NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Reducing Automobile Emissions

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:22 am

The Eternal Kawaii wrote: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?
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Aquafireland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5905
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aquafireland » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:33 am

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.
abc|xyz

“Some people say you are going the wrong way, when it’s simply a way of your own.”
-Angelina Jolie

User avatar
The Holonet
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Apr 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Holonet » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:00 am

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

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13774
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:17 am

The Holonet wrote:*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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 767
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:24 am

Abacathea wrote: 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."
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
Ex WA
NationState_
"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 767
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:27 am

The Holonet wrote: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. :twisted:

Just saying.
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
Ex WA
NationState_
"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:47 am

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."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Kian01
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jun 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Kian01 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:51 am

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.

User avatar
Dellin
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 410
Founded: Jul 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Dellin » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:33 am

Retired WerePenguins wrote:
The Holonet wrote: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. :twisted:

Just saying.


I hope you aren't being serious.
Interim WA Ambassador: Sarith Judea, Protector of Dellin

User avatar
The Holonet
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Apr 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Holonet » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:04 am

Araraukar wrote:
The Holonet wrote:*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.

User avatar
Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat
Envoy
 
Posts: 286
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:58 am

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.
Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat [DDV]
German Democratic People's State

National Anthem Auferstanden aus Ruinen | Song of the NVA Zinnsoldat
The Iron Curtain Kid A Boy's Life in the German Democratic Republic
Main Battle Tank Kampfpanzer 72 Ausf G
Questers wrote:Tank design by nation.

Russian tanks are designed to win winter.
Chinese tanks are designed by Russia.
Japanese tanks are designed to win anime.
German tanks are designed to win racecourses.
French tanks are designed to win beauty competitions.
American tanks are designed to win congress.
British tanks are designed to win battles.

User avatar
SkyDip
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1693
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby SkyDip » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:16 pm

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.

Image

Elias T. Greyjoy
World Assembly Ambassador of SkyDip, Delegate of Europeia
Last edited by SkyDip on Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Elias Thaddeus Greyjoy, WA Ambassador of SkyDip
Read my Guide to the Security Council, a comprehensive collection of history, tactics, and tips for the Security Council!


Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.

Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.

Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:59 pm

Multor wrote: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.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:00 pm

Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat wrote: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.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Cin Tracyn
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Jul 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Cin Tracyn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:54 pm

Abacathea wrote: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?

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 767
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:00 pm

Abacathea wrote: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.
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
Ex WA
NationState_
"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Dellin
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 410
Founded: Jul 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Dellin » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:05 pm

Retired WerePenguins wrote:
Abacathea wrote: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."
Interim WA Ambassador: Sarith Judea, Protector of Dellin

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:06 pm

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.

Retired WerePenguins wrote:
Abacathea wrote: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,
Last edited by Abacathea on Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Cin Tracyn
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Jul 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Cin Tracyn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:14 pm

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
Last edited by Cin Tracyn on Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:18 pm

Cin Tracyn wrote: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


;)
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Timsvill
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Jan 07, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Timsvill » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:19 pm

*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!

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1749
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:18 pm

Abacathea wrote:
The Eternal Kawaii wrote: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.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Pennswald
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 49
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pennswald » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:35 pm

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...

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2998
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:43 pm

(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.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Multor
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Mar 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Multor » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:14 pm

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.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads