Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:02 amPrincess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Voted against. There's no reason to repeal Promotion of Clean Energy. You want "milestones" and "mandates" and "collaborative strategies" and synergy and retargeting and whatever other buzzwords you want to throw around, just pass them. Promotion of Clean Energy isn't stopping you.
Also, the repeal contains a lie when it claims that "GAR#357 also fails to establish concrete international efforts or collaborative strategies to promote clean energy use amongst member nations." There is, undeniably, at least one provision establishing an international effort and collaborative strategy to promote clean energy use among member nations, when it says: "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."
That is a specific and particular (i.e. "concrete") idea for a collaborative (i.e. nations working together) strategy promoting clean energy use through technology sharing.
I thought lying about the target was supposed to be against the rules. Regardless, it's a good reason to vote against.
Hi there and thank you for your comments! It's always awesome to see non-regulars engage with WA proposals.
Respectfully, I am going to have to disagree with you on most of the above. Merely encouraging nations to collaborate is not a concrete international effort. You can encourage whatever you want from morning till night, but if you are not going to put into motion mandates, incentives, or support for member nations to accomplish what you are encouraging, then your encouragement becomes nothing more than empty verbiage. This is largely part of the reason why I have drafted this repeal of GAR#357. The resolution, while well-intended, is incredibly weak in its provisions and does very little to actually promote clean energy use. The replacement to this legislation, found in a separate thread, seeks to fix that. But that's a separate convo for a separate thread. Anyway, thank you for commenting!