[IN QUEUE] Promotion of Clean Energy

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:49 am

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses
Proposed by: Vancouvia

The World Assembly,

Conscious of the environmental damage that can and does occur when fossil fuels are burned to create energy and the adverse health effects that can develop due to this release of harmful emissions;

Deeply aware of the impermanent nature of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas;

Cognizant of the existence of alternate forms of energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro, virtually all of which are clean, renewable, and cost-effective in the long-run;

Praising the fact that some forms of clean energy such as solar photovoltaics can be implemented cheaply on a small-scale in rural areas, and are thus incredibly successful in bringing power to areas that may have lacked it otherwise;

Recognizing that many of our member nations have already researched and implemented efficient and effective ways of harnessing clean energy;

Urges member nations to seek to simultaneously dis-incentivize the usage of fossil fuels and incentivize the usage of clean energies, through methods available to them such as taxation, business and consumer subsidies, active governmental research and involvement, and dissemination of information concerning the advantages of clean energy;

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

Implores member nations which have access to superior forms of clean energy to share those technologies with nations that inhabit the same environment, as pollution from fossil fuel usage is non-discriminatory concerning national boundaries;

Encourages member nations to create legislation and policy that works in other ways to decrease the nation's overall carbon footprint, and to continue to seek out new advantageous technologies to increase the sustainability and longevity of their environments.

This proposal was submitted by Vancouvia and is currently in queue.

You can find the version on NS here.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:52 am

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

"This would require that the Democratic Empire start subsidising or mandating the building of clean energy without reference to how efficient it is or how those form of energy would be used. If it said 'efficient', I would be fine with it. But in its current state, I am not", says Parsons. He then follows up and says, "I would note that this is the only actual requirement in the entire proposal. Everything else either urges, encourages, or implores".

Parsons then writes off in a note to his aide, "Oppose". He then scribbles, "Estimated voting time will be 12:00 on the 1st February 1916 (OS 2016)" and hands the note off.

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:43 am

Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

There are plenty of provisions in that clause to clarify that impractical energy solutions aren't required, though why a nation would go out of its way to interpret the legislation to be more burdensome then it needs to be is beyond me.

by **Wrapper** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:12 am

There's already a debate thread on this, please comment there.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

by **Vancouvia** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:04 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Requires that member nations which have efficient forms of clean energy available to them make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible;

"This would require that the Democratic Empire start subsidising or mandating the building of clean energy without reference to how efficient it is or how those form of energy would be used. If it said 'efficient', I would be fine with it. But in its current state, I am not", says Parsons. He then follows up and says, "I would note that this is the only actual requirement in the entire proposal. Everything else either urges, encourages, or implores".

Parsons then writes off in a note to his aide, "Oppose". He then scribbles, "Estimated voting time will be 12:00 on the 1st February 1916 (OS 2016)" and hands the note off.

Not following your logic here at all. Perhaps you can reword this. Are you saying you have no efficient forms of clean energy available to you in which to implement? Effective in this case would mean actually using the clean energy sources to produce clean energy

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:01 am

Wrapper wrote:There's already a debate thread on this, please comment there.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

OCC: I was gonna call it out but ~~it was to passive aggressive, even in character~~I think a fresh thread is a good idea. Helps to avoid rehashing the same arguments.

by **Wrapper** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:05 am

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Wrapper wrote:There's already a debate thread on this, please comment there.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

OCC: I was gonna call it out but ~~it was to passive aggressive, even in character~~I think a fresh thread is a good idea. Helps to avoid rehashing the same arguments.

One thread per proposal is the rule.

by **Bananaistan** » Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:41 pm

OOC: Was the issue with the area of effect/strength which was discussed in the original thread sorted out? We wouldn't want another discard fiasco on our hands.

[IN QUEUE] Promotion of Clean Energy

[IN QUEUE] Promotion of Clean Energy

Who is online