NationStates

Hello!!!
This act will strengthen control over airplane emissions that GAR #291 and #421 has set a base for.
We would like as much feedback as the forums can give!!!
If you would tell us some revisions that you made we would gladly take your advice!

Current Draft [DRAFT 2]

Aircraft Emissions Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the great importance of aircraft in today's societies,

Noting, however, the harmful emissions that come as a result of aircraft,

Understanding that while GAR #291 and GAR #421 attempt to lower harmful emissions, they nor other resolutions have done enough to curb aircraft emissions as they are too general or too specific, as GAR #291 only talks about trees; another way to help the environment but not related to green transportation, and GAR #421 is too general as it only talks about "Ozone Layer Protection" and not delving into the specific details of green transportation,

Realizing more needs to be done to preserve our delicate environment and our atmosphere,

1. Defines an aircraft as a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings or moving blades and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces (ie. Planes, Helicopters) or a gas-powered flying vehicle that is lighter-than-air (ie. Aerostats),

2. Defines aircraft emissions as any disruptive material and substance (pollutants, materials that were flushed from aircraft lavatories, etc.) that leaves an aircraft during flight, takeoff, landing, taxiing, or in a hangar or terminal whilst on the ground in a stationary position,

3. Hereby establishes the Airplane Emission Limitation Department, in ACE (established by GAR #421), shall:

A. Investigate and research airplane emissions, as well as their environmental impact,

B. Set a maximum for airplane emissions produced annually,

C. For 3B, assess with the criteria with emissions for passenger per mile transported, assess passenger aircraft (while for economic aircraft (like crop dusters and tour aircraft), will have a more lenient maximums but will still have some, as for the size, the ones who produces more emissions will be regulated more strictly,

D. Require all member nations to limit their air emissions to the maximum set in article 3B within a timeframe set by the Committee,

E. Require all-new aircraft types to be certified by the Committee using a test which will see the energy efficiency per gallon, how eco-friendly it is, and the safety of the aircraft,

F. Fund the research, building, and testing of new aero-vehicles and new renewable fuels that do not contribute to climate change,

G. Urge all state-owned airlines of WA Member Nations to retire aircraft that are not “Certified Green” (described in article 3I) by a timeframe to be set by the committee (although different from the one described in article 3D),

H. Award the airline(s) that contributes most to the cause of the department the Green Airline Award to recognize their great achievements, which will give the airlines extra funds to continue more green planes, also the committee will judge by how many flights the airline has made with "Certified Green" aircraft, the committee will evaluate aircraft types and certify aircraft as "Certified Green”, which will be rated from 1 to 10 and 8-10 will be "Certified Green" and the committee would need you to transition from a 1-5 graded craft to ones of higher value, which criteria is graded by energy efficiency per gallon used and how eco-friendly it is.

I. Give extra funding to regions that are relatively small and have a developing economy that cannot afford to retire aircraft due to heavy Reliance on the Airline industry, tourism, or they just don't have enough money to afford these new aircraft.

4. Shall allow aircraft to dump fuels in dire situations (ie. Needs to do an emergency landing and dump fuel to cut down on weight), but shall do regular safety/security tests on "Certified Green" aircraft and shall make sure that happens rarely,

Hereby establishes the Airplane Emissions Act.

(Authored by: Atollon, North Alderaan, and For The Worlds of the Midrim)

[DRAFT 1]

So ehhhhhh a paratrooper is an airplane emission?

Herby wrote:So ehhhhhh a paratrooper is an airplane emission?

Atollon wrote:1. Defines an airplane as a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces,

2. Defines airplane emissions as any substance that leaves an airplane during flight, takeoff, landing, or taxiing,

3A and 3B defines a airplane. A paratrooper is not powered and i doesnt have fixed wings.

Chemtrails?

Atollon wrote:

Herby wrote:So ehhhhhh a paratrooper is an airplane emission?

Atollon wrote:1. Defines an airplane as a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces,

2. Defines airplane emissions as any substance that leaves an airplane during flight, takeoff, landing, or taxiing,

3A and 3B defines a airplane. A paratrooper is not powered and i doesnt have fixed wings.

it is however a substance that leaves an airplane during flight

Haganham wrote:it is however a substance that leaves an airplane during flight

Yes, but a paratrooper isn't a plane and if the paratrooper farts... I wouldn't count as a airplane.

Atollon wrote:

Haganham wrote:it is however a substance that leaves an airplane during flight

Yes, but a paratrooper isn't a plane and if the paratrooper farts... I wouldn't count as a airplane.

By that logic, the carbon dioxide that is emitted from a plane while it is in flight does not count as "airplane emissions," because CO₂ is not a plane.

Tinhampton wrote:By that logic, the carbon dioxide that is emitted from a plane while it is in flight does not count as "airplane emissions," because CO2 is not a plane.

They probably misstyped, they probably mean't if a paratrooper farts, that would not count as Airplane Emission; it would count as bodily gas.

As what Balnab said.

Atollon wrote:1. Defines an airplane as a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces,

Why restrict this proposal to just aeroplanes? Why not broaden the application of this proposal to include all flying powered vehicles? Helicopters pollute too...

Atollon wrote:2. Defines airplane emissions as any substance that leaves an airplane during flight, takeoff, landing, or taxiing,

I believe Herby's point is that a paratrooper is a substance that leaves an aeroplane during flight, and would therefore count as an emission as per this definition. As would bombs, airdrops, crop fertiliser, water from firefighting planes, and random screws that come loose. This definition needs to be reworded so it actually defines what it's supposed to target.

Atollon wrote:3. Hereby establishes the Airplane Emission Limitation Committee (AELC), which, in joint action with the ACE (established by GAR #421), shall...

Why do we need another comittee? Can't you just add to the duties of the pre-existing ACE without creating and funding an entirely new department that will do everything alongside the ACE anyway?

Atollon wrote:A. Investigate and research airplane emissions, as well as their environmental impact,

B. Set a maximum for reasonable airplane emissions produced annually,

C. Require all member nations to limit their air emissions to the maximum set in article 3B within a timeframe set by the Committee,

D. Require all new aircraft types to be certified by the Committee using a standard evaluation test,

E. Set up initiatives to produce biofuels to be used in aircraft,

F. Evaluate aircraft types and certify certain aircraft as “AELC Certified Green”,

G. Urge all state-owned airlines of WA Member Nations to retire aircraft that are not certified “AELC Certified Green” (described in article 3G) by a timeframe to be set by the committee (although different from the one described in article 3C),

H. Award the airline(s) that contributes most to the cause of the Committee the Green Airline Award to recognize their great achievements,

I. Fund the research, building, and testing of new aero-vehicles that do not contribute to climate change.

A: Sure

B: What counts as 'reasonable'? What criteria are you using to assess this? Is it emissions per passenger per mile transported, based on cargo weights, etc? How will you compare aircraft of different sizes/uses? The features and uses of a passenger jet and a crop duster are wildly different.

C: How will you determine the timeframe? Does it vary by country/economic status? A tiny micronation with a single crop duster can replace it's fleet far more quickly and easily than a gargantuan nation such as China. What about less wealthy nations that rely on aircraft but can't afford to change?

D: What does the test evaluate, how does it compare aircraft of different uses? (see my comment for 'B')

E: Why biofuels specifically? What about other energy sources such as nuclear/solar/hydrogen/battery tecchnology? What makes biofuels more deserving of attention than other technology?

F: What are your criteria for this assessment? Will it change over time, or is it a fixed assessment? What makes a pass/fail system better than a graded scale? Surely a scored system would be more flexible and easily applicable to a wider range of aircraft? I'd rather you established a rating scale, and encouraged nations to transition to better rated vehicles. This allows for improvement with flexibility.

G: See my arguments over 'C' and 'F'.

H: What is the award, monetary, symbolic, some other measure? Why should airlines care? How will you judge who contributes most?

I: I feel like this is the clause that 'E' is trying to be. I'd say just drop clause E and replace it with this one (unless you have a compelling reason to specifically address biofuels, in which case, you need to go into much more detail to make this case.

Overall, this is well intentioned, and you could probably develop a meaty proposal around this topic. You'll need to justify exactly why this resolution is needed though, and you need to explain, in detail, why GAR #291 and #421 aren't sufficient.

The proposal needs a lot of work, but is a good start. Good on you for writing about something you believe is important, and well done for posting here for feedback. People here (including myself) can be a rather brutal bunch. Don't take it to heart, try and accept the feedback, and if you disagree with what someone says, then you are perfectly entitled to ignore it (but it's polite to at least explain why).

Welcome to th WA!

Xanthorrhoea wrote:I believe Herby's point is that a paratrooper is a substance that leaves an aeroplane during flight, and would therefore count as an emission as per this definition. As would bombs, airdrops, crop fertiliser, water from firefighting planes, and random screws that come loose. This definition needs to be reworded so it actually defines what it's supposed to target.

Also, for example, material flushed from aircraft's lavatories during flight (possibly some models of aircraft retain this in onboard tanks, for clearance once they've landed, but there have certainly been others that don't/didn't: When discarded at high altitudes this formed frozen lumps that could be large enough to reach the ground without fully melting & that then damaged roofs, cars, et...), or surplus fuel released for safety''s sake before landing (I grew up close enough to Heathrow airport that after airliners had passed more-or-less overhead there was sometimes enough of this in the air for people on the ground to smell).

We will fix!! Thank you for giving us advice!!

I saw the word reasonable and I am now here to tell you that just saying reasonable is not a standard.

Xanthorrhoea wrote:

Atollon wrote:1. Defines an airplane as a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces,

Why restrict this proposal to just aeroplanes? Why not broaden the application of this proposal to include all flying powered vehicles? Helicopters pollute too...

Atollon wrote:2. Defines airplane emissions as any substance that leaves an airplane during flight, takeoff, landing, or taxiing,

I believe Herby's point is that a paratrooper is a substance that leaves an aeroplane during flight, and would therefore count as an emission as per this definition. As would bombs, airdrops, crop fertiliser, water from firefighting planes, and random screws that come loose. This definition needs to be reworded so it actually defines what it's supposed to target.

Atollon wrote:3. Hereby establishes the Airplane Emission Limitation Committee (AELC), which, in joint action with the ACE (established by GAR #421), shall...

Why do we need another comittee? Can't you just add to the duties of the pre-existing ACE without creating and funding an entirely new department that will do everything alongside the ACE anyway?

Atollon wrote:A. Investigate and research airplane emissions, as well as their environmental impact,

B. Set a maximum for reasonable airplane emissions produced annually,

C. Require all member nations to limit their air emissions to the maximum set in article 3B within a timeframe set by the Committee,

D. Require all new aircraft types to be certified by the Committee using a standard evaluation test,

E. Set up initiatives to produce biofuels to be used in aircraft,

F. Evaluate aircraft types and certify certain aircraft as “AELC Certified Green”,

G. Urge all state-owned airlines of WA Member Nations to retire aircraft that are not certified “AELC Certified Green” (described in article 3G) by a timeframe to be set by the committee (although different from the one described in article 3C),

H. Award the airline(s) that contributes most to the cause of the Committee the Green Airline Award to recognize their great achievements,

I. Fund the research, building, and testing of new aero-vehicles that do not contribute to climate change.

A: Sure

B: What counts as 'reasonable'? What criteria are you using to assess this? Is it emissions per passenger per mile transported, based on cargo weights, etc? How will you compare aircraft of different sizes/uses? The features and uses of a passenger jet and a crop duster are wildly different.

C: How will you determine the timeframe? Does it vary by country/economic status? A tiny micronation with a single crop duster can replace it's fleet far more quickly and easily than a gargantuan nation such as China. What about less wealthy nations that rely on aircraft but can't afford to change?

D: What does the test evaluate, how does it compare aircraft of different uses? (see my comment for 'B')

E: Why biofuels specifically? What about other energy sources such as nuclear/solar/hydrogen/battery tecchnology? What makes biofuels more deserving of attention than other technology?

F: What are your criteria for this assessment? Will it change over time, or is it a fixed assessment? What makes a pass/fail system better than a graded scale? Surely a scored system would be more flexible and easily applicable to a wider range of aircraft? I'd rather you established a rating scale, and encouraged nations to transition to better rated vehicles. This allows for improvement with flexibility.

G: See my arguments over 'C' and 'F'.

H: What is the award, monetary, symbolic, some other measure? Why should airlines care? How will you judge who contributes most?

I: I feel like this is the clause that 'E' is trying to be. I'd say just drop clause E and replace it with this one (unless you have a compelling reason to specifically address biofuels, in which case, you need to go into much more detail to make this case.

Overall, this is well intentioned, and you could probably develop a meaty proposal around this topic. You'll need to justify exactly why this resolution is needed though, and you need to explain, in detail, why GAR #291 and #421 aren't sufficient.

The proposal needs a lot of work, but is a good start. Good on you for writing about something you believe is important, and well done for posting here for feedback. People here (including myself) can be a rather brutal bunch. Don't take it to heart, try and accept the feedback, and if you disagree with what someone says, then you are perfectly entitled to ignore it (but it's polite to at least explain why).

Welcome to th WA!

We have fixed most of the problems! Please recheck to see if we wrote the fixes right and if not tell us what we did wrong!!

Atollon wrote:You'll need to justify exactly why this resolution is needed though, and you need to explain, in detail, why GAR #291 and #421 aren't sufficient.

Where should we put that and how should we generally state that. I don't know if I should say like Before Number one; Why? We would want to help the environment because it is very fragile and right now we are on a bad path to devastate our environment. We believe that GAR #291 was not enough because it was mainly focused on de-forestation while trying to save our enviroment, and GAR #421 was too general with "Protecting the Ozone" and not emissions that were coming from Aircraft especially. (That was just a random little bit for filler info) Also, where do we put it? Also in the [DRAFT]Access to Life-Ending Services; they made like a tab for a every draft, how do you do that? Also, should we put the score criteria in a whole new clause 4?

Atollon wrote:As what Balnab said.

Puppetwanking is heavily frowned upon. I would strongly suggest you refrain from it in the future if you expect to have a shred of credibility here going forward.

I'm sorry, I am new. I didn't know having 2 accounts is un-trustworthy.

Atollon wrote:I'm sorry, I am new. I didn't know having 2 accounts is un-trustworthy.

Then why did you do it? You only need to post with your main account to make edits and answer to feedback.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Atollon wrote:I'm sorry, I am new. I didn't know having 2 accounts is un-trustworthy.

Then why did you do it? You only need to post with your main account to make edits and answer to feedback.

I just forgot what account I was on lol...

Atollon wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Then why did you do it? You only need to post with your main account to make edits and answer to feedback.

I just forgot what account I was on lol...

No, no you didn't....

Balnab wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:By that logic, the carbon dioxide that is emitted from a plane while it is in flight does not count as "airplane emissions," because CO2 is not a plane.

They probably misstyped, they probably mean't if a paratrooper farts, that would not count as Airplane Emission; it would count as bodily gas.

The word they implies third person and as such you knew exactly what you were doing. Perhaps it would just be better to take the hit and move along before you dig yourself in so deep, you can't get back out? Just a suggestion.

Ok. I will try to not do that next time.

Sounds like an ok draft to me.

The Kingdom Of The Three Isles wrote:Sounds like an ok draft to me.

Ok thank you? Any suggestions or is it good?

Anymore Suggestions? Or is it good now?

Two days is nowhere near enough time to draft your first WA proposal ever (unless I've missed a couple along the way =P)