[PASSED] Repeal “Promotion of Clean Energy”

[Xernon]

"Hello all,

Today, I come to you with a proposal to repeal GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy.” This, and the replacement proposal that you will find posted along with it, are an attempt to modernize and strengthen international efforts to promote clean energy. I don't believe that such efforts are redundant with other resolutions, namely GAR#445 -- emission caps are one tool that we can use to facilitate our transition away from fossil fuels but it is not and should not be the only tool at our disposal. For more on that, though, please see the accompanying thread for the replacement legislation.

As always, our delegation very much welcomes all constructive feedback and thank you for all of your comments in forward." - Count Nyle, WA Ambassador - The Principality of Xernon

Repeal “Promotion of Clean Energy” | Proposed by: Xernon

General Assembly Resolution #357 “Promotion of Clean Energy” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy” is an important piece of legislation that seeks to promote the use of clean forms of energy in order to reduce and counteract the negative health and environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels,

Noting, however, that GAR#357 fails to adequately provide the milestones and mandates necessary to guide member nations through the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources,

Observing that GAR#357 also fails to establish concrete international efforts or collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations,

Believing that any legislation seeking to promote the utilization of clean energy sources should be grounded in international cooperation, research, and technology development,

Convinced that a replacement resolution is necessary to provide member nations with the comprehensive framework and international cooperation needed to drive the switch in energy reliance from fossil fuels to clean energy sources,

Hereby repeals GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy.”

[Hulldom]

OOC: No offense meant at all to IA, but this one does a much better job of communicating the deficiencies in the target than his.

EvR: "Full support."

[Xernon]

I've bumped the replacement draft for GAR#357 and so I also wanted to bump this repeal draft while I am it. I would greatly appreciate any/all feedback that you may have for me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: No offense meant at all to IA, but this one does a much better job of communicating the deficiencies in the target than his.

EvR: "Full support."

I considered these arguments in my draft and I thought them uncompelling. There are a couple of reasons for this. I read the arguments here in two main themes: (1) there are no specific milestones and (2) there is no technology sharing.

The former argument is in the "Noting, however," clause, which would be an honest mistake but for maybe two words: the word "adequately" and the word "and" (rather than "or"). But on topic, there is no need for guiding member states with milestones. The WA is not the Paris climate accord and it does not need milestones to make this happen.

Rather, the WA directly sets a smooth dynamic transition implied carbon price between member nations in section 1(f) of GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program". The quotas are the guide: as time elapses, the WA reduces allowed emissions to their sustainable level and member nations are then fined if they fail their implied quotas. I say "implied" quotas rather because quotas can be traded so member nations which are more easily able to cut emissions have incentives to do more cutting than those which are less able. See generally Lawrence Goulder, "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?" (2013) 27 J Econ Persp 87.

The second argument is about technology sharing, which I read from "[the target] fails to establish concrete international efforts and collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations". Such technology sharing cannot be done due to GA 394 "International Patent Agreement", at least on a costless basis. Rather, member nations would have to pay licence fees.

Those licence fees also are things which poorer nations can in fact afford under GA 445. The specific way that the emissions permits under GA 445 are set up gives an implicit advantage to nations with low carbon emissions per capita. Such nations are predominantly developing ones. (This is well established. For example, look at this chart.) The ability for a poorer nation to sell their over-allocation of emissions permits to wealthy ones allows them to afford the licence fees.

Insofar as what this repeal wants is currently prohibited and what it decries is a non-problem, I can't see how it is at all compelling.

Corrected a very unclear description about how exactly the GA 445 quotas are set.

[Xernon]

I thank the delegation from Imperium Anglorum for their comments. I'll preface this by saying that I have immense respect for this delegation and their contributions to the General Assembly. Please note that any disagreements come from a place of respect.

The former argument is in the "Noting, however," clause, which would be an honest mistake but for maybe two words: the word "adequately" and the word "and" (rather than "or"). But on topic, there is no need for guiding member states with milestones. The WA is not the Paris climate accord and it does not need milestones to make this happen.

I understand the point being made here, and I think this is the first fundamental point of disagreement that we have in terms of how we are approaching this. I do believe that WA nations want to see milestones, and more than that, a comprehensive framework and support system for how to execute the transition to clean energy. I've come to this conclusion from numerous conversations I have had with GA authors as well as regular WA nations that are concerned with this topic.

Rather, the WA directly sets a smooth dynamic transition implied carbon price between member nations in section 1(f) of GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program". The quotas are the guide: as time elapses, the WA reduces allowed emissions to their sustainable level and member nations are then fined if they fail their implied quotas. I say "implied" quotas rather because quotas can be traded so member nations which are more easily able to cut emissions have incentives to do more cutting than those which are less able. See generally Lawrence Goulder, "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?" (2013) 27 J Econ Persp 87.

I do not doubt or question the role of gas emission caps in playing a key role in helping nations execute the transition to clean energy. GA 445 in general is a strong, very well written resolution. Having said that, I don't believe that gas emissions caps alone provide for a smooth transition to clean energy. I appreciate that quotas are established and that they can flexible, but when you come to the actual transition, gas emission quotas alone are simply not enough for nations to execute a clean energy transition. Without a replacement legislation to GAR#357, these quotas actually put significant pressure and difficulties on nations to meet these quotas without meaningful support or framework from the WA.

The second argument is about technology sharing, which I read from "[the target] fails to establish concrete international efforts and collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations". Such technology sharing cannot be done due to GA 394 "International Patent Agreement", at least on a costless basis. Rather, member nations would have to pay licence fees.[/size]

I believe that as written in the replacement legislation (found in a separate thread), the technology development and sharing mandate I propose does not violate GAR#394. I hone in on the point of research and technology development because our delegation believes strongly that innovation is a necessary component of the transition to clean energy. Hence, we put particular emphasize on it.

[Xernon]

I am bumping this for further comments and constructive feedback. Please and thank you.

[Xernon]

With the replacement resolution reaching a finished state, I plan to submit this repeal on November 17th. I'll be posting a few more calls for comment before then. If you have any feedback/comments/concerns (they'd be greatly appreciated!), please post them below and I'll do my best to address them.

[Bestelesnia]

The Grand Holy Empire of Bestelesnia is pleased to announce that this legislation has its full support, as the reasons for the repeal are valid and the replacement is a great improvement.
Best Regards,
International Affairs Office.

[Thousand Branches]

The Nectarine Coalition for the Universal Betterment of Penmanship (or NCUBP) extends to the author an in-depth index of edits for the improvement of legibility and word choice throughout this resolution. Here follows:

---

Recognizing that GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy” is an important piece of legislation seeking to promote the use of clean forms of energy in order to reduce and counteract the negative health and environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels,

“seeking” should be “that seeks”.

Noting, however, that GAR#357 fails to adequately outline and provide the specific milestones and strong mandates necessary to guide member nations in the transition from reliance on fossil fuels to the utilization of clean energy sources,

The use of “specific milestones” is confusing and doesn’t seem to refer to anything in general. Similarly, the use of “outline” is equally unnecessary. If anything, it would be “outline or provide” rather than “outline and provide”.

“in the transition” should be “through the transition”.

Probably “from reliance on fossil fuels to the utilization of clean energy sources,” could simply be “from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources,”.

Further noting that GAR#357 fails to establish concrete international efforts and collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations,

Replace “noting” with a different word.

“efforts and collaborative” —> “efforts or collaborative”

Believing that any legislation seeking to promote the utilization of clean energy sources must be grounded in international cooperation in research and technology development,

“must be” —> “should be”

“cooperation in research and technology development” —> “cooperation, research, and technology development”
NOTE: this edit is suggested in order to mitigate the double use of “in” at the end of this clause, thereby improving the flow and the neatness of the clause. While it mildly changes the meaning, it does not sufficiently do so where it would actually affect anything.

Resolved that a replacement resolution is needed to provide member nations with the comprehensive framework and international cooperation necessary to drive the switch in energy reliance from fossil fuels to clean energy,

“Resolved” is improperly used here. One has to be resolved to do something, not to know something needs to be done. In other words, something like “I have resolved that hotdogs are good” is wrong, but “I have resolved that I need a hotdog” is not.

“is needed” —> “is necessary”

---

This concludes the NCUBP index of edits for this resolution. I and all the Nectarines wish you good luck with this proposal and any further pieces of writing in the future. Another index will be delivered for the replacement shortly.

Signed,

| Aramantha Calendula, Head Nectarine and Presidential Assistant to Madam Vazz |

[Imperium Anglorum]

The former argument is in the "Noting, however," clause, which would be an honest mistake but for maybe two words: the word "adequately" and the word "and" (rather than "or"). But on topic, there is no need for guiding member states with milestones. The WA is not the Paris climate accord and it does not need milestones to make this happen.

I understand the point being made here, and I think this is the first fundamental point of disagreement that we have in terms of how we are approaching this. I do believe that WA nations want to see milestones, and more than that, a comprehensive framework and support system for how to execute the transition to clean energy. I've come to this conclusion from numerous conversations I have had with GA authors as well as regular WA nations that are concerned with this topic.

I don't buy that member nations need WA handholding to respond to the punitive market incentives that emerge from the emissions trading scheme. Nations have many people in many specialised roles who would be able to provide the sufficient expertise. This is especially the case if energy supply already exists in that nation... those suppliers would be the same people who would be able to path steps forward. The possible counter-argument that those people wouldn't be willing to do so is undercut by the direct harm to their bottom lines of their intransigence.

This isn't helped by your proposal, which seemingly just tells member nations (and firms therein) to do all the things they would have been doing anyway. And all the "utilities need to make plans to utilise clean energy" are entirely unimpactful without GA 445's emissions programme. Saudi Aramco can make all the decarbonisation plans they want. But they aren't going to do anything with them until it hits their bottom line.

Rather, the WA directly sets a smooth dynamic transition implied carbon price between member nations in section 1(f) of GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program". The quotas are the guide: as time elapses, the WA reduces allowed emissions to their sustainable level and member nations are then fined if they fail their implied quotas. I say "implied" quotas rather because quotas can be traded so member nations which are more easily able to cut emissions have incentives to do more cutting than those which are less able. See generally Lawrence Goulder, "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?" (2013) 27 J Econ Persp 87.

I do not doubt or question the role of gas emission caps in playing a key role in helping nations execute the transition to clean energy. GA 445 in general is a strong, very well written resolution. Having said that, I don't believe that gas emissions caps alone provide for a smooth transition to clean energy. I appreciate that quotas are established and that they can flexible, but when you come to the actual transition, gas emission quotas alone are simply not enough for nations to execute a clean energy transition. Without a replacement legislation to GAR#357, these quotas actually put significant pressure and difficulties on nations to meet these quotas without meaningful support or framework from the WA.

Do you have any reasons to support your claim that "gas emission quotas alone are simply not enough for nations"? To me, this claim seems entirely unsupported and ignores GA 445's structure as well as clearly observable evidence from the real world on cap and trade or carbon tax programmes.

The US EPA has gas emission quotas on various different emissions under the Clean Air Act. There's a general consensus that they work. Eg Sueyoshi & Goto, "Returns to scale vs damages..." (2013) 41 Omega 164. There's a general consensus that cap and trade programmes produce incentives for investment in renewable energy Chen et al, "Renewable energy investment and carbon emissions under cap-and-trade mechanisms" (2021) 278 J Cleaner Prod 123. Even under situations where cap-and-trade schemes are more lenient than necessary, producers substitute carbon intensive processes for less intensive ones, outside of clean energy production. Du et al, "Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation" (2016) 134 J Cleaner Prod 652. Similarly, there's evidence of clustering of emissions changes in response to maturity of EU emissions trading schemes, which also cuts against your claim. Stuhlmacher et al, Cap-and-trade and emissions clustering: a spatial-temporal analysis of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (2019) 249 J Environ Management 109.

It seems to me that what you're asking me to believe is basically that emissions trading schemes are somehow "insufficient" at actually effecting reductions in carbon emissions. You should provide evidence for this. And it needs to be evidence beyond "what if they just move carbon overseas" because when I wrote GA 445, I thought of that. There's a carbon tariff in the act. It needs to be beyond "what if they change from shipping to road haulage or something" which ignores that the carbon caps are nationwide without exceptions. They need to be beyond "what if domestic monitoring isn't effective" because the WA does backup monitoring funded by tariffs and the General Fund.

The second argument is about technology sharing, which I read from "[the target] fails to establish concrete international efforts and collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations". Such technology sharing cannot be done due to GA 394 "International Patent Agreement", at least on a costless basis. Rather, member nations would have to pay licence fees.[/size]

I believe that as written in the replacement legislation (found in a separate thread), the technology development and sharing mandate I propose does not violate GAR#394. I hone in on the point of research and technology development because our delegation believes strongly that innovation is a necessary component of the transition to clean energy. Hence, we put particular emphasize on it.

The provision in your replacement proposal telling member nations to please share doesn't override the framework under which those innovations would in fact be shared. I agree that your proposal doesn't violate GA 394's patent agreements. That's because it is consistent with them, which means that they operate under those agreements. And if that's the case, your replacement proposal does nothing to correct the issue you identified in Vancouvia's proposal in the first place.

This of course puts away the RP genie in the bottle, that all the clean energy sources are already discovered because our PMT space wizards did it, pretending that technology is at current MT levels. If we accept the existence of the space wizards then it doesn't matter at all because everything is out of patent protection and development is pointless because most everything has already been discovered. If we refuse the space wizards then everything above still applies.

[Xernon]

The Grand Holy Empire of Bestelesnia is pleased to announce that this legislation has its full support, as the reasons for the repeal are valid and the replacement is a great improvement.
Best Regards,
International Affairs Office.

We sincerely thank the delegation from Bestelesnia for their support!

The Nectarine Coalition for the Universal Betterment of Penmanship (or NCUBP) extends to the author an in-depth index of edits for the improvement of legibility and word choice throughout this resolution.

I sincerely thank the NCUBP for the suggested edits. These were much needed and I am happy to report that I have incorporated all of them into the proposal. Thank you so much again!

[Xernon]

I don't buy that member nations need WA handholding to respond to the punitive market incentives that emerge from the emissions trading scheme. Nations have many people in many specialised roles who would be able to provide the sufficient expertise. This is especially the case if energy supply already exists in that nation... those suppliers would be the same people who would be able to path steps forward. The possible counter-argument that those people wouldn't be willing to do so is undercut by the direct harm to their bottom lines of their intransigence.

I don't really consider what is being envisioned in this repeal to be handholding. Rather, we are envisioning a comprehensive framework with mandates and economic assistance to nations so that they can make the transition to clean energy. This still puts significant work and autonomy in the hands of member nations to determine how exactly they want to meet the envisioned mandates. Reliance on fossil fuels is perhaps one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue, facing nations due to the negative effects of fossil fuel usage. So I don't think having specific milestones and strong mandates is unreasonable given the context of the problem that the resolution is trying to highlight.

This isn't helped by your proposal, which seemingly just tells member nations (and firms therein) to do all the things they would have been doing anyway. And all the "utilities need to make plans to utilise clean energy" are entirely unimpactful without GA 445's emissions programme. Saudi Aramco can make all the decarbonisation plans they want. But they aren't going to do anything with them until it hits their bottom line.

I'm not really sure what the argument being posed is here. The aim of this resolution is not to repeal GAR 445, the targeted resolution in question is GAR 357. If GAR 445 was not already passed legislation, I would have most definitely included mandates on carbon emissions in the replacement resolution to GAR 357. Because, again, I view carbon emission caps as an essential tool in the fight against global warming and in decreasing the reliance on fossil fuels. I just think it ought to be complimented with other mandates to actually make it feasible for member nations to transition to clean energy reliance. And I don't see the issue/conflict in having fossil-fuel usage reduction targets and simultaneously putting in place emission caps while fossil fuels continue to be burned.

Do you have any reasons to support your claim that "gas emission quotas alone are simply not enough for nations"? To me, this claim seems entirely unsupported and ignores GA 445's structure as well as clearly observable evidence from the real world on cap and trade or carbon tax programmes.

It seems to me that what you're asking me to believe is basically that emissions trading schemes are somehow "insufficient" at actually effecting reductions in carbon emissions. You should provide evidence for this. And it needs to be evidence beyond "what if they just move carbon overseas" because when I wrote GA 445, I thought of that. There's a carbon tariff in the act. It needs to be beyond "what if they change from shipping to road haulage or something" which ignores that the carbon caps are nationwide without exceptions. They need to be beyond "what if domestic monitoring isn't effective" because the WA does backup monitoring funded by tariffs and the General Fund.

As we can see in the real world, the biggest contributors to overall gas emissions are nations that are notorious for setting up gas emission targets and then simply not achieving them. That's due to two factors: 1.) there is no international accountability and 2.) nations are not implementing the on-the-ground measures that need to be implemented to actually reduce reliance on fossil fuels. GAR 445 does a good job of tackling the first point with how it structures and sets up gas emission caps and trades. But it still puts many nations, the ones which are able to shoulder the punitive fees and buy emission credits, in a position where they may continue to rely on fossil fuels to meet their energy demands. In my opinion, it also puts significant pressure on low resource member nations to meet their emission caps, even with the trade scheme present. That's part of the reason why I strongly believe that a more comprehensive framework that tackles the clean energy transition from all angles is needed. And that is what I believe GAR #357, or rather its replacement, ought to accomplish.

The provision in your replacement proposal telling member nations to please share doesn't override the framework under which those innovations would in fact be shared. I agree that your proposal doesn't violate GA 394's patent agreements. That's because it is consistent with them, which means that they operate under those agreements. And if that's the case, your replacement proposal does nothing to correct the issue you identified in Vancouvia's proposal in the first place.

GAR 357 notes that the effects of fossil fuel reliance are an issue that extends beyond any one border. Yet, the resolution does little more than suggest that nations share technology. The replacement resolution creates an international organization whose purpose is to collaborate with member nations in researching and disseminating technologies that maximize energy extraction from clean energy sources.

[Xernon]

Bumping this for comments. If none come in, I'll submit this either later today or early tomorrow.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Overview. Oh, I think I get it now.

Reliance on fossil fuels is perhaps one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue, facing nations due to the negative effects of fossil fuel usage. So I don't think having specific milestones and strong mandates is unreasonable given the context of the problem that the resolution is trying to highlight.

I just think it ought to be complimented with other mandates to actually make it feasible for member nations to transition to clean energy reliance. And I don't see the issue/conflict in having fossil-fuel usage reduction targets and simultaneously putting in place emission caps while fossil fuels continue to be burned.

GAR 445 does a good job of tackling the first point with how it structures and sets up gas emission caps and trades. But it still puts many nations, the ones which are able to shoulder the punitive fees and buy emission credits, in a position where they may continue to rely on fossil fuels to meet their energy demands. In my opinion, it also puts significant pressure on low resource member nations to meet their emission caps, even with the trade scheme present. That's part of the reason why I strongly believe that a more comprehensive framework that tackles the clean energy transition from all angles is needed.

It doesn't seem you understand what a cap-and-trade scheme does. See eg explanation in Core-Econ, The Economy ch 20.5; Lawrence Goulder, Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?" (2013) 27 J Econ Persp 87. The point of the scheme is to balance the economic interest of productive activities with its costs to the environment. The point of the cap-and-trade programme is to set a binding cap on the total amount of pollution abatement (in this case carbon dioxide emissions from all sources). Under the GA 445 cap-and-trade programme, because the total cap is set on a global basis and is binding, there is little if any anthropogenic climate change.

Applying a blanket demand for reductions runs into the exact problem that cap-and-trade schemes are meant to solve. There is substantial variation in the cost of pollution abatement between different firms. Enforcing a haircut to emissions ignores that variation and imposes substantial costs on countries when cheaper emissions reductions could be found elsewhere.

A graphical illustration can be found here:

But more textually, let's explore this. Consider two firms, firms A and B. Firm A has a marginal economic cost (so inclusive of foregone benefits, eg foregone development,) of 30 credits for abatement of one unit of pollutant. Firm B however has a marginal cost of 60 credits for the same abatement. Because both are marginal costs, the total cost is the sum of their integrals.

Forcing both to abate 10 units would cost therefore `15A^2 + 30B^2`. Substituting 10 leads to a total cost of 4500. But the point of cap-and-trade is to do better than just telling everyone to cut back. Firms that can abate more inexpensively would shoulder less of a burden. They should be first to cut back. The minimum cost of 20 units of abatement is rather:

Yielding that A should abate 13.3 units while B should abate 6.7 units. The total cost in that situation would be 4000, meaning the first policy creates a deadweight loss of 500 credits.

Similar logic applies at the national level when considering national abatement costs. While I would have preferred an integrated sub-national trading market, this doesn't seem feasible given different institutional environments; note also that the alternative, ie a tax, discussed in The Economy (see supra) is not feasible under GA 17. The point of the cap-and-trade programme is to trade the emissions permits (or previously quotas) such that the more efficient outcome emerges. (The proof that this actually occurs is basically the separating hyperplane theorem.)

---

The problem both with GA 357 "Promotion of Clean Energy" (and your replacement proposal) is that it tries to clamp back of national emissions generally without regard for differing costs and benefits. Nations which have small benefits to emissions shouldn't have the same burden as those which forego massive benefits. And nations which can abate easily should be rewarded (by sale of their emissions credits) while those which can't should shoulder the costs (by purchasing them). Achieving all these objectives while avoiding the disparate impact is what the WA cap-and-trade programme does.

This is exacerbated substantially when the reasons for imposing those reductions vanishes. Because (not in spite of) GA 445 already imposes caps that stop anthropogenic climate change, this implies are few things. First, if a clean energy transition is necessary (in the real world it is), it is already happening due to market forces. Eg Chen et al, "Renewable energy investment and carbon emissions under cap-and-trade mechanisms" (2021) 278 J Cleaner Prod 123; Du et al, "Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation" (2016) 134 J Cleaner Prod 652; Stuhlmacher et al, Cap-and-trade and emissions clustering: a spatial-temporal analysis of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (2019) 249 J Environ Management 109. Second, from the overview, forcing abatement in a manner not proportional to the emerged equilibrium is allocatively inefficient.

Purposefully creating an allocatively inefficient mechanism to achieve a goal already achieved imposes costs for actually no benefits at all. Ergo there is no rationale for passing the replacement. Insofar as the arguments in this proposal deal mainly with the replacement's expected benefits, this proposal also gets undercut. That explains why I objected to Hulldom's statement which started this thread.

---

Now, to move beyond this tiresome exchange. What would I support? I would support repeal of this proposal, though not for these specific reasons. That said, insofar as it is already submitted the matter really only becomes one of the replacement.

What would I want to see in a replacement? I would want to see a technology sharing mechanism to make abatement less expensive. Such a programme also would help developing nations in developing without needing to buy scarce emissions permits (ie develop in a non-carbon-intensive way). That would have to take the form of a mechanism to subsidise or otherwise to arbitrate licencing fee disputes.

It would have to be something beyond the scope of what you describe here:

GAR 357 notes that the effects of fossil fuel reliance are an issue that extends beyond any one border. Yet, the resolution does little more than suggest that nations share technology. The replacement resolution creates an international organization whose purpose is to collaborate with member nations in researching and disseminating technologies that maximize energy extraction from clean energy sources.

Again, because your proposal does not violate GA 394's patent protections, it doesn't actually do anything. I already laid out why: GA 394 requires licencing fees to be paid unless literally no deal can be reached.

The idea that an international organisation would do the research and dissemination pretends that the patent rights would not exist, otherwise would enter the public domain, or would be granted to the GA. That is not how it works. The researchers who do the actual researching would be endowed with the patent rights if they are first to file. Otherwise, the person who is first to file has the rights. Reuse of the inventions would then require licencing fees. See GA 394 ss 3(a) (who can file), 3(d) (first to file), 3(e) (inventor rights protected by term).

What would not want to see? Targets for reductions. The entire purpose of the cap-and-trade mechanism is to get rid of the need for specific targets so nations can choose their own targets within the cap framework. This is especially the case if those targets are assigned in a manner not consistent with the cap-and-trade scheme. The targets, if binding, would destroy the cap-and-trade mechanism and impose unnecessary economic costs on member nations.

Nor would I be interested in urging member nations to build power plants in places without power transmission infrastructure, which just requires them to construct that infrastructure at substantial cost both to the environment (steel and concrete manufacturing being large emission sources) and to taxpayers. Nor should the WA accept unexamined that certain specific pieces of infrastructure or development choices are in fact the "best" solution. It should first determine that to be the case before requiring or urging it. Or it should let member nations choose that for itself. Avoiding those quagmires is why the cap-and-trade mechanism sets broad strategic goals and then creates incentives to make them happen.

Just really broadly, at the 30-thousand foot level, the GA is not a blank slate on which you can build your proposal. Nor is it a direct reflection of the real world. We can be informed by what the real world does, but there are major differences: the GA does a lot of things which are far beyond what the UN (or RL international agreements generally) has accomplished. The difficulty with writing proposals nowadays is writing something that is harmonious with the existing body of law. That can be difficult.

[Xernon]

As this gets ready to enter the voting phase, I wanted to thank each of the nearly 100 WA Delegates that supported the resolution through quorum. I'd also like to thank everyone here who have commented and provided their views/feedback -- I greatly appreciate each of you. If you have any questions about this proposal, let me know.

If you'd like to have a look at the replacement proposal, you can find that here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=511164

[Milorum]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Promotion Of Clean Energy".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Repeal: “Promotion Of Clean Energy”, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

[Gavailbhe]

"Hello all,

Today, I come to you with a proposal to repeal GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy.” This, and the replacement proposal that you will find posted along with it, are an attempt to modernize and strengthen international efforts to promote clean energy. I don't believe that such efforts are redundant with other resolutions, namely GAR#445 -- emission caps are one tool that we can use to facilitate our transition away from fossil fuels but it is not and should not be the only tool at our disposal. For more on that, though, please see the accompanying thread for the replacement legislation.

As always, our delegation very much welcomes all constructive feedback and thank you for all of your comments in forward." - Count Nyle, WA Ambassador - The Principality of Xernon

(Image)

Repeal “Promotion of Clean Energy” | Proposed by: Xernon

General Assembly Resolution #357 “Promotion of Clean Energy” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy” is an important piece of legislation that seeks to promote the use of clean forms of energy in order to reduce and counteract the negative health and environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels,

Noting, however, that GAR#357 fails to adequately provide the milestones and mandates necessary to guide member nations through the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources,

Observing that GAR#357 also fails to establish concrete international efforts or collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations,

Believing that any legislation seeking to promote the utilization of clean energy sources should be grounded in international cooperation, research, and technology development,

Convinced that a replacement resolution is necessary to provide member nations with the comprehensive framework and international cooperation needed to drive the switch in energy reliance from fossil fuels to clean energy sources,
I agree
Hereby repeals GAR#357 “Promotion of Clean Energy.”

[Tanktopialand]

Despite not believing fully in cleaner energy I cannot deny the efficiency in this and will support it.

[Dexterra]

To what extent will passage of this resolution impact the Eco-Friendliness and Environmental Beauty statistics?

[Hulldom]

To what extent will passage of this resolution impact the Eco-Friendliness and Environmental Beauty statistics?

We don't know that, no proposal author does. That's up to the IE team, I believe.

[Dexterra]

To what extent will passage of this resolution impact the Eco-Friendliness and Environmental Beauty statistics?

We don't know that, no proposal author does. That's up to the IE team, I believe.

I know, I was hoping a member of the behind the scenes team would possibly chime in on that. Thanks!

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Voted against. There's no reason to repeal Promotion of Clean Energy. You want "milestones" and "mandates" and "collaborative strategies" and synergy and retargeting and whatever other buzzwords you want to throw around, just pass them. Promotion of Clean Energy isn't stopping you.

Also, the repeal contains a lie when it claims that "GAR#357 also fails to establish concrete international efforts or collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations." There is, undeniably, at least one provision establishing an international effort and collaborative strategy to promote clean energy use among member nations, when it says: "Implores member nations which have access to superior forms of clean energy to share those technologies with nations that inhabit the same environment, as pollution from fossil fuel usage is non-discriminatory concerning national boundaries."

That is a specific and particular (i.e. "concrete") idea for a collaborative (i.e. nations working together) strategy promoting clean energy use through technology sharing.

I thought lying about the target was supposed to be against the rules. Regardless, it's a good reason to vote against.

[Peoples Republic of Lenorium]

It is absolutly absurd that any minimization should be imposed internationally upon Nation's Industry Production limits. The Regulations are destructive to the People's wealth and prosperity. Therefore, I Approve the Motion to repeal it.

[Tanktopialand]

It is absolutly absurd that any minimization should be imposed internationally upon Nation's Industry Production limits. The Regulations are destructive to the People's wealth and prosperity. Therefore, I Approve the Motion to repeal it.

And if it never existed it allows more economic growth your onto something i shall repeal it as well