Advertisement

by Tectonix » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:52 pm

by Ipland » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:13 pm

by United Republican Lands » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:38 pm
Ipland wrote:Verejn turned her head towards the delegate from URL, surprised by his words.
"GURL what?"
She thought to herself.
"To the delegate from URL, can you please explain how all nations here can realistically follow what you have proposed?"
Verejn said

by Polar Svalbard » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:47 pm

by Kalorphi » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:13 pm

by Tectonix » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:16 pm

by United Republican Lands » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:00 pm
Polar Svalbard wrote:Severi looked at the delegate, "I believe you are going way to far with this. It is this kind of overinflated goals that usually sink these kind of summits. Polar Svalbard is looking for a good starting point for all of us, that everyone can agree to, and which will provide the basis for future treaties. Our hope is to get nations to start limiting carbon emissions and encouraging the use of green energy. Banning fossil fuels is out of the question, it is impractical, ill-advised, and would be a detriment to the economies of our nations. The fishing is out of line, maybe the whaling can be put into use. I find bio and chemical warfare should be limited in a different convention. The spills are more of a nation-corporation relationship thing, not an international community-nation thing. And your eighth point overall seems shoehorned in without thought to what it entails."
Severi took a sip of his whiskey and coke. "Those are just my thoughts, but I'm sure many follow the same line of thought as me."

by Athara Magarat » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:13 pm
United Republican Lands wrote:"It is too late to just 'start' limiting emissions. The prohibition of CFCs, and HCFCs is definitely crucially needed part. The other most important part is the elimination of fossil fuels by 2030. These are especially reasonable demands, as well as the mandatory cleanup of chemical and oil spills by those who cause those spills. Did you really show up to a climate change summit without expecting the attendees to actually try fixing the problem?"

by Polar Svalbard » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:17 pm

by Kalorphi » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:27 pm

by Tectonix » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:35 pm
Polar Svalbard wrote:Severi just laughed, "I certainly don't expect them to come here with their head in the clouds trying to ramrod their idealistic beliefs down all of our throats. I would have thought we were all realists here. No its not too late to limit emissions and I will tell you right now that your banning fossil fuels is stupid and Polar Svalbard will not stand for it. You solve no problems, your proposals only seek to create them."
Severi looked off into the distance for a moment, "Your CFCs do make sense though, although I would have believed that most of us would have banned CFCs with the rest of the world when we all learned that we had burnt a hole in the ozone. Polar Svalbard certainly did."

by Vancouvia » Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:06 pm

by Bhikkustan » Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:11 pm

by Tectonix » Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:28 pm

by Wellsia » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:58 pm

by Ainslie » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:18 am

by Xrevaro » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:41 am

by Tectonix » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:18 am

by Verdon » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:25 pm
A ban on production, trade, and use HCFCs, excepting cases of existing equipment needs by 2020. A ban on all use of HCFCs, and production, trade, and use of HFCs, excepting cases of existing equipment needs by 2025. A ban on all use and complete phased out of HFCs by 2030.

by Ainslie » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:56 pm

by Kandana » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:27 am

by United Republican Lands » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:08 pm

by Ostehaar » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:55 pm
United Republican Lands wrote:"a complete ban on fossil fuels by 2030 must be implemented, as not doing so will endanger the environment even more than it already is. According to current estimates, sea levels will rise by half a meter by 2050 if such measures are not taken! I am not sure about the nations that the rest of you represent, but the URL has most of its population along the coasts, which will be greatly affected by such rise in sea level."

by Ainslie » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement