[DRAFT] Repeal Renewable Research Commitment

[Canostan]

Edit: Included article text.

Description: Description: A proposal to encourage nations to fund renewable energy research.

ARGUMENT:

AWARE that the use of fossil fuels and fossil fuel related products depletes the limited reserves upon planets

UNDERSTANDS that the burning of fossil fuels such as coal to produce electricity releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming as well as other noxious compounds that can later cause acid rain as well as other environmental issues,

CONCERNED that this rapid depletion would leave no way to produce energy for future generations,

KNOWS that there are other ways to generate electricity without using fossil fuels. These include, but is not limited to, solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro,

HEREBY:

1) Instructs World Assembly nations to devote sufficient funding in order to make a meaningful and good faith effort towards researching renewable energy
2) Encourages nations to enact policies on fossil-fuel burning power plants to commit a minimum 5% from their expenditure to further renewable energy research and to develop ways to better utilize alternative energy sources
3) Urges nations to take into account and implement results from the renewable energy research

IN ORDER to allow future generations to produce electricity without further polluting the atmosphere.

END OF RESOLUTION

COMMENDING the intentions of WA Resolution#182

BELIEVING that the protection of the planet is of utmost importance.

However stating that:

1) Much of the language used in the resolution is vague and does not enforce anything.
2) Forcing power plants to spend 5% of their money on research has a huge impact on the effectiveness of the businesses involved.
3) This effect will cause energy prices to rise so the burden, far from falling on the companies, will fall on the consumer instead.

Hereby repeals World Assembly resolution #182

It should be noted that I support the sentiment of this resolution and believe that protecting the planet is important I just believe that this goes too far.

EDIT: Changed argument in response to criticism.

[Mousebumples]

Suggestion: post the original resolution's text (that which you are trying to repeal) in the OP, perhaps under a spoiler tag, to make it easier to make suggestions for repeal text improvement.

I don't have time to delve into this too deeply right now, but I'll try to give you more feedback over the next few days. However, I will give you major props for posting this on the forums before submission. Yay! *messengers your delegation a cheese-filled welcome basket in appreciation*

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Canostan]

bump

[Mahaj]

A good template for a repeal is three strong points... right now you have one, which you've split into 3 sections. Its also not a terribly strong point. So, while this repeal is workable, you need more good reasons.

[Frenequesta]

I believe you misunderstand the resolution-- the 5% expenditure is a burden on power plants, not the state (although that's a concern in itself that I make clear in my own repeal draft).

[Mahaj]

I believe you misunderstand the resolution-- the 5% expenditure is a burden on power plants, not the state (although that's a concern in itself that I make clear in my own repeal draft).

That's not clear at all... and that for itself is a good reason for a repeal.

[Democratic Consensia]

COMMENDING the intentions of WA Resolution#182

BELIEVING that the protection of the planet¹ is of utmost importance.

However stating that:

1) Much of the language used in the resolution is vague and does not enforce anything.²
2) Deplores that the only section that does requires the extortionate amount of 5% of government spending to be used on research.³
3) Notes that this amount is greater than many nation's spending on fields like healthcare and law and order.⁴

Hereby repeals World Assembly resolution #182

It should be noted that I support the sentiment of this resolution and believe that protecting the planet is important I just believe that this goes too far.

To the Esteemed Representative of Canostan,

With reference to the above-quoted text, we have several points of contention, including seconding the assertions of Mahaj.
1) As you may or may not be aware, this assembly has a scope beyond the simple definition of a planet (as a function of the multiversal arrangement of its members). Consider replacing with the term "environment".
2) This resolution is indeed poorly worded, and less than forceful. Unfortunately, many other resolutions share this trait and you could keep your legislative affairs team busy for decades repairing the damage.
3) You're reading this clause wrong. It encourages governments to force power plants (usually corporate entities) to pay the 5% of their budgets... not 5% of the government budget. The term encourages is also non-forceful, which is pursuant to your point 1.
4)See the third point.

While we support the desire to strengthen this bill, we feel this can be done without repealing the original, and that time would be better spent on writing follow-on legislation than scrapping existing environmental protections.

Sincerely,

[Frenequesta]

While we support the desire to strengthen this bill, we feel this can be done without repealing the original, and that time would be better spent on writing follow-on legislation than scrapping existing environmental protections.

You do know that resolutions can't be amended, right?

[Mahaj]

3) You're reading this clause wrong. It encourages governments to force power plants (usually corporate entities) to pay the 5% of their budgets... not 5% of the government budget. The term encourages is also non-forceful, which is pursuant to your point 1.

Um... I interpret the clause as saying 5% of the nations budget... and Krykberg, a Europeian, seems to say also that its the energy budget of the nation, not the plant.

You can't really say that interpreting it as the national budget is wrong.

[Democratic Consensia]

While we support the desire to strengthen this bill, we feel this can be done without repealing the original, and that time would be better spent on writing follow-on legislation than scrapping existing environmental protections.

You do know that resolutions can't be amended, right?

No, really? Shame there isn't some large, sticky rules document that people should read before posting here... Yep, real shame that doesn't exist.

Delegate Manos is defenestrated by his own staff for excessive use of sarcasm.

Following-on is not the same as amending. Following on would be the passage of additional laws in the same field. That should be possible given the prohibition on blocking.

Re-Mahaj: Krykberg's interpretation is incorrect. I agree that the phasing is vague at best, but it does indeed say that it relates to the passage of laws pertaining to the expenditures of plants... not the governmental budget. While most power companies are crown corporations, it still says the expenditures, not the sum total of the government budget. The dangling modifier is confusing, but the intent is clear, quote:

"fossil-fuel burning power plants to commit a minimum 5% from their expenditure"

[Bears Armed]

Following-on is not the same as amending. Following on would be the passage of additional laws in the same field. That should be possible given the prohibition on blocking.

Any such "Following on" resolution would have to be able to stand by itself, in case the one that it follows on from ever gets repealed: In NS that's called the 'House of Cards' rule...

[Dukopolious]

Nice start, I'd make a few stronger points ( You can sneak in a NatSov argument if you have other points too ) I also suggest you change the actual format to make it look slightly more professional. I'll support this once it's done

[Democratic Consensia]

Following-on is not the same as amending. Following on would be the passage of additional laws in the same field. That should be possible given the prohibition on blocking.

Any such "Following on" resolution would have to be able to stand by itself, in case the one that it follows on from ever gets repealed: In NS that's called the 'House of Cards' rule...

Naturally.