I'm not going to pick the full thing apart, just anything I can see that is flimsy in my view.
Concerned that the proposal of GA182 might have violated the rules regarding proposals on the basis of its implicitly optional nature.
Regardless of whether it did or did not, once it has passed a repeal argument challenging it's legality doesn't hold much swing. Not that it holds none, just not a lot.
Recognizing that GA182 does not compel allied nations to assist each other in the building of clean energy infrastructure
I'm not surprised by this. The title lends itself to believe it wants nations to commit to research, not to commit to building infrastructures. It may have been a nice touch of the author but I don't think an essential one.
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
As the author of a former piece of legislation that attempted just that, the answer is usually thus; taxing enterprises across the board regardless of small or large may cripple some businesses to achieve your long term goals. This is usually not acceptable to nations and probably why it wasn't done.
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.
Probably the most convincing argument I've seen so far, but the title and the text not quite syncing up, is probably still a long shot punt for justifying a repeal.
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
Generally speaking the WA doesn't interfere in domestic taxation per legislation in effect. It can, but it usually doesn't. This seems more a "in my view it didn't go far enough" argument which is fine.
Anywho, I'm not fussed either way, but I haven't critiqued something in a while and this seemed a good place to dust off the cobwebs! Have a nice day!