[Draft] Repeal "Promotion of Clean Energy"

[Astrobolt]

OOC: It seems like what you want to do is address consumption patterns. My strong recommendation would be to write a resolution trying to reduce consumption rather than repealing a resolution which to most people here seems to be a net positive.

[Araraukar]

And both are VERY durable.

Maybe under normal circumstances, but power plants put these materials under a lot of stress. Wind turbines, for example, only last for a few decades.

OOC: Something lasting "a few decades" is pretty much the definition of "VERY durable".

But they're not sources of energy, so I'm not entirely certain why you've brought them up.

You need a steady supply of them in order to maintain a power plant.

Only once in a few decades according to you. I wouldn't call that "steady supply" need. And even then, so what? If the alternative is to have nonstop pollution, green tech is still green by comparison.

If the alternative to green tech energy was to burn wood (an ACTUALLY renewable energy source)

I'd call wood semi-renewable; it takes a while for it to grow back.

...you need to check your references again. Wood is 100% renewable. "Renewable" doesn't mean "renews itself every time the sun sets", but rather "we're never going to run out". And since we can always grow more wood, we're never going to run out.

Burning wood also releases CO2.

Which was my entire point. Something that is fully renewable is still not zero-emissions deal. So expecting anything else to be either, is insanity. Also, technically the wood just releases the CO₂ back to the atmosphere where it came from. Plants create their bodies largely out of the atmosphere. Which is cool and creepy at the same time.

A huge problem IRL is that burning trees for fuel is considered to be green energy and given subsidies.

...given it's fully renewable, which seems to be what you're hung up on, I don't see the problem?

I mean, if you want non-polluting energy, you'll go for "green tech" energy solutions, which require some polluting energy tech - in current RL, not necessarily everywhere in NS (I could honestly give you a 5-hour lecture on the subject) - to set up and maintain, but which replace with non-polluting energy production so much polluting energy production that they're worth it.

But if you want fully renewable energy, then you'll go for something like wood, for which the supply will never run out of, and ignore stuff like CO₂ and such, since they're not part of the problem for you.

If you want fully renewable and non-polluting, you need to learn something about this little thing called "entropy" and what it does, and why that combination is likely MT-impossible.

[Marxist Germany]

"Germany relies primarily on nuclear energy as it's the safest and most efficient source. Whilst I support the repeal, I do not appreciate your attacks on nuclear which are needless scaremongering."

[Umeria]

OOC: It seems like what you want to do is address consumption patterns. My strong recommendation would be to write a resolution trying to reduce consumption rather than repealing a resolution which to most people here seems to be a net positive.

357 GA is not a net positive. If the binding clause isn't a mandate for an increase in destructive practices, it's certainly an incentive for it. It's true that there are people here with a different view. I hope I can convince them.

OOC: Something lasting "a few decades" is pretty much the definition of "VERY durable".

Not really? These are massive machines, and replacing them is expensive.

Only once in a few decades according to you. I wouldn't call that "steady supply" need. And even then, so what? If the alternative is to have nonstop pollution, green tech is still green by comparison.

That's the misconception here, that 357 GA encourages alternative energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. In reality it encourages alternative energy in addition to fossil fuels.

...you need to check your references again. Wood is 100% renewable. "Renewable" doesn't mean "renews itself every time the sun sets", but rather "we're never going to run out". And since we can always grow more wood, we're never going to run out.

The Lorax says otherwise.

But seriously, if you cut down all the trees, there won't be any trees left. I suppose you could keep a seed bank, but you'd still need to wait for them to grow, and finding good soil might be hard.

Which was my entire point. Something that is fully renewable is still not zero-emissions deal. So expecting anything else to be either, is insanity.

I 100% agree. There is no magical energy solution. That's why the only way to save the planet is to reduce the demand for energy to a level that the planet can sustain.

"Germany relies primarily on nuclear energy as it's the safest and most efficient source. Whilst I support the repeal, I do not appreciate your attacks on nuclear which are needless scaremongering."

"The proposal lists the downsides of all forms of energy production. Why should it exclude nuclear?"