[PASSED] Repeal "Reducing Automobile Emissions"

[The Dark Star Republic]

Repeal "Reducing Automobile Emissions"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #257

Argument: The World Assembly,

Vexed that WA Resolution #257, "Reducing Automobile Emissions", is not thoughtfully considered and does not show appropriate regard for the interrelated nature of human, economic and environmental factors,

Regarding the Resolution's requirement that "all member nations ... take any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions" to be crass, clunky, and about as subtle as a gynaecologist in a gas mask,

Observing that this harsh mandate takes no account:

• of whether any environmental or other gain from such reductions is balanced by their cost even if they meet the nebulous standard of being economically viable,
• of the difficulty of even determining what constitutes economic viability given the lack of context the Resolution provides,
• of measures that are technically economically viable but that violate civil rights, pose significant non-economic viability issues, or are otherwise environmentally harmful,
• of the cost-benefit analysis of offsetting higher automobile emissions with other more consequential environmental actions,
• of whether these reductions actually meet the "recommendations" the Resolution empowers the IAEC to create,
• or in fact, of anything whatsoever other than the sole monomaniacal goal of reducing automobile emissions,

Opining that the general benefits of international law to reduce automobile emissions are not sufficient to atone for these severe legislative defects:

Mandates the repeal of WA Resolution #257, "Reducing Automobile Emissions".

"Not the most enlivening topic at a dull time for the WA, we'll admit, but this is a Resolution we've long considered in need of repeal, so we present this for your consideration. Comments welcome as always."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

[Grays Harbor]

Yeah, support, since i voted against that resolution in the first place.

[Bananaistan]

There are rarely any well argued "technical" repeals which we do not support. This is, unsurprisingly, not one of them so we offer our full support. A nation could have the most environmentally sound automobile emissions regime possible yet this resolution still tells them to reduce emissions. In any case, we would also question whether it is appropriate to merely look at automobile emissions rather than all emissions.

A further point you could make is that section 2(ii) mandates the IAEC to "establish recommended automobile emissions standards based on [automobile emissions data published by member nations]" yet there is nothing in the resolution specifically enjoining member states to comply with these recommendations. The only mandate other than the first clunky inappropriate one is that a member state must IAEC reporting standards.

[Normlpeople]

and about as subtle as a gynaecologist in a gas mask,

"I support the repeal, however, such support is conditional. That sentence must remain in the repeal text!"

[Grays Harbor]

and about as subtle as a gynaecologist in a gas mask,

"I support the repeal, however, such support is conditional. That sentence must remain in the repeal text!"

Agreed. That analogy must stay.

[Separatist Peoples]

"VROOM! Nominal Support. Detailed comments to follow."

[The Dark Star Republic]

There are rarely any well argued "technical" repeals which we do not support. This is, unsurprisingly, not one of them so we offer our full support. A nation could have the most environmentally sound automobile emissions regime possible yet this resolution still tells them to reduce emissions.

"In fact, if a nation had banned cars altogether - which many nations have* - they would still have to decrease their emissions from the level of zero! There's also the fact that how much they have to decrease them isn't specified, or whether they could ramp up emissions immediately prior to joining the WA and then decrease them back to their default level, or all manner of other problems.

"However, I'm always wary of cramming too many arguments in repeals of this type: I worry the longer they are, the more voters zone out and just focus on the fluffy, feelgood title.

A further point you could make is that section 2(ii) mandates the IAEC to "establish recommended automobile emissions standards based on [automobile emissions data published by member nations]" yet there is nothing in the resolution specifically enjoining member states to comply with these recommendations. The only mandate other than the first clunky inappropriate one is that a member state must IAEC reporting standards.

"That said, that is a good observation and should be easy to dovetail into the argument. Many thanks."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

* Banning automobiles is an issue outcome in the NS game.

[Philimbesi]

The USP will gladly support this repeal.

Nigel S Youkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support. I like your proposals, DSR.

[Old Hope]

Let's see...

Repeal "Reducing Automobile Emissions"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #257

Argument: The World Assembly,

Vexed that WA Resolution #257, "Reducing Automobile Emissions", is not thoughtfully considered and does not show appropriate regard for the interrelated nature of human, economic and environmental factors,

Needs to be backed up.

Regarding the Resolution's requirement that "all member nations ... take any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions" to be crass, clunky, and about as subtle as [...],

Inappropiate.

Observing that this harsh mandate takes no account:

• of whether or not such reductions in emissions provide any environmental benefit,
  

You looked at the definition of emission?

of measures that while reducing automobile emissions are actually environmentally harmful,

of whether these reductions meet the "recommendations" the Resolution empowers the IAEC to create,

What is your problem?

of measures that are technically economically viable but which violate civil rights,

of the cost-benefit analysis of offsetting higher automobile emissions with other more consequential environmental actions,

or in fact, of anything whatsoever other than the sole monomaniacal goal of reducing automobile emissions,

Could you give some examples where the rest of these arguments applies?

Opining that the general benefits of international law to reduce automobile emissions are not sufficient to atone for these severe legislative defects:

Mandates the repeal of WA Resolution #257, "Reducing Automobile Emissions".

"Not the most enlivening topic at a dull time for the WA, we'll admit, but this is a Resolution we've long considered in need of repeal, so we present this for your consideration. Comments welcome as always."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

[Separatist Peoples]

Let's see...

[box]

Repeal "Reducing Automobile Emissions"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #257

Argument: The World Assembly,

Vexed that WA Resolution #257, "Reducing Automobile Emissions", is not thoughtfully considered and does not show appropriate regard for the interrelated nature of human, economic and environmental factors,

Needs to be backed up.

Needs further explanation, also inappropiate example.You looked at the definition of emission?What is your problem?Could you give some examples where the rest of these arguments applies?

"I hope the Dark Star delegation doesn't bend to the stuffy standards of the Old Hope delegation and keeps the gynecologist reference. Their humor is regrettably lacking, after all." Bell says, suddenly and inexplicably naked.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We've reordered and reworded some of the arguments a little, but the repeal remains substantially the same."

~ Dr. Van Ploppington

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We've submitted this."

~ Dr. Van Ploppington

[Equestria and Griffon]

Let's see how this turns out!

[The Arkam Asylum]

As the wa delegate of the great region of altimear you have my full support

[Pennswald]

I'm willing to repeal 257 for "affirmative response attitude" alone...

I had provided substantial feedback on the original resolution which addressed some of the concerns raised in this repeal draft.

However, I do believe a more correct analogy would be a proctologist in a gas mask...

[Ainocra]

Regarding the Resolution's requirement that "all member nations ... take any and all economically viable measures to reduce automobile emissions" to be crass, clunky, and about as subtle as a gynaecologist in a gas mask,

This made me laugh, therefore I support this

[Imperializt Russia]

The thrust of the resolution seems to be "cutting emissions costs money. Is there any point?"
Which is a stance scarily apparent in the real world, hence why I disagree with the repeal attempt.

[Mundiferrum]

There are rarely any well argued "technical" repeals which we do not support. This is, unsurprisingly, not one of them so we offer our full support. A nation could have the most environmentally sound automobile emissions regime possible yet this resolution still tells them to reduce emissions.

"In fact, if a nation had banned cars altogether - which many nations have* - they would still have to decrease their emissions from the level of zero! There's also the fact that how much they have to decrease them isn't specified, or whether they could ramp up emissions immediately prior to joining the WA and then decrease them back to their default level, or all manner of other problems.

I think any reasonable nation would measure automobile emissions by a ratio-based standard (that is, with zero as a concrete, meaningful value -- no silly things like 'negative emissions), so that such an argument really wouldn't apply. But anyway.

Quick notes:

of measures that are technically economically viable but that violate civil rights, pose significant non-economic viability issues, or are otherwise environmentally harmful,

I would say that other WA laws already prevent whatever civil rights violations the WA doesn't really want to happen, and if they don't, then the WA should either legislate, or plainly not care.
As an aside, for "significant non-economic viability issues", there are a bunch, I think, such as, perhaps, a nation's capacity to respond militarily, that somehow counter the environmental effects of the original resolution (for example, if a nation's military is gutted by the aforementioned, and a particularly trigger-happy non-WA nation decided to completely devastate the nation due to their weakness, and if said devastation involved a lot of CO-pooping tanks and a lot of toxic gas bombs....).

of whether these reductions actually meet the "recommendations" the Resolution empowers the IAEC to create,

This, I think, is a strong reason to support the repeal, although there is this one line, "Further requires all member nations and automobile manufacturers to implement IAEC reporting standards", which I think pretty directly says that nations do have to meet those recommendations anyway. If we followed that standard, then the IAEC isn't so nullified as this repeal implies, but it

or in fact, of anything whatsoever other than the sole monomaniacal goal of reducing automobile emissions,

The fact that its goal is so bloody monomaniacal (why is it that whenever that word is used, the famed Millicentais writer "Edgar Poia Allanius" always comes to mind?) without really putting things into sufficient context is the most definite reason we support the repeal (besides, perhaps, its amusing language). If it had defined such reduction as "oh, as long as it isn't crippling to the nation's progress or environment or whatever, and only until it really isn't needed environmentally speaking", and if it had more concretely offered real alternatives ("and nations must produce alternatives to gas-emitting automobiles that, by the way, won't be environmentally damaging in another way, either" ; "and all FT nations have to give up all their emission-less alternatives or whatever to everyone else"), then I think it really would have been good -- I mean, the WA already supported a ban on leaded fuel, and in such a way as to be so economically viable, so I suppose this problem could be so addressed, too.

So again, we SUPPORT this repeal. But we would be even happier if this had a proper replacement coming along.

[Democratic Republic of Rengalia]

The Democratic Republic of Rengalia cannot in good conscience vote for such a resolution which seeks to devalue the existential threats posed by increased automobile emissions. Concerns about "redundancy" and the like are merely rhetorical veils used to cloak a desire to gut and eliminate environmental regulations, which is what this resolution seeks to do. The Democratic Republic of Rengalia proudly casts its vote in the World Assembly AGAINST this resolution.

[Felix Dote]

"This resolution that we are voting on repelling is a bit ambiguous, in my opinion. I am supporting this reapeal, but it would be even better if, like Mundiferrum mentioned, a replacement would be on it's way. Either way, repealing this resolution would be beneficial as it would remove the ambiguity that GA#257 imposes on reducing emissions, and opens the way for a better resolution to be put in place". Foreign Minister of Felix Dote, Charlotte Whittemore, commented.


"Therefore, we are voting: FOR this resolution".

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We won't be proposing a replacement.

"If anyone else does work on a replacement, we might support it if it can demonstrate a bit more nuance for the topic. But, we'd caution against generally wishing for a replacement for its own sake: this resolution itself was a replacement!, for a previously passed, even more ridiculous resolution. That was repealed, and its authors scrabbled to quickly pass a replacement, which in hindsight has little merit.

"Our thanks to those supporting the repeal."

~ Carmelo Van Ploppington
Environmental Attache

[WindyHallows]

I don't really understand it to be honest.

[Felix Dote]

I don't really understand it to be honest.

The repeal resolution, or the original one?

[NoFrellsGiven]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07 ... -standards

55 mpg by 2025 will save $1.7 trillion at an average fuel savings of $8,200 per vehicle by 2025.

The Democratic Republic of NoFrellsGiven cannot in good conscience vote for such a resolution which will increase costs for consumers by repealing manufacturing standards.

The Democratic Republic of NoFrellsGiven proudly casts its vote in the World Assembly AGAINST this repeal.