[POLL][READY TO SUBMIT] Repeal Renewable Research Commitment

[Reghana]

---

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 was worded in a way that suggests that nations should assist each other in researching energy solutions, yet does not explicitly encourage the widespread implementation of currently existing alternative energy sources.

Concerned that the proposal of GA182 might have violated the rules regarding proposals on the basis of its implicitly optional nature.

Recognizing that GA182 does not directly address nations already relying solely on clean energy.

Recognizing that GA182 does not compel allied nations to assist each other in the building of clean energy infrastructure.

Recognizing that GA182 includes a provision to divert 5% of energy production costs towards researching clean energy solutions, many of which already exist and need funding for implementation. However, GA182 does not include a provision that places a tax on manufacturers and commercial customers who must utilize non-renewable energy sources, when adding such a tax would make fossil fuels less economical while making clean energy facilities more attractive to communities within nations.

Recognizing that GA182 is overly concerned with reduction in fossil fuel consumption, but does not spend enough time arguing positively for the advancement of clean energy, which is what the title of the legislation suggests the resolution should do.

Disappointed that GA182 does not encourage nations to give tax exemptions to those citizens and industries that successfully establish a clean energy solution on their own, separate from the national power grid if necessary, and without additional government aid.

Disappointed that GA182 was not a strong enough resolution to accomplish its goals, which can be likened more closely to a mission statement than a directive, and neither mandates nor prohibits any nation's participation.

Disappointed that GA182 does not suggest the subsidization of clean energy infrastructure abroad, nor does GA182 found a World Assembly committee for the open sharing of research and technological developments in the energy industry.

Hoping for the passage of a stronger resolution on the subject of clean energy.

HEREBY

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #182: Renewable Research Commitment.

[Povinksi]

---

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 is vague and placed the burden of energy research and development on facilities instead of governments.

Recognizing that some provisions of GA182 were not applicable to nations already relying solely on clean energy. Thus, said nations were not given the responsibility of assisting other nations.

Hoping for the passage of a better resolution on the subject of clean energy.

HEREBY
This has already been posted.

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #182: Renewable Research Commitment.

[Povinksi]

---

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 is vague and placed the burden of energy research and development on facilities instead of governments.

Recognizing that some provisions of GA182 were not applicable to nations already relying solely on clean energy. Thus, said nations were not given the responsibility of assisting other nations.

Hoping for the passage of a better resolution on the subject of clean energy.

HEREBY
This has already been posted.

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #182: Renewable Research Commitment.

This has already been posted.

[John Turner]

What are you talking about Povinksi, and why did you repost the entire post without adding anything to it?

[Grays Harbor]

---

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 is vague and placed the burden of energy research and development on facilities instead of governments.
False. What it says is:

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

It neither mandates nor prohibits a nations government from participation.

Recognizing that some provisions of GA182 were not applicable to nations already relying solely on clean energy. Thus, said nations were not given the responsibility of assisting other nations.
Why should government be the only agency bearing responsibility? Why should be nation A's responsibilty to fund research for nations X, Y, & Z?
Hoping for the passage of a better resolution on the subject of clean energy.

HEREBY

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #182: Renewable Research Commitment.

[Pol was right again]

What are you talking about Povinksi, and why did you repost the entire post without adding anything to it?

As in, we've already tried to repeal it.

[Pol was right again]

What are you talking about Povinksi, and why did you repost the entire post without adding anything to it?

As in, we've already tried to repeal it.

Perhaps it would've been better to say "tried?"

[John Turner]

What are you talking about Povinksi, and why did you repost the entire post without adding anything to it?

As in, we've already tried to repeal it.

No Vancouvia tried, unless you are actually Vancouvia? Also will you please stick with one nation to do you diplomatic wranglings? All of these puppets are getting very annoying. What you are doing is called puppet-wankery and it is severely frowned upon, especially by the mods.

[Frisbeeteria]

As in, we've already tried to repeal it.

Perhaps it would've been better to say "tried?"

Four out of the first seven posts in this thread are spam from you and your puppets.

*** Povinksi and Pol was right again are both warned for spamming ***

[Reghana]

I merely started this thread because I was dissatisfied with the short discussion time of the last attempt made to repeal the resolution, and repealing such a resolution is required by the rules before a replacement proposal can be lodged. This way, we can all discuss the repeal in greater depth and with more time. Hope this helps.

[Separatist Peoples]

I merely started this thread because I was dissatisfied with the short discussion time of the last attempt made to repeal the resolution, and repealing such a resolution is required by the rules before a replacement proposal can be lodged. This way, we can all discuss the repeal in greater depth and with more time. Hope this helps.

OOC: you didn't do anything wrong. Povinski was being unreasonable. Don't take all that to heart.

[Povinksi]

I merely started this thread because I was dissatisfied with the short discussion time of the last attempt made to repeal the resolution, and repealing such a resolution is required by the rules before a replacement proposal can be lodged. This way, we can all discuss the repeal in greater depth and with more time. Hope this helps.

I will support this resolution.

[Reghana]

---

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 was worded in a way that suggests that nations should assist each other in researching energy solutions, yet does not explicitly encourage the widespread implementation of currently existing alternative energy sources.

Concerned that the proposal of GA182 might have violated the rules regarding proposals on the basis of its implicitly optional nature.

Recognizing that GA182 does not directly address nations already relying solely on clean energy.

Recognizing that GA182 does not compel allied nations to assist each other in the building of clean energy infrastructure.

Recognizing that GA182 includes a provision to divert 5% of energy production costs towards researching clean energy solutions, many of which already exist and need funding for implementation. However, GA182 does not include a provision that places a tax on manufacturers and commercial customers who must utilize non-renewable energy sources, when adding such a tax would make fossil fuels less economical while making clean energy facilities more attractive to communities within nations.

Recognizing that GA182 is overly concerned with reduction in fossil fuel consumption, but does not spend enough time arguing positively for the advancement of clean energy, which is what the title of the legislation suggests the resolution should do.

Disappointed that GA182 does not encourage nations to give tax exemptions to those citizens and industries that successfully establish a clean energy solution on their own, separate from the national power grid if necessary, and without additional government aid.

Disappointed that GA182 was not a strong enough resolution to accomplish its goals, which can be likened more closely to a mission statement than a directive, and neither mandates nor prohibits any nation's participation.

Disappointed that GA182 does not suggest the subsidization of clean energy infrastructure abroad, nor does GA182 found a World Assembly committee for the open sharing of research and technological developments in the energy industry.

Hoping for the passage of a stronger resolution on the subject of clean energy.

HEREBY

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #182: Renewable Research Commitment.

[Kaboomlandia]

Spoiler your old draft and put the new one in the OP. Makes it easier to find.

[Reghana]

Added a poll to the thread to get a feel for what provisions should be included in a replacement resolution. We are still in the process of re-drafting that resolution and are interested in other nation's feedback. Please add any suggestions for provisions here or send a telegram to my office. There will be a new draft thread for the Universal Clean Energy Act as soon as we can all agree on its initial provisions.

Scintillating regards,

Alice Prinibmasa

[Tinfect]

OOC:
None of those poll choices are even remotely a good idea.

[Wallenburg]

OOC:
None of those poll choices are even remotely a good idea.

The last one might be, given the rest of the replacement were good. But I agree that the others make absolutely no sense.

[Reghana]

I explicitly stated that if you have suggestions beyond what is in the perfunctory poll, please comment or send a message. And if you disagree with any of the above stated ideas, please help us to understand why you disagree so the ideas do not end up in a piece of legislation that cannot pass.

[John Turner]

The Federation is ready and willing to support this.

[Reghana]

Yes we are ready, I believe we just need endorsements to lodge he repeal.

[Normlpeople]

Yes we are ready, I believe we just need endorsements to lodge he repeal.

"You will not receive mine until your proposed replacement is ready." Clover said "Many of your points for repeal are not even remotely relevant, you seem to me more campaigning for your non-written replacement than pointing flaws in this one. You also seem to use 'renewable energy' and 'clean energy' interchangeably, where they are not the same thing.

I believe you are rushing at a badge rather than a legitimate repeal/replacement. As such, without an agreeable alternative ready to go, I shall not be supporting a repeal of the current one."

[Reghana]

Yes we are ready, I believe we just need endorsements to lodge he repeal.

"You will not receive mine until your proposed replacement is ready." Clover said "Many of your points for repeal are not even remotely relevant, you seem to me more campaigning for your non-written replacement than pointing flaws in this one. You also seem to use 'renewable energy' and 'clean energy' interchangeably, where they are not the same thing.

I believe you are rushing at a badge rather than a legitimate repeal/replacement. As such, without an agreeable alternative ready to go, I shall not be supporting a repeal of the current one."

We do not use the two terms interchangeably. A close look at where the terms are used will reveal that we use the terms where the meaning is appropriate. And we are not going to write a replacement without conferring with other nations first. The repeal is necessary for any new legislation to proceed. And we do not see what you mean by our points for repeal being irrelevant. How did you arrive at this conclusion? We simply point out what the current legislation does not do and suggest that the new legislation should have those provisions. Can you defend your position?

OOC: The replacement proposal is actually a group effort so I cannot say when it will be completed for certain but I know it has several provisions that we are debating somewhat violently.

[Tinfect]

OOC: The replacement proposal is actually a group effort so I cannot say when it will be completed for certain but I know it has several provisions that we are debating somewhat violently.

OOC:
Well, my opinion is that every provision, assuming the ones in the poll are the ones being referred to, should be dropped save the for the last one, as they are all horrible ideas. Especially the bits about 'Tax Incentives', Prohibition of Military Research, even though it should be fairly obvious how naive that one is, the bits that mandate we share our research with other nations, and that bit that mandates what is to be considered an act of war, those are particularly ridiculous.

[Normlpeople]

Clover nodded "I am aware that the repeal is necessary for your replacement to be proposed. Drafting of such a replacement is not illegal, and does not need to wait until the repeal to be accomplished. In fact, having a replacement readily available will only increase your credibility as being serious about a replacement. There is some danger in your current path, as assuming such a repeal goes forward, that without a replacement, someone could come by and pass something worse, and far more restrictive. I have seen this occur.

As for 'defending my positions', you should focus on what the current resolution does wrong, not what you feel it should be doing."

[Reghana]

Clover nodded "I am aware that the repeal is necessary for your replacement to be proposed. Drafting of such a replacement is not illegal, and does not need to wait until the repeal to be accomplished. In fact, having a replacement readily available will only increase your credibility as being serious about a replacement. There is some danger in your current path, as assuming such a repeal goes forward, that without a replacement, someone could come by and pass something worse, and far more restrictive. I have seen this occur.

As for 'defending my positions', you should focus on what the current resolution does wrong, not what you feel it should be doing."

OOC: Well said. As for the ridiculousness of the suggested provisions above, while I agree that at least two of them are ridiculous, the majority has decided that they be suggested in the public poll. How they fare in the poll will determine ultimately whether they make it into the replacement proposal or not.

IC: We tend to agree more and more with what you are saying here. We made a sloppy attempt at drafting a replacement proposal last week that received a lot of negative criticism. But we are still debating what needs to be said and how it should be worded. If you have any ideas that might be helpful, feel free to send us a telegram. Otherwise, we hope to roll out the new proposal by the end of this week.