"And now, in the best traditions of this institution..."
The Ambassador puts on his GESTAPO-issued Grammar Nazi uniform and waves around his ping-pong paddle.
Noting that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but
"Boilerplate.
Disappointed that GAR #236 mislead member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" when it has proven quite harmful to industry and the general economic health of member nations;
"Misled, not mislead. Common mistake because it
sounds correct, but 'led' is the perfect tense of 'to lead'; 'lead' is just a base metal. Proved, not proven. It's an active verb, not a passive. 'Quite harmful' is a weird phrase in a formal legal document. Are biological weapons 'quite murderous'? Are diplomats 'quite deserving of protection'? Or do you think, perhaps, we can do without that particular qualifier? I'm also not sure I buy your argument here: much of it is based on the idea that REI is bad law, but not necessarily economically disastrous. More just administrative bullcrap. I'm fine including this line, but I wouldn't give it such prominence.
Recalling that GAR #236 defines a "renewable energy installation" as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment;
Concerned that this definition is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;
"I personally hate underlining formatting in online documents (and this will be hosted on the
WA's online site. It's an anachronism of the pre-hyperlink age. For emphasis, italicise. Also not sure you want to separate off these lines; I would make them all part of one clause.
Aware that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance;"
"Again, this is purely stylistic, but some of your verbs sound so...vapid. 'Aware'? Yes, so is anyone who's even glanced at the document. I would 'recall' here, or be 'concerned'. REIs should not need extraneous punctuation. Also, you abbreviate here, but elsewhere spell out in full. Ideally, they should be spelled out in full at the first mention, and abbreviated thereafter: but whatever,
be consistent.
Concerned that Clause (i) does not require member nations to consider placing renewable energy installations in areas where they would have the greatest capacity to produce energy and/or where they would be most easily built, accessed, and maintained;
"'Does not require' is not a strong argument. It makes it sound like you're angling for a replacement that does require. I think this would be better phrased along the lines of: 'does not allow member nations to survey for optimal locations for REIs based on ease of construction, access, and maintenance, but rather imposes...' or words to that effect. I would also suggest blending this clause into the previous, as per my earlier suggestion.
Cognizant that the author of GAR #236 has agreed that the text of GAR #236 does not allow for renewable energy installations to be built in areas where they would function to their best capacity;
"The next time I see someone be cognizant of something I am going to murder them. But, that's not a reasonable objection. What is a reasonable objection is that this clause is not clearly differentiated from the former one. As such its impact isn't very forceful: it reads almost like a new thought rather than a logical consequence of the foregoing."
Aware that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"
As the Ambassador reads the word 'aware', he twitches violently.
Regretful that the unreasonably strict definition of "renewable energy installation" makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an "economically viable position" to actually build said renewable energy installations - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;
"I really like 'unreasonably strict': that's an excellent phrase. If anything, I wish it had greater prominence in the document. Maybe this could be moved up? In fact, given your whole document is about REIs, making this one of the first clauses would make sense, as it's critiquing the very definition. I would lose the mock quotes, though, around 'economically viable position': it sounds a little bitchy. I'm also concerned that this clause undercuts your contentions elsewhere that nations will be 'forced' to build REIs in undesirable locations.
Troubled by Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where renewable energy facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance and build renewable energy facilities on those sites, even if:
- The site is of religious or cultural significance,
- There is already something of great value built on the site,
- The nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
- Building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
- The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;
"I agree with you, but I would just use 'cultural' rather than 'religious or cultural'."
Unfortunately, the Ambassador is caught in a coughing fit, and unable to expand on this point.
(OOC: But I will. NS is like, insanely atheist. Because most of its users are angsty teenagers. I was, when I started playing - and I was every bit as obnoxiously anti-religious as them. I would avoid explicit mentions of religious significance unless absolutely necessary.)
The Ambassador takes a sip of water, and resumes.
"'Any more' should be two words, not one, and seems to me like a much stronger argument than the others, deserving the top spot in your list. I really like the last point as well, but maybe an example would help?
Noting that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens;
"House of Cards rules don't really matter in repeals, so you could maybe mention existing obligations under WA law here. Otherwise I agree.
"All in all, a strong repeal argument. I would also consider mentioning the lack of attention paid to the basic principle of decentralisation of energy, the lack of economic support for developing economies through a funding mechanism, and the mixing of goals - I believe in laws to keep down prices, fight monopolies, and support renewable energy, but not all at once.
"We look forward to seeing this proposal progress."
~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer