually obliged governments to enforce standards established by IAEC then for governments it would have been impossible to not comply with the resolution without breaking the law. You have left a gigantic loophole in the text of resolution.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Abacathea]

No, you are not correct about that. Governments are only obliged to inform IAEC about the measures that they actually implement. They have no obligation to inform about their reasons to not implement some measures. If some government will consider some measures to be “economically unviable” it will have no reasons to report its decision to IAEC. Please read the text of your own resolution.

-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;

I've highlighted the particular section involved because you seem to be flat out missing it.

How can the IAEC, go back to the WA and say, they are not doing it because it's not economically viable, without some verification of that fact.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining here, you're exaggerating your argument, or blindsiding yourself to what i'm trying to tell you in order to get a point across that is moot.

If nations wished not to comply, they wouldn't be obliged to no matter what the resolution, there are nations out there who still ignore "on abortion" for example, so why would this be any different.

I appreciate your debate on this matter, and thank you for your time, but we're going to have to agree to disagree here, I wish you best with your repeal attempt when it should surface.

Yours,

[Araraukar]

No. Industry must be protected, and besides, without an economy, no nation can survive.

This reads as the most confused comment on the thread so far. The only industry affected is the automobile one, and if your whole nation has nothing else that produces money, then it'd be in your very best interests to apply the requested changes, so that you can market your cars as being "green".

[United Federation of Canada]

Reducing Automobile Emissions was passed 8,365 votes to 2,390.

HUZZAH!!

[Riasy]

No, you are not correct about that. Governments are only obliged to inform IAEC about the measures that they actually implement. They have no obligation to inform about their reasons to not implement some measures. If some government will consider some measures to be “economically unviable” it will have no reasons to report its decision to IAEC. Please read the text of your own resolution.

-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;

I've highlighted the particular section involved because you seem to be flat out missing it.

How can the IAEC, go back to the WA and say, they are not doing it because it's not economically viable, without some verification of that fact.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining here, you're exaggerating your argument, or blindsiding yourself to what i'm trying to tell you in order to get a point across that is moot.

If nations wished not to comply, they wouldn't be obliged to no matter what the resolution, there are nations out there who still ignore "on abortion" for example, so why would this be any different.

I appreciate your debate on this matter, and thank you for your time, but we're going to have to agree to disagree here, I wish you best with your repeal attempt when it should surface.

Yours,

The highlighted part not says that governments are obliged to explain why they are not progressing enough, but only says that they should report the actual progress they plan to have. They are not obliged to provide any explanations for their actions, but only to describe them. You are misinterpreting your own text.

The problem with loopholes is that they allow nations to not comply with resolutions without actually breaking any laws. Unfortunately I’m not qualified enough to write repeal for this blocker resolution, but if someone will write such repeal I will definitely vote for it.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Normlpeople]

We applaud the ambassador and congratulate him for not only passing the proposal but not throwing arbitrary targets around within it. That said, we voted against it because, compared to pollution from industry, especially in non WA nations, vehicles do not emit enough pollutants for us to even consider it an issue.

We will, of course, implement it.

[Bears Armed]

If you don't like it; move to the Antarctic.

"There?!?"