Kenmoria wrote:"In clause 1, “co2” should be “CO2” to keep it in line with the rest of the proposal."
Fixed thank you, also added strength due to the addition of the environmental strengths
Advertisement
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Fri May 11, 2018 11:07 pm
Kenmoria wrote:"In clause 1, “co2” should be “CO2” to keep it in line with the rest of the proposal."
by Kenmoria » Sat May 12, 2018 1:18 am
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Sat May 12, 2018 10:29 am
Kenmoria wrote:"In clauses 7 and 10, you should decaptialise the second word to standardise it with clause 11."
by Kenmoria » Sun May 13, 2018 1:10 am
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Sun May 13, 2018 8:48 am
Kenmoria wrote:"I wouldn't refer to the resolution where the committee is created in clause 2, as it could be a HoC violation, just mentioning the committee is fine."
by Kenmoria » Sun May 13, 2018 11:08 am
by Ransium » Sun May 13, 2018 11:16 am
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Sun May 13, 2018 2:33 pm
Ransium wrote:Obviously not ever nation sees themselves as being RL analogous, but it seems silly to have a water acidification resolution that includes trying to address acidification of the oceans, but is so meek in it's approach towards towards anthropocentric CO2. IRL, the overwhelming source of acidification in the oceans presently and in the near term is CO2 and everything else is just a drop in the bucket. I've often felt that the best way to pass comprehensive CO2 regulations would be through the avenue of preventing ocean acidification and this resolution could be seen to effectively block that path.
by Ransium » Sun May 13, 2018 3:27 pm
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Sun May 13, 2018 5:12 pm
Ransium wrote:I suggest narrowing the scope of your resolution to acid rain prevention, trying to cover everything in a single proposal is complex and broad.
by Kenmoria » Sun May 13, 2018 11:25 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Mon May 14, 2018 4:01 am
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Mon May 14, 2018 5:29 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. The Empire will manage it’s national resources as it deems best for it’s citizens. It will not support any control of said resources from an international committee.
by Kenmoria » Mon May 14, 2018 11:30 pm
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Tue May 15, 2018 6:47 am
Kenmoria wrote:"I would change the “of which” to a “that” in the “Strongly suggests” clause to create a better flow."
by Kenmoria » Tue May 15, 2018 8:03 am
by Blue Line Metro » Tue May 15, 2018 8:31 am
by Kenmoria » Tue May 15, 2018 10:58 am
Blue Line Metro wrote:The proposal should advise reducing of all fossil fuel power plants, not just those near water systems, as the pollution in the air eventually comes down in rain and cause acidification regardless of where it was produced
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Wed May 16, 2018 10:36 am
Kenmoria wrote:"I would change the full stop after “alike” in the “Alarmed” clause to a semicolon as the two sentences are deeply connected."
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Wed May 16, 2018 10:37 am
Blue Line Metro wrote:The proposal should advise reducing of all fossil fuel power plants, not just those near water systems, as the pollution in the air eventually comes down in rain and cause acidification regardless of where it was produced
by Kenmoria » Wed May 16, 2018 11:26 pm
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Fri May 18, 2018 12:35 am
Kenmoria wrote:"In the “Noting” clause, there should be an apostrophe after “populations”."
by Kenmoria » Fri May 18, 2018 9:27 am
by Alsace and Lorraine United » Fri May 18, 2018 10:56 am
Kenmoria wrote:"You spelt “agriculture” wrong in the believing clause."
by Kenmoria » Fri May 18, 2018 12:16 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr
Advertisement