[DRAFT] Repeal "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program"

[East Meranopirus]

The two clauses about multiple planets and the two following clauses, IMO.

I've made several changes to make my ideas and intentions more clear and the proposal more...legality-friendly, I guess.

[East Meranopirus]

Bump

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘concluding’ clause doesn’t quite flow right, as you have different types of structure in one list using different types of grammar. Consider ‘this program will ultimately be unsustainable, be unable to benefit the environment, and widen the economic gap between large and small nations;’.”

[Araraukar]

One last thing - to quote from a mod-endorsed Guide to the GA

OOC: "Mod-endorsed"? I see one mod spoilering a long quote and Fris telling someone off for gravedigging it. How is that in any way endorsement?

[Ransium]

I still think your draft is filled with honest mistakes violations RE: the first four non-preamble clauses. If you think your unlikely to changes them in a material way I will file a GenSec challenge when I have time, likely in the next week.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

At first glance the "Alarmed..." clause and the still-extant "Concerned..." clause are honest mistakes. Neither clause is a reasonable interpretation of the target's language.

If there are further implausible readings, I'll examine them at length later on.

[East Meranopirus]

One last thing - to quote from a mod-endorsed Guide to the GA

OOC: "Mod-endorsed"? I see one mod spoilering a long quote and Fris telling someone off for gravedigging it. How is that in any way endorsement?

I see a GenSec and a mod calling it a good, comprehensive guide, it's linked to on the stickied GA Proposal Compendium, and the gravedigging has something to do with the original guide. The mod spoilering a long quote is just a demonstration of using spoilers.

[East Meranopirus]

At first glance the "Alarmed..." clause and the still-extant "Concerned..." clause are honest mistakes. Neither clause is a reasonable interpretation of the target's language.

If there are further implausible readings, I'll examine them at length later on.

I'll have to ask, if these clauses aren't a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, then what is? Is it to interpret it as multiple global caps adapted to each environment, or to just treat the world as a single planet? And for the second clause, why can't I point it out when it specifically says "present economic output" and makes no mention of the relationship between the nation's economic output and greenhouse gas emissions, or their future economic plans? That seems like the author's intended purposes to me.

[Kelssek]

You asked for an opinion, as our delegation was responsible for The Global Conspiracy is Friendly, which is cited as an authority. Quite flattering, and we are happy to oblige, though the actual bunch of scholars and diplomats who actually wrote it are retired and in some cases dead. Thus, we engaged the services of the local medium who, after lighting some candles and twitching a little, brought the following message from the nether world:

The example of greenhouse gas emissions was an example of something we thought would be very hard to draft and pass in a way which takes into the account that member states are not necessarily on the same planet with the same atmosphere. But we all know that excessive greenhouse gases are a problem on at least one planet, so logically it must be a problem on many if not necessarily all planets... You mean someone actually manged to pass a greenhouse gas cap? Astounding and quite impressive. Oh my. Well, the fact that we thought it would be really hard to do way back then doesn't mean such an accomplishment ought to be repealed! If someone is saying that, they are quite wrong.

Well, there you have it. The present government is very much against the repeal, by the way. Thanks, chum.

[Kenmoria]

“Why is ‘Cap and Trade Program’ capitalised in your proposal? It is only done so in the target resolution as it is in title case.”