NationStates

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=259

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the attempt of Resolution #182 to reduce the usage of fossil fuels in member nations through requiring research on renewable energy;

Perplexed by the requirement that each member nation commit "sufficient funding" towards researching renewable energy when the World Assembly should, when feasible as in this case, work together towards conquering common problems, instead of assigning vague and inefficient instructions onto each individual member nation;

Confused by the suggestion that nations tax at least 5% of fossil-fuel burning power plants' expenditures instead of their revenues or operating income;

Disturbed that 5% was seemingly chosen at random, and that a flat tax does not take into consideration the wide disparity of our member nations and their economies and existing industries, nor each nation's already present financial commitments towards implementing and subsidizing renewable energy financed through other sources;

Concerned that this resolution only suggests that nations implement results from the research, and that therefore a nation which heavily utilizes fossil fuels may continue to pollute the environment despite access to clean and renewable energy if it is financially sensible for them to do so;

Wishing that this resolution had installed a World Assembly committee that focused on promoting, sharing, and implementing renewable energy technologies instead of requiring nations to vaguely commit "sufficient funding" towards research, encouraging nations to implement an aimless tax on power plants, and not requiring nations to actually change their polluting behavior;

Affirming that the attainment and usage of clean and renewable energy is a laudable and necessary goal, and that all nations should seek to reduce their fossil fuel usage, but that this resolution fails to set our nations on the path towards the achievement of this goal;

Hereby repeals "General Assembly Resolution #182, Renewable Research Commitment"

Dr. Romero dusted off his jacket -- he'd been sitting for a while -- and coughed, standing up.

"The Sublime Island Kingdom would like to know whether there is any good-faith attempt being made to replace the resolution this one seeks to repeal."

Astrolinium wrote:Dr. Romero dusted off his jacket -- he'd been sitting for a while -- and coughed, standing up.

"The Sublime Island Kingdom would like to know whether there is any good-faith attempt being made to replace the resolution this one seeks to repeal."

Yes

New Vancouvia wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:Dr. Romero dusted off his jacket -- he'd been sitting for a while -- and coughed, standing up.

"The Sublime Island Kingdom would like to know whether there is any good-faith attempt being made to replace the resolution this one seeks to repeal."

Yes

"Is this attempt... currently publicly available anywhere?"

Astrolinium wrote:

New Vancouvia wrote:Yes

"Is this attempt... currently publicly available anywhere?"

I do not believe so.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:"Is this attempt... currently publicly available anywhere?"

I do not believe so.

We will still have widespread renewable energy even if this thing is repealed.

I find it extremely frustrating how we now seem to have reached a point where we really just go through legislation, nitpick and repeal it for the sake of having something to vote on. Repealing this legislation will do more harm than good. Vancouvia, would it not make more sense to instead propose a supplementary legislation expanding on this one, amending some of the issues, as opposed to repealing it altogether and putting the world at risk of containing countries with no real obligation to develop renewables?

Equitia wrote:I find it extremely frustrating how we now seem to have reached a point where we really just go through legislation, nitpick and repeal it for the sake of having something to vote on. Repealing this legislation will do more harm than good. Vancouvia, would it not make more sense to instead propose a supplementary legislation expanding on this one, amending some of the issues, as opposed to repealing it altogether and putting the world at risk of containing countries with no real obligation to develop renewables?

"The World Assembly cannot make amendments. That said, I do think that the current condition of constant repeals is deplorable and until such a time as I have seen a suitable replacement, the Sublime Island Kingdom and, according, the Region of Ankh Mauta, shall be voting no on this repeal attempt. We urge all other nations to join us -- if nothing else, given that this resolution seems to have been submitted initially without discussion and given that the replacement is not currently publicly available, we urge that all nations join us in the name of transparency in world government."

Wasn't planning on making a replacement unless I saw that this had a fair chance of passing. I'm going to work on it today or tomorrow and then post it to the forum for draft review.

That said, the notion that you need international legislation for your country to support renewable energy is silly. Vancouvia is a region-leader in renewable energy and it has done this in the span of 15 years with no international help or guidance. This is an example of an issue that doesn't need legislation on it at all. A low priority. But since it is a priority to other people and it is a subject I enjoy, I will be doing what I said in the first paragraph.

New Vancouvia wrote:Wasn't planning on making a replacement unless I saw that this had a fair chance of passing. I'm going to work on it today or tomorrow and then post it to the forum for draft review.

That said, the notion that you need international legislation for your country to support renewable energy is silly. Vancouvia is a region-leader in renewable energy and it has done this in the span of 15 years with no international help or guidance. This is an example of an issue that doesn't need legislation on it at all. A low priority. But since it is a priority to other people and it is a subject I enjoy, I will be doing what I said in the first paragraph.

"The Sublime Island Kingdom certainly does not need international legislation to support renewable energy, but can we really trust other countries? The Kennyites are a truly deplorable bunch, after all, and Bears Armed hardly has a government to speak of."

New Vancouvia wrote:Wasn't planning on making a replacement unless I saw that this had a fair chance of passing. I'm going to work on it today or tomorrow and then post it to the forum for draft review.

That said, the notion that you need international legislation for your country to support renewable energy is silly. Vancouvia is a region-leader in renewable energy and it has done this in the span of 15 years with no international help or guidance. This is an example of an issue that doesn't need legislation on it at all. A low priority. But since it is a priority to other people and it is a subject I enjoy, I will be doing what I said in the first paragraph.

President Delkhiin Azarga of Khar Od stands from his chair.

"We of the Independent Dominion of Khar Od will contribute what technological resources we are able to committing to the development of renewable energy and would gladly work with New Vancouvia to develop sensible legislation to support a global renewable effort. Our country has developed a strong technology sector yet we are still reliant on mined uranium for power which has taken a harsh toll on our environment. We would like to shift to using renewable energies to help provide sustainability to our energy grid as well as restore our environment to it's previous state. Though it will take time, it's something I believe that must be done.

Let us see that new, acceptable legislation is drafted and proposed in the General Assembly so that we may all ensure the long-term sustainability of our nations and the preservation or restoration of our natural environments."

President Azarga retakes his seat.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I do not believe so.

We will still have widespread renewable energy even if this thing is repealed.

Delegate, that's not a guarantee. Climate change is affecting us in serious ways, and we must take initiative to mitigate its effects.

Unless an alternative initiative is already being discussed or drafted, *check his papers* ... and I don't see any right now, I see more negative consequences arising from the removal of this proposal than from its continuation. At least this a step in the right direction.

Novaya Leviathan wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:We will still have widespread renewable energy even if this thing is repealed.

Delegate, that's not a guarantee. Climate change is affecting us in serious ways, and we must take initiative to mitigate its effects.

Unless an alternative initiative is already being discussed or drafted, *check his papers* ... and I don't see any right now, I see more negative consequences arising from the removal of this proposal than from its continuation. At least this a step in the right direction.

Well if we are marked to remove this, we need a replacement draft to even things out.

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

While we are normally in favor of promoting the use of renewable resources to minimize the stress on the environment, we agree with Vancouvia that this law is seriously flawed. Parts of it are confusing, such as what "sufficient funding in order to make a meaningful and good faith effort" is supposed to mean. Also, the mandated "minimum 5% from their expenditure" (presumably meaning expenditure on fossil-fuel burning power plants, but again the wording here is unclear) presents a drag on a nation's energy industry with no clear social or environmental benefit.

The cause of the environment is not served by bad law, so we stand in favor of this repeal. Hopefully we will see a more clearly worded and effective replacement.

"While I unequivocally support domestic policy to encourage advancement toward a clean, well-protected environment, the target resolution clearly imposes unreasonable and unrealistic policy on member states. Most apparently, the flat five percent tax on expenditures related to the use of fossil fuels is arbitrary, narrow-minded, and illogical. I shall fully support this repeal, and oppose any replacement that mandates similarly ridiculous penalties upon the energy industry for simply using the resources available to supply vital utilities to member states and their peoples."

Wallenburg wrote:"While I unequivocally support domestic policy to encourage advancement toward a clean, well-protected environment, the target resolution clearly imposes unreasonable and unrealistic policy on member states. Most apparently, the flat five percent tax on expenditures related to the use of fossil fuels is arbitrary, narrow-minded, and illogical. I shall fully support this repeal, and oppose any replacement that mandates similarly ridiculous penalties upon the energy industry for simply using the resources available to supply vital utilities to member states and their peoples."

*Points with his open hand and looks sternly at the Wallenburg delegate*

That is the exact reason I don't think repealing this resolution is a good idea. It's a blank check for nations with utter disregard of climate change, sustainable growth, the environment and the quality of life for future generations. It is frightening.

Novaya Leviathan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"While I unequivocally support domestic policy to encourage advancement toward a clean, well-protected environment, the target resolution clearly imposes unreasonable and unrealistic policy on member states. Most apparently, the flat five percent tax on expenditures related to the use of fossil fuels is arbitrary, narrow-minded, and illogical. I shall fully support this repeal, and oppose any replacement that mandates similarly ridiculous penalties upon the energy industry for simply using the resources available to supply vital utilities to member states and their peoples."

*Points with his open hand and looks sternly at the Wallenburg delegate*

That is the exact reason I don't think repealing this resolution is a good idea. It's a blank check for nations with utter disregard of climate change, sustainable growth, the environment and the quality of life for future generations. It is frightening.

Rep. Trevanyika stands and jabs her finger at the ambassador, "Do not dare pretend that I or my home government ignore the needs of our children or their world. And do not dare pretend that our planet undergoes the same environmental changes as yours."

Astrolinium wrote:and Bears Armed hardly has a government to speak of."

OOC: It has a bit more of a government than the game stats suggest, although admittedly that government has little authority over any matters that are constitutionally defined as being internal ones for the confederation's member clans (and other 'confederated bodys') to handle separately. Pollution that crosses the boundaries of clan's [etc] territories would fall within its jurisdiction, but specifying particular means of energy-generation wouldn't.

Novaya Leviathan wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:We will still have widespread renewable energy even if this thing is repealed.

Delegate, that's not a guarantee. Climate change is affecting us in serious ways, and we must take initiative to mitigate its effects.

"If your planet is having climate issues, it is your fault. I fail to see why the WA should intervene in a purely regional affair."

Novaya Leviathan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"While I unequivocally support domestic policy to encourage advancement toward a clean, well-protected environment, the target resolution clearly imposes unreasonable and unrealistic policy on member states. Most apparently, the flat five percent tax on expenditures related to the use of fossil fuels is arbitrary, narrow-minded, and illogical. I shall fully support this repeal, and oppose any replacement that mandates similarly ridiculous penalties upon the energy industry for simply using the resources available to supply vital utilities to member states and their peoples."

*Points with his open hand and looks sternly at the Wallenburg delegate*

That is the exact reason I don't think repealing this resolution is a good idea. It's a blank check for nations with utter disregard of climate change, sustainable growth, the environment and the quality of life for future generations. It is frightening.

"If nations are so short-sighted and stupid to completely ruin themselves in the absence of legislation, I say they should be allowed to destroy themselves. We don't need fools around."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"If nations are so short-sighted and stupid to completely ruin themselves in the absence of legislation, I say they should be allowed to destroy themselves. We don't need fools around."

And take the innocents along with them? Please, don't make us roll out a "think of the children" type of -- whoops, too late.

WA legislation such as this isn't to protect nations from self-destruction; it's to protect those who cannot protect themselves from such would-be self-destructive nations.

Wrapper wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"If nations are so short-sighted and stupid to completely ruin themselves in the absence of legislation, I say they should be allowed to destroy themselves. We don't need fools around."

And take the innocents along with them? Please, don't make us roll out a "think of the children" type of -- whoops, too late.

WA legislation such as this isn't to protect nations from self-destruction; it's to protect those who cannot protect themselves from such would-be self-destructive nations.

"These 'innocents' you speak of either voted for the idiots in charge or choose to continue living under an idiotic dictatorship and are destroying their environment in the process. Either way, they are hardly free of blame.

"Oh wait, you meant the actual children. Eh, living in such a society is a fate worse than death."

Bears Armed wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:and Bears Armed hardly has a government to speak of."

OOC: It has a bit more of a government than the game stats suggest, although admittedly that government has little authority over any matters that are constitutionally defined as being internal ones for the confederation's member clans (and other 'confederated bodys') to handle separately. Pollution that crosses the boundaries of clan's [etc] territories would fall within its jurisdiction, but specifying particular means of energy-generation wouldn't.

OOC: And Astrolinium has an absolute monarchy; to an Astrolinian, the Bears Armed system looks like chaos.

Ambassador Hasani stands up, looks slowly around, and begins to speak:

"The intentions of Vancouvia seem good, yet we still have one concern. Does nuclear energy count as renewable? Despite the illogical opposition of some luddite hippies, advanced thorium nuclear power plants which supply the majority of Transoxiana's electricity, do no harm to the environment if carefully regulated, and our planet needs them to take up the burden until sources like solar can be deployed in sufficient numbers. If you do not consider nuclear power as renewable, we shall vote AGAINST."

OOC note: Also, for any of you who doubt nuclear power see this. Also, don't take my IC insults personally. Remember that Transoxiana had its revolution less than a decade ago, and tempers are still hot.

Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana wrote:"The intentions of Vancouvia seem good, yet we still have one concern. Does nuclear energy count as renewable? Despite the illogical opposition of some luddite hippies, advanced thorium nuclear power plants which supply the majority of Transoxiana's electricity, do no harm to the environment if carefully regulated, and our planet needs them to take up the burden until sources like solar can be deployed in sufficient numbers. If you do not consider nuclear power as renewable, we shall vote AGAINST."

Nuclear energy may be clean, but it is not a renewable source of energy. Uranium, thorium or other source materials can be depleted over long periods of time, much in the same way fossil fuels can.

Wrapper wrote:

Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana wrote:"The intentions of Vancouvia seem good, yet we still have one concern. Does nuclear energy count as renewable? Despite the illogical opposition of some luddite hippies, advanced thorium nuclear power plants which supply the majority of Transoxiana's electricity, do no harm to the environment if carefully regulated, and our planet needs them to take up the burden until sources like solar can be deployed in sufficient numbers. If you do not consider nuclear power as renewable, we shall vote AGAINST."

Nuclear energy may be clean, but it is not a renewable source of energy. Uranium, thorium or other source materials can be depleted over long periods of time, much in the same way fossil fuels can.

"But what if you use nuclear fusion? Hydrogen is far more abundant, and solar power relies on nuclear fusion... Actually, one could make the case that no energy source is renewable. The stars will die out, the winds will stop, the water will freeze."