[Draft] Repeal "Promotion of Clean Energy"

[Maowi]

OOC: Have you thought about the possibility that the "effective means" might not be the means of obtaining tje energy, but the means of utilising them? I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation. In fact, that's kind of ... what it says. In fact, you've acknowledged that yourself:

That's all the means of utilizing the energy, and they're all effective.

Where I disagree with you is that the resolution in question points directly and necessarily to the means of obtaining the energy from the source; where it really points to is the means of using that energy after you have obtained it. And that "overall" was taken out of context. The resolution does not say overall, but nor does it exclude that approach. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the target exists that does not cause problems for member nations.

[Krishna Rashtra]

Krishna Rashtra supports the repeal of General Assembly Resolution #357.

[Umeria]

where it really points to is the means of using that energy after you have obtained it.

So you agree that you're required to obtain the energy in the first place? Because otherwise you can't effectively use it afterward.

Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the target exists that does not cause problems for member nations.

I think member nations being forced to build power plants even if the don't need them is a problem.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: GenSec typically does not act as fact-checkers for IRL claims, but since some arguments against the target resolution rely on factual claims, those arguments are subject to the Honest Mistake rule.

Regretting that 357 GA exacerbates this problem rather than solving it, as the "clean energy" it mandates nations utilize is just as reliant on fossil fuels as any other method;

I would call this an Honest Mistake - nuclear and geothermal power, to name two, are not reliant on secondary energy supplies, and thus cannot be reasonably described as "just as reliant on fossil fuels as any other method." Even if all your construction equipment is fossil-fuel-powered, the fact that solar and wind need those reliable on-demand (mostly either nuclear or fossil) secondary supplies renders this an Honest Mistake IMO.

Alarmed that despite the numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of "clean energy", 357 GA requires that member nations do so whenever such methods are "available";

Perplexed at why 357 GA issues this blanket mandate when not all member nations have a demand for extra energy;

This claim is past the limits of reasonability, IMO. The resolution does not "require[] that member nations do so whenever such methods are 'available'" - what it says is that it "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;" Maowi has given a meticulous analysis of this above, saving me the trouble, but briefly, building unnecessary power plants is simply not "utiliz[ing clean energy] in the most effective means possible." These two clauses therefore constitute an Honest Mistake, IMO.

I think member nations being forced to build power plants even if the don't need them is a problem.

As stated, I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation of the target.

- 1/6 GenSec

[Maowi]

OOC:

where it really points to is the means of using that energy after you have obtained it.

So you agree that you're required to obtain the energy in the first place? Because otherwise you can't effectively use it afterward.

No, I don't!! I'm saying that when the target says "utilising the energy" it refers to its use in things like homes and electric cars and whatnot, and that it doesn't mention anything about methods of obtaining it. How would that mean that you'd have to obtain the energy first, if you then didn't use it?

[Umeria]

Just so you guys know, I'd be happy to correct any factual errors even if the honest mistake rule didn't exist. That's what makes this a draft and not a submitted proposal.

nuclear and geothermal power, to name two, are not reliant on secondary energy supplies, and thus cannot be reasonably described as "just as reliant on fossil fuels as any other method."

Changed to "just as destructive". Which they are.

building unnecessary power plants is simply not "utiliz[ing clean energy] in the most effective means possible."

Why not?

No, I don't!! I'm saying that when the target says "utilising the energy" it refers to its use in things like homes and electric cars and whatnot, and that it doesn't mention anything about methods of obtaining it. How would that mean that you'd have to obtain the energy first, if you then didn't use it?

I'm not saying you didn't use it, I'm saying you didn't need to use it. Your lightbulbs are brighter for no reason. Yes, I know that's not how lightbulbs work.

The point is, if you have to use it, you have to obtain it. Saying otherwise is like saying a pig doesn't need to be killed in order for you to eat a ham sandwich.

[Maowi]

No, I don't!! I'm saying that when the target says "utilising the energy" it refers to its use in things like homes and electric cars and whatnot, and that it doesn't mention anything about methods of obtaining it. How would that mean that you'd have to obtain the energy first, if you then didn't use it?

I'm not saying you didn't use it, I'm saying you didn't need to use it. Your lightbulbs are brighter for no reason. Yes, I know that's not how lightbulbs work.

The point is, if you have to use it, you have to obtain it. Saying otherwise is like saying a pig doesn't need to be killed in order for you to eat a ham sandwich.

OOC: I mean, my argument is that the target doesn't mandate you use it in every case - and in those cases, you wouldn't need to obtain it.

[Umeria]

I'm not saying you didn't use it, I'm saying you didn't need to use it. Your lightbulbs are brighter for no reason. Yes, I know that's not how lightbulbs work.

The point is, if you have to use it, you have to obtain it. Saying otherwise is like saying a pig doesn't need to be killed in order for you to eat a ham sandwich.

OOC: I mean, my argument is that the target doesn't mandate you use it in every case - and in those cases, you wouldn't need to obtain it.

I still don't get how not using energy is using energy effectively.

[Wallenburg]

nuclear and geothermal power, to name two, are not reliant on secondary energy supplies, and thus cannot be reasonably described as "just as reliant on fossil fuels as any other method."

Changed to "just as destructive". Which they are.

They aren't.

building unnecessary power plants is simply not "utiliz[ing clean energy] in the most effective means possible."

Why not?

This has been explained multiple times already.

[Umeria]

They aren't.

Yes they are. Construction and maintenance, remember?

This has been explained multiple times already.

The "explanation" is that not doing something equals doing it effectively. That makes no sense.

[Wallenburg]

They aren't.

Yes they are. Construction and maintenance, remember?

Somebody is choosing to ignore the concept of "net negative".

This has been explained multiple times already.

The "explanation" is that not doing something equals doing it effectively. That makes no sense.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the target resolution, as well as the explanations already offered to you. I really can't do anything about someone arguing in bad faith.

[Umeria]

Somebody is choosing to ignore the concept of "net negative".

The one binding clause in 357 GA is a requirement to build more power plants. In most cases member nations will not shut down their existing fossil fuel plants because they get more economic growth from expanding. Nothing is going down.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the target resolution, as well as the explanations already offered to you.

How can you possibly know whether I'm doing something intentionally? I genuinely don't understand the explanation.

I really can't do anything about someone arguing in bad faith.

I'm trying very hard to be polite. I guess it's not working. I'm sorry.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

I'm against this repeal, the arguments raised here don't convince me.

So if they don't need the energy, the most effective means of utilizing the energy is to not utilize it? That's a bit of a stretch.

Harvesting energy you don't need seems pretty ineffective to me. If utilising it is not effective, then unless not utilising it is actively counter-productive - which seems unlikely to me - the target would place no requirement on you to use it.

I was about to say it, but you were swifter than me, Ambassador.

OOC: This feels like an Honest Mistake.

[Umeria]

A substantial change as been made:

Alarmed that despite the numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of "clean energy", 357 GA requires that member nations "make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible";

Perplexed at why 357 GA does not include any requirement to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels;

As you can see, the clause now directly quotes 357 GA. It cannot possibly be an honest mistake now.

[Araraukar]

A substantial change as been made:

Alarmed that despite the numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of "clean energy", 357 GA requires that member nations "make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible";

Perplexed at why 357 GA does not include any requirement to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels;

As you can see, the clause now directly quotes 357 GA. It cannot possibly be an honest mistake now.

OOC: The bit that's not a direct quote, still can be. What "numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of clean energy"? Also I think it should be "posed by" instead of "posed from".

[Umeria]

A substantial change as been made:

Alarmed that despite the numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of "clean energy", 357 GA requires that member nations "make a good faith effort to utilize these forms of energy in the most effective means possible";

Perplexed at why 357 GA does not include any requirement to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels;

As you can see, the clause now directly quotes 357 GA. It cannot possibly be an honest mistake now.

OOC: The bit that's not a direct quote, still can be. What "numerous environmental hazards posed from the exploitation of clean energy"? Also I think it should be "posed by" instead of "posed from".

I added "listed above". The wording might need further tweaking.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: wholeheartedly opposed because:
A. Utilizing an energy source effectively does not mean utizilising it to provide more energy that actually needed. This seems like taking a somewhat vague statement and making the most ludicrous interpretation possible. Effectively could just as easily mean prioritizing that energy source over others.
B. Even if renewable energy sources cause the usage of some fossil fuels, it's certainly less that what non-renewable sources cause. To not encourage use of renewable energy sources just because they still require some fossil fuels and cause some pollution is misguided at best.
C. If you want to encourage recycling and decrease in consumpltion, there's no reason to repeal this.

[Umeria]

A. Utilizing an energy source effectively does not mean utizilising it to provide more energy that actually needed. This seems like taking a somewhat vague statement and making the most ludicrous interpretation possible. Effectively could just as easily mean prioritizing that energy source over others.

The clause you are referencing no longer exists! I replaced it with a direct quote.

B. Even if renewable energy sources cause the usage of some fossil fuels, it's certainly less that what non-renewable sources cause.

How much coal you use shouldn't be the only metric. Blowing up a mountaintop to put a wind farm on top of it (yes, this does happen) might not use any fossil fuels but it's extremely damaging to the environment.

To not encourage use of renewable energy sources just because they still require some fossil fuels and cause some pollution is misguided at best.

It's a lot more than "some pollution". Concrete (used in most hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear plants) is the third leading cause of CO2 emissions IRL.

C. If you want to encourage recycling and decrease in consumpltion, there's no reason to repeal this.

Yes there is: 357 GA encourages, if not requires, an increase in consumption.

[Astrobolt]

C. If you want to encourage recycling and decrease in consumpltion, there's no reason to repeal this.

Yes there is: 357 GA encourages, if not requires, an increase in consumption.

OOC: How does it encourage an increase?

[Umeria]

Yes there is: 357 GA encourages, if not requires, an increase in consumption.

OOC: How does it encourage an increase?

I was referring to the binding clause:

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;

People have been telling me that the use of the word "effective" means that member nations don't have to build the power plants if they don't need them, but I figured that the clause is still at least as strong as an encouragement.

There's also the non-binding clauses:

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;

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.

The underlined portions seem to imply that the solution to global warming is new technology(and by extension new power plants), when in reality the only way to solve global warming is via restoring and preserving the environment. They aren't binding clauses, but they still promote that idea.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: How does it encourage an increase?

I was referring to the binding clause:

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;

People have been telling me that the use of the word "effective" means that member nations don't have to build the power plants if they don't need them, but I figured that the clause is still at least as strong as an encouragement.

There's also the non-binding clauses:

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;

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.

The underlined portions seem to imply that the solution to global warming is new technology(and by extension new power plants), when in reality the only way to solve global warming is via restoring and preserving the environment. They aren't binding clauses, but they still promote that idea.

OOC: The resolution DOES NOT encourage construction of power plant even if the nation doesn't need them. It only asks nations to utilize renewable sources of energy for their power needs over non-renewable ones.
And technology is the answer to the problem. Otherwise we might as well just let the planet die. Sapient Population will increase no matter what, and while decrease in consumption and increase in recycling coupled with reforestation might help to a great extent but the only way we'll be able to truely beat global warming is with advances in technology unless we take our society and consumption to pre industrial levels which is out of the question.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Business and consumer subsidies would imply market entry.

[Umeria]

OOC: The resolution DOES NOT encourage construction of power plant even if the nation doesn't need them.

As I said earlier, that part is no longer in the proposal.

It only asks nations to utilize renewable sources of energy for their power needs over non-renewable ones.

Metal and concrete are not renewable. 357 GA is asking nations to continue destroying the environment, just with different methods.

And technology is the answer to the problem. Otherwise we might as well just let the planet die.

The planet has lived for billions of years without any technology.

Sapient Population will increase no matter what,

Actually, IRL population has been leveling off in developed countries. It's possible that the solution to overpopulation is just healthcare and education.

and while decrease in consumption and increase in recycling coupled with reforestation might help to a great extent

An enormous extent. Being less wasteful is 100% efficient. Remember, human consumption per capita has increased tenfold in the past 200 years.

but the only way we'll be able to truely beat global warming is with advances in technology

Like what? Nothing IRL has worked yet.

unless we take our society and consumption to pre industrial levels which is out of the question.

IRL Earth's population was around 700 million before the industrial era. The planet can certainly sustain more than that.

[Araraukar]

Metal and concrete are not renewable.

OOC: Metal is highly recyclable, though, and concrete to some degree as well. And both are VERY durable. But they're not sources of energy, so I'm not entirely certain why you've brought them up.

If the alternative to green tech energy was to burn wood (an ACTUALLY renewable energy source), I don't think the RL planet's forests would last for many years. And even more people would die of respiratory problems that are dying even right now in RL with the pandemia happening. (India and such places with tight curfews, where the air pollution has dropped dramatically, actually have fewer total deaths because air pollution is down dramatically.)

[Umeria]

Metal and concrete are not renewable.

OOC: Metal is highly recyclable, though, and concrete to some degree as well.

That's true, although some metals are more recyclable than others. And even if you have a bunch of recyclable material lying around, it still takes quite a bit of energy to reforge it into what you want.

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.

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.

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. Burning wood also releases CO2.

I don't think the RL planet's forests would last for many years. And even more people would die of respiratory problems that are dying even right now in RL with the pandemia happening. (India and such places with tight curfews, where the air pollution has dropped dramatically, actually have fewer total deaths because air pollution is down dramatically.)

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