Advertisement
by The Emerald and Former Crystal Isles » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:40 am
by Ratateague » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:52 am
Abacathea wrote:In relation to proportionate requirements, it was once a mandate in the earlier drafts that nations had been set a target of 10% supply to the grid to be reached, this was deemed unfair on feedback and hence scrapped. Now nations are arguing that it doesn't give a proportionate figure. Fundamentally I can't make provisions for both, there can be no assessment based on nation size etc... that would be mirco-managing to the extreme. Resultantly the lesser of two evils had to win out. We feel that nations are clever enough to know what is being asked of them here with out us having to directly mandate every singly proportion of it to them. Maybe this was an oversight on our part.
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:55 am
Ratateague wrote:Abacathea wrote:In relation to proportionate requirements, it was once a mandate in the earlier drafts that nations had been set a target of 10% supply to the grid to be reached, this was deemed unfair on feedback and hence scrapped. Now nations are arguing that it doesn't give a proportionate figure. Fundamentally I can't make provisions for both, there can be no assessment based on nation size etc... that would be mirco-managing to the extreme. Resultantly the lesser of two evils had to win out. We feel that nations are clever enough to know what is being asked of them here with out us having to directly mandate every singly proportion of it to them. Maybe this was an oversight on our part.
Thank you for responding to my concerns. I respect your want for fairness. However, I fear you may have buckled too far to demands of nations who would have not voted for any form of statistical accountability. While a flat 10% may have been too high, there are other means of proportional scalability.
by Retired WerePenguins » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:05 am
Abacathea wrote:Please note before you cast your vote, that this does not, in any way impact on your uranium mining. This legislation does not force you to cease and desist or lower your mining industry. It asks for co-existance between the two, not favorability between either.
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:44 am
Retired WerePenguins wrote:Abacathea wrote:Please note before you cast your vote, that this does not, in any way impact on your uranium mining. This legislation does not force you to cease and desist or lower your mining industry. It asks for co-existance between the two, not favorability between either.
You are clearly wrong.Category: Environmental ... Industry Affected: All Businesses
This will impact the uranium mining business; it will impact the furniture restoration business; it will impact the wood chipping business; it will impact the fishing business; it will impact all businesses! All will suffer!Ironically there is no renewable energy business ... if there was one it too would SUFFER as a result of the resolution. How's that for irony.
I know there are are those who don't look at their nation's stats and never even look at the game outside of these forums, but some people do actually take their stats semi seriously. All we ask is just a little RESPECT.
by Scootaworld » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:45 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:32 pm
Abacathea wrote:Further recognizing the boost to economies, industries and employment that the undertaking of renewable energy projects would provide in both the short and long term.
Abacathea wrote:(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.
by Abacathea » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:35 pm
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:My nation is already on the record in opposition to this proposal, so I'll make this brief:Abacathea wrote:Further recognizing the boost to economies, industries and employment that the undertaking of renewable energy projects would provide in both the short and long term.
This statement is at best misleading and at worst a lie. We know for a fact that this environmental proposal will come at the expense of businesses and industry. Telling nations that their vote for this proposal will provide a "boost to economies, industries and employment" is simply decietful. We all know this proposal will have no such positive economic effect.
I like to think the Abacathean delegation did not intend to mislead, but all the same this statement in the proposal is not true. By definition, this proposal to improve the environment will come at the expense of industry.Abacathea wrote:(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.
Emphasis mine. As we have pointed out before, being in an "economically viable position" to do something is simply a matter of national budgets. If my nation has no room in its budget for building REI's, we are not "in an economically viable position to do so." Loophole-ing this proposal is incredibly easy for any nation that exercises control over its taxation and spending policy (which, I'd imagine, is just about all of us).
Unless your nation's government runs at a profit, it is unlikely that there is simply free, unallocated money just floating around in your budget to build REI's with. If all the funds in your budget are allocated to other projects, you're simply not in an economically viable position to build new (likely redundant) energy facilities.
We think this proposal had promise and we wish it would have been subjected to more than a 10 day drafting period. As a nation near the top of the Eco-friendly scale, we will not be too upset if this passes and will not mount a repeal campaign against it. We're just bummed out that a good idea was rushed through, resulting in what we feel is a significantly-flawed final article.
AGAINST
Best Regards,
by Aligned Planets » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:23 pm
What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the United Federation has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?
"The 4,427th nation in the world for Most Scientifically Advanced, scoring 266 on the Kurzweil Singularity Index."
Don't question the FT of AP.DRAFT | ANIMAL TRANSPORT ACTJaresh-Inyo | World Assembly Delegate
Laura Roslin | President, United Federation of Aligned Planets
by Nigia Warriors » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:26 pm
by United Federation of Canada » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:54 pm
by Rickgrad » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:47 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:05 pm
by Rickgrad » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:16 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:
Please stop posting your seal in WA posts. You're presumably sitting in a chamber discussing this, not passing diplomatic notes between nations. Leave the seals and diplomatic boilerplate in the Diplomacy forums.
by Delegate Vinage » Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:25 am
by Araraukar » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 am
Honkong wrote:So my government wants to encourage as much as possible delegates depregatinged theinstant Act to thing about an contemporary repealing.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Araraukar » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:02 am
Nigia Warriors wrote:Why not solar? Otherwise I do agree.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Libertas Liber » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:10 am
Abacathea wrote:This act is not a house of cards, as i pointed out earlier in the thread to prevent that accusation be levied. The house of cards theory is based that if you repealed the research commitment act, this would fall down, however it stands alone on it's own merits, therefore not a house of cards.
In relation to proportionate requirements, it was once a mandate in the earlier drafts that nations had been set a target of 10% supply to the grid to be reached, this was deemed unfair on feedback and hence scrapped. Now nations are arguing that it doesn't give a proportionate figure. Fundamentally I can't make provisions for both, there can be no assessment based on nation size etc... that would be mirco-managing to the extreme. Resultantly the lesser of two evils had to win out. We feel that nations are clever enough to know what is being asked of them here with out us having to directly mandate every singly proportion of it to them. Maybe this was an oversight on our part. If it was, we will certainly be addressing it should the act fail.
by Abacathea » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:41 am
Libertas Liber wrote:Abacathea wrote:This act is not a house of cards, as i pointed out earlier in the thread to prevent that accusation be levied. The house of cards theory is based that if you repealed the research commitment act, this would fall down, however it stands alone on it's own merits, therefore not a house of cards.
In relation to proportionate requirements, it was once a mandate in the earlier drafts that nations had been set a target of 10% supply to the grid to be reached, this was deemed unfair on feedback and hence scrapped. Now nations are arguing that it doesn't give a proportionate figure. Fundamentally I can't make provisions for both, there can be no assessment based on nation size etc... that would be mirco-managing to the extreme. Resultantly the lesser of two evils had to win out. We feel that nations are clever enough to know what is being asked of them here with out us having to directly mandate every singly proportion of it to them. Maybe this was an oversight on our part. If it was, we will certainly be addressing it should the act fail.
The problem is, I could build 2 R.E.I.s and be in compliance with this resolution. Nothing is defined. How much power does it have to produce?
Also, in relation to:
"(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy."
Negative environmental impact is broad. Besides, every industry makes some negative environmental impact. A grocery store runs fully on solar panels and wind power, but the trucks delivering to the store use fossil fuels. Does the grocery store now cause a negative environmental impact? Also, "negative environmental impact" is not define. I assume it's up to each nation's discretion then?
Nothing in this resolution is clear. And, as said before by another nation, this will mostly hurt developing nations, while developed ones will get away with it.
Also, "negative environmental impact" is not define. I assume it's up to each nation's discretion then?
by Libertas Liber » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:02 am
Abacathea wrote:The issue, as has been answered a few times by now, is that there originally was mandates relating to how much was required, specifically enough installations to run 10% of the electrical grid of a nation. This was inevitably removed as it was determined, that this particular clause was indifferent towards small/large nations. It seems that in being fair, we've somehow given the impression that we're not. Resultantly, should this fail, which is a possibility, this provision will be going back into the act.
Ironically, you've answered your own question with the supermarket analogy though, because the exact situation you've outlined, is the exact situation we want. If a business is contributing to environmental degrading, even through for example it's delivery outlets, then if they balance it out through renewable energy, ie; solar panels etc... then yes, thats perfect.
This seems a bit.... of an objection for the sake of an objection. How many variances on the definition of negative environmental impact can there actually be? No matter what way you might want to spin it, it's base principal will always fall into what it is. It seems a fundamentally black and white sentence fragment you've outlined here.
by Retired WerePenguins » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:21 pm
Abacathea wrote:Realistically though, you could argue against any proposal in the environmental all businesses category (of which I note there is a few) of your sole concern is your stats and not the actual resolution itself. I would hope that your objections didn't kick in as soon as you read the category. That said, it is your right to run your nation as you see fit, and object to effects on your nation accordingly, but it does seem surprising to me that the acts merits would be ignored because of limiting classifications. Perhaps it's time the categories reflected the evolution that nations have undergone in terms of creativity etc... but thats a game mechanics conversation I don't really wish to get in to which I hope you'll understand.
by Eireann Fae » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:26 pm
Retired WerePenguins wrote:So now that I've given you my basic objections to the resolution, seeing that it is going to pass, let me explain to you in very simple terms what this resolution does and why it's noting but a lot of hurt for everyone. First of all, environmentally friendly sites need to be located. We all know where they are, or rather where they are not. That's right, they are not near population centers. They are probably not in the ideal locations either, which means that a resource that is already inefficient is going to be made more so by its inefficient location merely because it has and I quote "the least environmental disturbance."
by Katzharak » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:39 pm
Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)
by Retired WerePenguins » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:50 pm
Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)
The main concern with a Solar Farm involves the adverse effects on surrounding wildlife and the ecosystem. With solar energy farms in generally arid regions, plants and animals must adapt to very specific harsh environments.
Environmentalists fear that any change, such as a large solar energy farm in the middle of the region could disrupt the ecosystem.
All utility-scale solar energy facilities require relatively large areas for solar radiation collection when used to generate electricity at utility-scale (defined for the Solar PEIS as facilities with a generation capacity of 20 MW or greater). Solar facilities may interfere with existing land uses, such as grazing, wild horse and burro management, military uses, and minerals production. Solar facilities could impact the use of nearby specially designated areas such as wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern, or special recreation management areas.
Construction of solar facilities on large areas of land requires clearing and grading, and results in soil compaction, potential alteration of drainage channels, and increased runoff and erosion.
Photovoltaic panels may contain hazardous materials, and although they are sealed under normal operating conditions, there is the potential for environmental contamination if they were damaged or improperly disposed upon decommissioning. Concentrating solar power systems may employ materials such as oils or molten salts, hydraulic fluids, coolants, and lubricants, that may be hazardous and present spill risks.
by Abacathea » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:14 pm
Retired WerePenguins wrote:Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Too tired for a proper rebuttal, but solar panels can be placed just about anywhere.)I'm going to ignore the fact that my nation is in the antarctic where the nights can be quite long. Instead I will refer you to this lovely argument:The main concern with a Solar Farm involves the adverse effects on surrounding wildlife and the ecosystem. With solar energy farms in generally arid regions, plants and animals must adapt to very specific harsh environments.
Environmentalists fear that any change, such as a large solar energy farm in the middle of the region could disrupt the ecosystem.
See also this:All utility-scale solar energy facilities require relatively large areas for solar radiation collection when used to generate electricity at utility-scale (defined for the Solar PEIS as facilities with a generation capacity of 20 MW or greater). Solar facilities may interfere with existing land uses, such as grazing, wild horse and burro management, military uses, and minerals production. Solar facilities could impact the use of nearby specially designated areas such as wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern, or special recreation management areas.Construction of solar facilities on large areas of land requires clearing and grading, and results in soil compaction, potential alteration of drainage channels, and increased runoff and erosion.Photovoltaic panels may contain hazardous materials, and although they are sealed under normal operating conditions, there is the potential for environmental contamination if they were damaged or improperly disposed upon decommissioning. Concentrating solar power systems may employ materials such as oils or molten salts, hydraulic fluids, coolants, and lubricants, that may be hazardous and present spill risks.
The resolution is clear; areas where "the least environmental disturbance" must be located and these facilities must be built there. No exceptions.
Photovoltaic panels may contain hazardous materials, and although they are sealed under normal operating conditions, there is the potential for environmental contamination if they were damaged or improperly disposed upon decommissioning. Concentrating solar power systems may employ materials such as oils or molten salts, hydraulic fluids, coolants, and lubricants, that may be hazardous and present spill risks.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement