OOC: No. If you join the WA then resolutions passing isn't just other people's RP, it's how the game works.
Advertisement
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:55 am
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:07 am
by Aclion » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:33 am
by Sciongrad » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:38 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:UAB's law: the more radical a proposal is, the greater the probability that the first two pages of its drafting thread will be all about the interpretation of a GA rule that has no bearing on the substance of that proposal.
by Kenmoria » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:55 am
by Lord Dominator » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:57 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: How does clause 1c relate to the meta gaming rule?)
by Caracasus » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:08 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:26 am
by Lord Dominator » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:30 am
by Ransium » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:50 pm
by Dirty Americans » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:02 am
by Lord Dominator » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:08 am
by Ransium » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:37 pm
Dirty Americans wrote:First of all, while I am generally skeptical about most "climate change" arguments since you mentioned "carbon dioxide and methane" I am more inclined to consider the arguments. (Carbon Dioxide is a lot like Ozone; it's a good thing when in the right place and a bad thing when it's in the wrong place. There is no good place for methane.) However I have two problems with the resolution as written.
The first problem is that we are dealing with funny money, as it were. Carbon Dioxide is a gas every living animal emits and so to is methane to an extent. Then every combustion device (apart from pure hydrogen systems) produces carbon dioxide emissions as well. Such a system requires a solid gas accounting program and given the state of nations in this body, I can't trust it as far as I can push it with my breath.
Dirty Americans wrote:The second problem is that we are dealing with computer models which reflect reality as we think we understand it and not reality as reality understands it.
Dirty Americans wrote:The third problem is that any "exchange" program is basically a potential scam engine due to the widespread ability of fraud and abuse.
Effectively speaking, any "trade" system effectively rewards the rich and lazy who can pay money to buy the suffering of the poor and hardworking, If you can afford to purchase your way out of reductions, you are probably in a better position to make your own reductions in the first place.
Dirty Americans wrote:Adding to the problem is the fact that it only takes one non WA nation to FUBAR the entire system completely, using high greenhouse gas emitting systems to produce trade imbalances which effectively causes a net increase in the gasses. One major nationstate outside of the WA could be enough to make this a pointless exercise and there are actually a plethora of them.
Establish an exchange for the voluntary trade of emissions credits open to all member nations, such that some nations may exceed their initially allotted emission without punitive action via buying credits;
Dirty Americans wrote:One final problem ... in order to make all those wool sweaters we are going to need a lot of methane producing sheep ... mind you it's got to be better than all the artificial fibers that are making their ways into the oceans and contaminating the supply of natural sea salt. But I think wool kilts might be a better option.
by Kenmoria » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:52 pm
by Ransium » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:13 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“Considering the only non-committee clause mandates just one person per nation wears a woollen jumper, I’m having trouble seeing this as a strength of strong. Also, please put line breaks between clauses 2, 3 and 4.”
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:30 pm
Kenmoria wrote:I’m having trouble seeing this as a strength of strong.
by Ransium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:28 pm
by Lord Dominator » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:57 pm
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:26 am
Ransium wrote:I’ve thus far been pleasantly surprised with the helpful and non-caustic gameside discussion of this. Since I’ve spent around a month drafting this in various venues before posting it here I don’t intend on a super long drafting period here. I haven’t seen a ton of comments that were a surprise to me, so I might submit this as soon as this coming weekend.
by Bears Armed » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:08 am
That "Concerned" is rather long (and I say this as somebody whose own writings have sometimes been criticized for overlong sentences… ) and the “: such as” doesn’t look quite ‘right’ to me. I’ll think further about whether to suggest alternative phrasing.Environmental - All Industries - Strong
The World Assembly,
Convinced that the preponderance of the scientific evidence shows that some 'greenhouse gases', such as carbon dioxide and methane, allow energy through a planet's atmosphere at the visible and shortwave infrared wavelengths primarily generated by stars while reflecting energy at longwave thermal wavelengths radiated by a planet, thus creating a warming effect for that planet's atmosphere,
Acknowledging that within some member nations, the concept of global warming due to non-natural greenhouse gas emissions remains controversial,
Concerned over the many potential negative impacts scientific consensus has found sudden and excess warming due to emissions of greenhouse gasses to have directly or indirectly on ecosystems and populations, including more extreme natural disasters: such as droughts, fire, heat waves, hurricanes, and flooding; disruption and temporal shifting of seasonal cycles at a rate faster than many organisms can adapt, sea level rise and acidification; crop failures; and desertification,
The apostrophe should be after the ‘s’.Aware that many nation's
I’d insert commas after “emissions” and the first instance of “nations” here.are built around fossil fuels and desiring to seek a solution that is minimally disruptive while addressing this pressing problem,
Concluding that the most efficient and cheapest regulatory framework to abate greenhouse gasses is one that caps the total amount of emissions and divides up credits for the permissible emissions among nations while allowing the voluntary trading of emissions credits between nations,
Hereby, subject to any limits set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force:
1. Charges World Assembly Scientific Programme's (WASP) Atmospheric Chemistry Establishment (ACE) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses in the following manner:
a. Set a total global annual target for the non-natural release of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, based on current global emissions, scientific climate models for the impact of the gasses, decay rate of the gasses, and the global economic impact of the cap;
b. Distribute allowable emissions credits for each regulated greenhouse gas among member nations, proportional to their total populations and present economic output, the global population, and the global cap;
c. Establish preferred emissions levels for non-WA nations also proportional to factors listed in b;
d. Establish (i) punitive fees for emissions beyond the cap for member nations, and, (ii) tariffs on the trade goods produced by non-member nations whose emissions exceed their preferred levels that all member nations shall enforce; the proceeds of both the fees and tariffs will first go to ACE's monitoring and enforcement efforts and any remaining monies will go towards grants to fund the research, development, and implementation of green energy;
“member nations” rather than just “nations”, please, if you’re really going to leave this clause in the submitted version.e. Establish an exchange for the voluntary trade of emissions credits open to all member nations, such that some nations may exceed their initially allotted emission without punitive action via buying credits;
f. Create an annual schedule of diminishing total global caps for various gasses until a level modeled to be globally sustainable based on scientific models is met;
g. Monitor the net emissions of individual nations, taking into account both greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, via voluntary disclosures and other non-invasive methods, such as remote sensing that is sensitive to the narrowband absorption features of targeted greenhouse gases;
2. Further mandates that ambassadors representing non-compliant nations be forced to wear itchy wool sweaters during the summer, unless doing so would be a threat to their health or conflicts with religious or moral beliefs;
Can you make it clearer that ACE is only ignoring those emissions for the purpose of this legislation, and would still be free to study them for other reasons, please?3. Notes that individual nations will determine how to best meet their preferred target internally; and;
4. Clarifies that greenhouse gas emissions through natural sources, such as volcanoes, will not be considered by ACE.
Okay.Co-authored by imperium_anglorum
by Liberimery » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:59 am
Ransium wrote:Dirty Americans wrote:First of all, while I am generally skeptical about most "climate change" arguments since you mentioned "carbon dioxide and methane" I am more inclined to consider the arguments. (Carbon Dioxide is a lot like Ozone; it's a good thing when in the right place and a bad thing when it's in the wrong place. There is no good place for methane.) However I have two problems with the resolution as written.
The first problem is that we are dealing with funny money, as it were. Carbon Dioxide is a gas every living animal emits and so to is methane to an extent. Then every combustion device (apart from pure hydrogen systems) produces carbon dioxide emissions as well. Such a system requires a solid gas accounting program and given the state of nations in this body, I can't trust it as far as I can push it with my breath.
As I made clear in my OP (well second post) I have no desire to debate climate science here. I would like to broadly point the carbon cycle and note that there are two broad carbon pools. One is atmospheric carbon, which broadly speaking, is all carbon above the ground which cycles between the atmosphere, oceans, and all living creatures. The other is geologic carbon, a relatively large amount of which (compared to the atmospheric carbon) is locked away in fossil fuels. What we are primarily concerned with is fossil fuel burning taking geologic carbon and converting it to atmospheric carbon. However, I do agree monitoring is a challenge, but I guess I have more faith in the gnomes.Dirty Americans wrote:The second problem is that we are dealing with computer models which reflect reality as we think we understand it and not reality as reality understands it.
Yes, models are always at least a bit wrong. However, whether 100 ppm of CO2 means an increase of 0.4 C or 0.6 C isn't as big of a concern as the fact that temperatures will go up. To do nothing because there is uncertainty has been the delay tactic against every environmental/health/etc. problem ever. Greenhouse gasses are a problem and they need to be dealt with and I'd rather be a little bit wrong in how I deal with it than do nothing.Dirty Americans wrote:The third problem is that any "exchange" program is basically a potential scam engine due to the widespread ability of fraud and abuse.
Effectively speaking, any "trade" system effectively rewards the rich and lazy who can pay money to buy the suffering of the poor and hardworking, If you can afford to purchase your way out of reductions, you are probably in a better position to make your own reductions in the first place.
Hey! I thought you said you had two big problems? Anyway, this text is a bit confusing to me. It seems like your describing people/companies. The trade program is only for nations as a whole. And, in order to counter the problem of rich nations just buying their way out of the problem, ACE takes into account the nations current economy, presumably allocating less initial credits to richer nations that can more easily purchase more credits.Dirty Americans wrote:Adding to the problem is the fact that it only takes one non WA nation to FUBAR the entire system completely, using high greenhouse gas emitting systems to produce trade imbalances which effectively causes a net increase in the gasses. One major nationstate outside of the WA could be enough to make this a pointless exercise and there are actually a plethora of them.
I totally agree with this assessment, which is why I wrote this:Establish an exchange for the voluntary trade of emissions credits open to all member nations, such that some nations may exceed their initially allotted emission without punitive action via buying credits;
The cap and trade program is only open to WA nations.Dirty Americans wrote:One final problem ... in order to make all those wool sweaters we are going to need a lot of methane producing sheep ... mind you it's got to be better than all the artificial fibers that are making their ways into the oceans and contaminating the supply of natural sea salt. But I think wool kilts might be a better option.
Meh. Since only WA nations can be non-compliant, and there's only one ambassador per nation, we're talking about a max of 20,000 sweaters, probably substantially less. Sheep produce substantially less methane than cows anyway. The itch sweater clause is getting changed over my dead body (unless GenSec makes me).
by Kenmoria » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:04 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:44 am
by Liberimery » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:06 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Maybe nobody else would ever bring this up besides me, but I felt I should take the liberty of augmenting your FAQ.
PMT Questions
Q: But our planet is already solving global warming by large-scale geoengineering! Look, see, the sun just got dimmer at 11:00 AM due to the giant parasol we stuck at the L1 LaGrange point! Global temperatures are stabilizing as we speak!
A: Nice job, but unless you actually cap carbon emissions, you're just going to have to cut off more and more sunlight as time goes on, until eventually you don't have enough light to grow crops. This scheme will also help temperatures stabilize faster than they would if you only relied on solettas. So really, you want this as much as I do.
Q: Nuh-uh! We're actually also using highly advanced carbon capture and de-oxygenation scrubbers that take in CO2 and spit out charcoal and oxygen gas. So your proposal is totally useless and will destroy all economic growth.
A: Please. It's a physical inevitability that if you keep growing your economy by burning carbon, you're going to have to simultaneously keep building more scrubbers to get rid of the by-products. Eventually your economy will consist fully half of carbon scrubbing, leaving less and less people to do the actual work of building things and providing services and all that good stuff. This proposal means the carbon removal industry will remain limited to the niche at which it belongs, and the rest of your people can do things that are actually productive. You're welcome!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement