CLOSED!

[Outer Sparta]

This has not been "Proposed." Nor do I have any idea why you want to go from drafting to submission in four days, when this will take two-and-a-half weeks to get to vote even if it reached quorum immediately.

This is a bit too wordy; perhaps the use of indicative examples in Articles 3-6 might be playing a part in that. What you really have is "promote low-carbon transport and discourage high-carbon transport"

I'm not going to disagree with any of that. This is the first time that I have put out a draft attempt for a WA proposal and very few people have feedback. I take that to be a good thing. Also, I don't see any way to cut back on it being wordy. There are plenty of other wordy WA proposals out there.

I would recommend getting advice from secretariats since they are experts on GA proposals and can offer advice and criticisms such as if you might have a potential illegality.

[Eco-Paris Reformation]

I'm not going to disagree with any of that. This is the first time that I have put out a draft attempt for a WA proposal and very few people have feedback. I take that to be a good thing. Also, I don't see any way to cut back on it being wordy. There are plenty of other wordy WA proposals out there.

I would recommend getting advice from secretariats since they are experts on GA proposals and can offer advice and criticisms such as if you might have a potential illegality.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

[Xanthorrhoea]

I would recommend getting advice from secretariats since they are experts on GA proposals and can offer advice and criticisms such as if you might have a potential illegality.

I'm not sure how much luck you'll have asking the Secretariat for general advice. If you have a specific legal query they'll answer in time, but they're usually too busy to give generalised feedback. They usually leave that to the rest of the "WA elite".

[Berlin and Hanover]

I would recommend getting advice from secretariats since they are experts on GA proposals and can offer advice and criticisms such as if you might have a potential illegality.

I'm not sure how much luck you'll have asking the Secretariat for general advice. If you have a specific legal query they'll answer in time, but they're usually too busy to give generalised feedback. They usually leave that to the rest of the "WA elite".

That makes sense and is good to know, thanks!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Section 1 of the proposal seems to establish explicit taxing authority on member nations from the World Assembly ("supervise the allocation of funds from each member state...") which should be very clearly specified. How is the WA raising money? From whom? Under what conditions? In proportion to what rules? With what exceptions?

Section 2's commission seem to duplicate those of section 1; I'm not entirely sure why you need two committees when one would seem to do just fine.

In sections 3 and 4, there is hortatory language for cleaner transport (note also in 3(c) misspelling of "fares" as "fairs"). I'm unconvinced these are necessary. The externality impacts of over-emission of carbon dioxide are (over-)resolved – I say over-resolved because the economically optimal level of emissions is higher than the environmentally-stabilising level of emissions. See Nordhaus (2017). – by GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program", which caps emissions to sustainable levels. The internal allocation of those emissions is then dealt with by emissions permits trading. Simply put, emissions are a solved problem.

If emissions are a solved problem, your proposal wants to subsidise green transport to resolve an already resolved problem. There's no inherency: it's like showing up with an army the day after the battle. You could recast the issue in terms of pedestrian fatalities and how denser cities are just better places to live: but that's a very different motivation than carbon dioxide emissions mitigation.

As to section 5(b) with "zero-emission vehicles", I'd venture that in the status quo (ie the real world) electric cars are not the silver bullet people think they are. The vehicles have substantial upfront carbon costs and are dependent on deep manufacturing chains that are not themselves decarbonised. It may be more efficient to restructure human habitation patterns. But at the same time, providing public transport to a city dominated by urban sprawl is not feasible in the way that it is feasible in Manhattan or central London.

Section 6 doesn't clearly define sustainability. I'd ask in what terms (financial?) must it be sustainable and over what time horizon?

[Berlin and Hanover]

Section 1 of the proposal seems to establish explicit taxing authority on member nations from the World Assembly ("supervise the allocation of funds from each member state...") which should be very clearly specified. How is the WA raising money? From whom? Under what conditions? In proportion to what rules? With what exceptions?

Section 2's commission seem to duplicate those of section 1; I'm not entirely sure why you need two committees when one would seem to do just fine.

In sections 3 and 4, there is hortatory language for cleaner transport (note also in 3(c) misspelling of "fares" as "fairs"). I'm unconvinced these are necessary. The externality impacts of over-emission of carbon dioxide are (over-)resolved – I say over-resolved because the economically optimal level of emissions is higher than the environmentally-stabilising level of emissions. See Nordhaus (2017). – by GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program", which caps emissions to sustainable levels. The internal allocation of those emissions is then dealt with by emissions permits trading. Simply put, emissions are a solved problem.

If emissions are a solved problem, your proposal wants to subsidise green transport to resolve an already resolved problem. There's no inherency: it's like showing up with an army the day after the battle. You could recast the issue in terms of pedestrian fatalities and how denser cities are just better places to live: but that's a very different motivation than carbon dioxide emissions mitigation.

As to section 5(b) with "zero-emission vehicles", I'd venture that in the status quo (ie the real world) electric cars are not the silver bullet people think they are. The vehicles have substantial upfront carbon costs and are dependent on deep manufacturing chains that are not themselves decarbonised. It may be more efficient to restructure human habitation patterns. But at the same time, providing public transport to a city dominated by urban sprawl is not feasible in the way that it is feasible in Manhattan or central London.

Section 6 doesn't clearly define sustainability. I'd ask in what terms (financial?) must it be sustainable and over what time horizon?

I'll discuss this later today with Eco. May I ask though, is it in your opinion that this be scrapped all together? Of cource, the aforementioned changed can be made, but it does seem as if you see it as an unnecessary resolution for a problem that has already been solved.

[Outer Sparta]

Section 1 of the proposal seems to establish explicit taxing authority on member nations from the World Assembly ("supervise the allocation of funds from each member state...") which should be very clearly specified. How is the WA raising money? From whom? Under what conditions? In proportion to what rules? With what exceptions?

Section 2's commission seem to duplicate those of section 1; I'm not entirely sure why you need two committees when one would seem to do just fine.

In sections 3 and 4, there is hortatory language for cleaner transport (note also in 3(c) misspelling of "fares" as "fairs"). I'm unconvinced these are necessary. The externality impacts of over-emission of carbon dioxide are (over-)resolved – I say over-resolved because the economically optimal level of emissions is higher than the environmentally-stabilising level of emissions. See Nordhaus (2017). – by GA 445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program", which caps emissions to sustainable levels. The internal allocation of those emissions is then dealt with by emissions permits trading. Simply put, emissions are a solved problem.

If emissions are a solved problem, your proposal wants to subsidise green transport to resolve an already resolved problem. There's no inherency: it's like showing up with an army the day after the battle. You could recast the issue in terms of pedestrian fatalities and how denser cities are just better places to live: but that's a very different motivation than carbon dioxide emissions mitigation.

As to section 5(b) with "zero-emission vehicles", I'd venture that in the status quo (ie the real world) electric cars are not the silver bullet people think they are. The vehicles have substantial upfront carbon costs and are dependent on deep manufacturing chains that are not themselves decarbonised. It may be more efficient to restructure human habitation patterns. But at the same time, providing public transport to a city dominated by urban sprawl is not feasible in the way that it is feasible in Manhattan or central London.

Section 6 doesn't clearly define sustainability. I'd ask in what terms (financial?) must it be sustainable and over what time horizon?

I'll discuss this later today with Eco. May I ask though, is it in your opinion that this be scrapped all together? Of cource, the aforementioned changed can be made, but it does seem as if you see it as an unnecessary resolution for a problem that has already been solved.

There will be regulars that look at drafts and deem them unnecessary and, in their opinion, state their reasoning as to why (existing legislation, too many contentious clauses and points, not really an international issue for the WA to decide, etc.). You don't have to abandon it because one person says so, but it would help you to take a more holistic look at your draft and topic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll discuss this later today with Eco. May I ask though, is it in your opinion that this be scrapped all together? Of cource, the aforementioned changed can be made, but it does seem as if you see it as an unnecessary resolution for a problem that has already been solved.

There will be regulars that look at drafts and deem them unnecessary and, in their opinion, state their reasoning as to why (existing legislation, too many contentious clauses and points, not really an international issue for the WA to decide, etc.). You don't have to abandon it because one person says so, but it would help you to take a more holistic look at your draft and topic.

This is good advice.