[PASSED] Ban on Leaded Fuel

[Jarish Inyo]

Having read the sources here, some have been posted more then once, I'm still not convinced of the health risk that people are saying that it is. I'm finding the evidence linking various health issues to leaded fuel emissions lacking in the sources. The health issues that are linked to leaded fuel emissions have other causes. Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned. I would not support this proposal on the bases of health.

I would support this proposal on environmental concerns. Given that the refineries producing leaded fuel are given the proper time to refit safely.

[Defwa]

If its not enough to hurt people then your nation must not be using any anyway so the impact should be non substantial if this is passed.
Just because its not a problem in your nation does not mean it isn't a problem in others. We've seen live examples in this discussion of governments willfully ignoring the health effects or putting miniscule profit or saving a little labor over the wellbeing of their population- especially their children.
Make the world better with this resolution.

Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.

You heard him, everyone. The environment is dead. Nothing we can do about it. Everybody go home.

[Jakuso]

Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.

You heard him, everyone. The environment is dead. Nothing we can do about it. Everybody go home.

I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.

[Defwa]

You heard him, everyone. The environment is dead. Nothing we can do about it. Everybody go home.

I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.

You mean something like that resolution we have already?

[Communist Victoria]

Wait a minute,
What is wrong with banning leaded fuel?
Many countries IRL have done it, pls it is cheaper to make, just add cleaners!

[Wrapper]

Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.

In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....

I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC:

What, am I on ignore or something? Or are you selectively ignoring these points?

No I'm stating my point.

No.... You are being pigheaded, and refusing to see reason, even when it is pointed out to you. It is very unbecoming of an Ambassador for a great nation....

[Jarish Inyo]

Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.

In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....

I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.

No you're not talking to a brick. You've listed a large number of illnesses that were supposedly higher when leaded fuel was used. Those illnesses are still common and in some causes higher today. According to sources given, lead was banned and out of production in the USA by 1986. So where is the other 9 years coming from?

There are other ways that lead ends up in the blood, such as lead paint. The removal of lead from paint and other common household items can also be the cause of the reduction. Lead is everywhere. It was in the soil before leaded fuel. Lead was used in a lot of common items before the car. I take that into account. One should remember that in the USA, lead based paint was still being used in the construction of buildings up to 1978.

After reading the sources provided by the fine ambassadors here and other resources, I can not agree that leaded fuel was as serious health risk as other products of the time. The CDC states that lead paint was more of a health risk the leaded fuel emissions.

[Mundiferrum]

I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.

No you're not talking to a brick. You've listed a large number of illnesses that were supposedly higher when leaded fuel was used. Those illnesses are still common and in some causes higher today. According to sources given, lead was banned and out of production in the USA by 1986. So where is the other 9 years coming from?

There are other ways that lead ends up in the blood, such as lead paint. The removal of lead from paint and other common household items can also be the cause of the reduction. Lead is everywhere. It was in the soil before leaded fuel. Lead was used in a lot of common items before the car. I take that into account. One should remember that in the USA, lead based paint was still being used in the construction of buildings up to 1978.

After reading the sources provided by the fine ambassadors here and other resources, I can not agree that leaded fuel was as serious health risk as other products of the time. The CDC states that lead paint was more of a health risk the leaded fuel emissions.

OOC: Okay, how would you define definitive evidence, then? Because it seems that multiple researches supported by the scientific consensus stating that "Lead in the body is very bad for the health, sometimes to the point of fatal injury" and "Leaded fuel is a massive transmitter of lead into the body" does not seem to be making sense to you. And I do see where you're getting at here, but lead in the soil and in paint and in tools have a much lesser effect on most organisms than lead concentrated into the air, since people can live without touching lead paint or touching tools of lead (and most areas soil have practically negligible and practically untrasmissible amounts of lead), but people cannot live without breathing air.
(And in terms of people, this generally applies to most vertebrates. I have no idea how lead affects invertebrates and plants, though I assume that it's just as harmful)

[Jarish Inyo]

For me, definitive evidence would have to be evidence of health issues caused by leaded fuel emissions that can exclude all other sources of lead contamination. Until that evidence can be provided, I'll have to consider the other common household items of the time period that contained lead as a more high risk health issue.

I do not dispute that high amounts of lead does cause health issues and death. Mankind has known this for thousands of years. Yet it is still used even today. The only thing I'm disputing is that leaded fuel emissions has caused the illnesses mentioned in this debate and if it is more of a health risk then unleaded fuel.

The CDC actually lists lead paint as the most common way a child comes in contact with lead. It states that there is more than 4 million homes with lead paint that has one or more young children living in them.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?

[Bears Armed]

Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.

Do you export any foodstuffs? If so, then they're potentially contaminated... and so some nations might refuse to allow their importation, preferring to buy from safer sources instead...

OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?

Alternatives are technically feasible at that sort of TL, yes... and if those nations haven't already done the research, and don't feel up to doing it themselves, I'm sure that somebody here would be willing to sell them the information.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?

OOC: If only Cobdenia were still aorund...

Anyway, you would have ethanol available, and other hydrocarbons can be produced. The story of how TEL came to be so widely adopted is actually comically tragic. The adoption of lead additives in the 1920s came not because of industrial necessity, but commercial convenience: so if a significant pressure existed in an alternative history 1920s (such as a WA ban and resultant effect on world commerce) there's no reason to think innovation wouldn't take a different path.

[Jakuso]

No I'm stating my point.

No.... You are being pigheaded, and refusing to see reason, even when it is pointed out to you. It is very unbecoming of an Ambassador for a great nation....

I can see the reason. You just don't notice that.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.

"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."

[Chester Pearson]

No.... You are being pigheaded, and refusing to see reason, even when it is pointed out to you. It is very unbecoming of an Ambassador for a great nation....

I can see the reason. You just don't notice that.

Where? Whare are you seeing reason?

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?

OOC: Knocking is caused by premature combustion. A change in the timing mechanism (computer, belt, etc.) can be made to correct it if its a lasting issue. That said, there are other octane boosting compounds that can be added to gasoline should they continue to require higher octane ratings.

[Jakuso]

I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.

"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."

Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.

[Sciongrad]

"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."

Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.

"You're right, this wouldn't benefit you. That is, if you don't consider significantly reducing lead induced health damage a benefit."

[Defwa]

"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."

Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.

For your viewing pleasure: A list of how it would benefit you to restrict leaded fuel use.

Even small amounts of leaded fuel use can cause negative health effects, especially in children, and can accumulate in soil in amounts far above natural negligible amounts.
If only a small population uses leaded fuels, then your fuel companies are likely spending more money on delivering, storing, and distributing the fuel than it would cost to subsidize conversion. This is because carrying another product in sufficient quantity increases fixed costs.
Modern unleaded fuel is more efficient, resulting in less fuel use overall.

Now, as stated earlier, just because something in your nation is not a problem does not mean that it should be ignored. Genocide isn't a problem in Defwa but we'd still prefer to have legislation on it. One of the main ideas behind legislating through the WA that ignore serious problems is to force them to do the right thing.

[Applebania]

Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.

In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....

I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.

Claire looks over at the seat belonging to Ambassador Nameless. To her surprise, she discovers that the Ambassador has hightailed it and left behind a brick connected to two speakers. She sighs and throws the contraption that had taken the place of Ambassador Nameless out the nearest window.

"Ambassador Alaz, you were talking to a brick. On that note, Applebania shall declare its support for this piece of legislation.

(OOC: Yes, this is an IC response to an OOC post. Deal with it.)

[Jarish Inyo]

I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.

Claire looks over at the seat belonging to Ambassador Nameless. To her surprise, she discovers that the Ambassador has hightailed it and left behind a brick connected to two speakers. She sighs and throws the contraption that had taken the place of Ambassador Nameless out the nearest window.

"Ambassador Alaz, you were talking to a brick. On that note, Applebania shall declare its support for this piece of legislation.

(OOC: Yes, this is an IC response to an OOC post. Deal with it.)

My aide may look like a brick, but he is actually a sponge. We had to let the brick go due to budget cuts.

[Jakuso]

Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.

For your viewing pleasure: A list of how it would benefit you to restrict leaded fuel use.

Even small amounts of leaded fuel use can cause negative health effects, especially in children, and can accumulate in soil in amounts far above natural negligible amounts.
If only a small population uses leaded fuels, then your fuel companies are likely spending more money on delivering, storing, and distributing the fuel than it would cost to subsidize conversion. This is because carrying another product in sufficient quantity increases fixed costs.
Modern unleaded fuel is more efficient, resulting in less fuel use overall.

Now, as stated earlier, just because something in your nation is not a problem does not mean that it should be ignored. Genocide isn't a problem in Defwa but we'd still prefer to have legislation on it. One of the main ideas behind legislating through the WA that ignore serious problems is to force them to do the right thing.

But that's our decision. The Yakusan Environmental Agency have researched the topic and have found no actionable risk. We haven't noticed any related health problems of people living in areas where there is a presence of leaded fuel use. But our opinion on this matter is very much divided back at the Yakusan Foreign Ministry. We could, if we see suitable reason, come to a different conclusion for our vote on this proposal.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Thanks for that clarification folks.

IC: The government of Bananaistan, after consultation with experts in the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, is satisfied that the provisions contained within the proposal would not be unduly onerous on less developed nations who they feel will have easily accessible alternatives to leaded fuel. Therefore, our major concern that we would be imposing unfair conditions on emerging economies which we did not suffer ourselves during our development has been nullified. We offer our full support for this proposal.

[Defwa]

For your viewing pleasure: A list of how it would benefit you to restrict leaded fuel use.

Even small amounts of leaded fuel use can cause negative health effects, especially in children, and can accumulate in soil in amounts far above natural negligible amounts.
If only a small population uses leaded fuels, then your fuel companies are likely spending more money on delivering, storing, and distributing the fuel than it would cost to subsidize conversion. This is because carrying another product in sufficient quantity increases fixed costs.
Modern unleaded fuel is more efficient, resulting in less fuel use overall.

Now, as stated earlier, just because something in your nation is not a problem does not mean that it should be ignored. Genocide isn't a problem in Defwa but we'd still prefer to have legislation on it. One of the main ideas behind legislating through the WA that ignore serious problems is to force them to do the right thing.

But that's our decision. The Yakusan Environmental Agency have researched the topic and have found no actionable risk. We haven't noticed any related health problems of people living in areas where there is a presence of leaded fuel use. But our opinion on this matter is very much divided back at the Yakusan Foreign Ministry. We could, if we see suitable reason, come to a different conclusion for our vote on this proposal.

OOC: You're still not really understanding how international legislation works internationally.
And if YEA is a credible organization with findings like that, you must exist in a universe where regular laws of science dont apply. I wash my hands of you.