(DRAFT) Green Business Incentive Act

[Avoin Mieli]

I proposed this, but it was taken down solely for the reason that it's "sole purpose is to create a committee" so i'd like some revision that it could get on the WA floor. NO CRITICISM. (Unless it's CREATIVE criticism)


Description: STATING That nowadays, businesses have become hesitant to install Green technology into their place of work.

ESTABLISHES The International Green Standards Council (IGSC) to monitor a nation's use of Green technology, while also defining what Green technology is.

DEFINES Green technology as anything that meets the IGSC's standards.

SUGGESTING That businesses that choose to install Green technology receive a tax incentive so that those businesses have some reason to install Green technology.

NOTING That the Global Economy will benefit greatly from imports of Green technology as well as putting the unemployed to work in Green jobs.

DECLARES That Green technology, while not required, would bring local and international economic benefits.

AUTHORIZES A State's rights to mandate Green technology.

Hereby allows a state to offer Green Tax incentives to businesses that install Green Technology.

Thanks a bunch.

[Enn]

I proposed this, but it was taken down solely for the reason that it's "sole purpose is to create a committee" so i'd like some revision that it could get on the WA floor.

Alright, let's see...

NO CRITICISM.

Um. What? I really have to wonder precisely what you think goes on here in the GA - we debate things. Strong criticism can make a proposal much better - or, alternately, show why a proposal isn't needed.
I'm also more than a bit confused how you expect to get revision without criticism.

Description: STATING That nowadays, businesses have become hesitant to install Green technology into their place of work.

Not necessarily. I suspect you've fallen into a common trap - assuming that NS = the Real World. It doesn't. Unless you've got some in-character evidence (which you can post here on the forum) then there's no reason to STATE as such.

ESTABLISHES The International Green Standards Council (IGSC) to monitor a nation's use of Green technology, while also defining what Green technology is.

Okay, there's your committee.

DEFINES Green technology as anything that meets the IGSC's standards.

You've gone a bit circular-logic here. The IGSC defines what green tech is - but green tech is whatever meets the standards set by the IGSC. Who defines green tech in the first place?

SUGGESTING That businesses that choose to install Green technology receive a tax incentive so that those businesses have some reason to install Green technology.

This isn't really a clause - it doesn't do anything. SUGGESTS would work marginally better, as at least it would become a main verb.

NOTING That the Global Economy will benefit greatly from imports of Green technology as well as putting the unemployed to work in Green jobs.

This isn't really substantiated. No green jobs have really been created anywhere, except in the Gnomes sitting on the IGSC. And they aren't generally considered to be unemployed.

DECLARES That Green technology, while not required, would bring local and international economic benefits.

This is nice sounding, but doesn't mean anything.

AUTHORIZES A State's rights to mandate Green technology.

As distinct to what nations can do now?

Hereby allows a state to offer Green Tax incentives to businesses that install Green Technology.

Again, this isn't saying anything. You've simply 'given' states a right to do something they can already do. There's no particular reason given within this proposal as to why states should do this, neither carrot nor stick.

There's nothing, currently, for states to do under this draft. No laws need changing. The IGSC seems to exist in a vacuum - it decides what qualifies as Green Tech, but that's it. It 'monitors' states' usage of green tech - for what purpose? Are you trying to get more nations using green tech? Then provide a mechanism. REQUIRE nations to do things. Heck, even an URGE will meet the legality requirements.

[Sanctaria]

STATING That nowadays, businesses have become hesitant to install Green technology into their place of work.

Source? It is a well known fact that in my nation, Sanctaria, as well as many other nations, business are all too eager to upgrade to greener methods of working.

ESTABLISHES The International Green Standards Council (IGSC) to monitor a nation's use of Green technology, while also defining what Green technology is.

DEFINES Green technology as anything that meets the IGSC's standards.

Extremely vague. You don't define, for example, the standards of the IGSC. You also give it free reign to just define what green technology is; in theory it could define anything as green technology, for example coal, oil etc. Big loophole there. Also, why not just task the WAEC with this? Or at least make the IGSC part of the WAEC.

SUGGESTING That businesses that choose to install Green technology receive a tax incentive so that those businesses have some reason to install Green technology.

The crux of your entire proposal is a "suggesting" clause? So it's not even binding? Probably one of the reasons it was removed from the floor first time around. Also, not quite sure on the tax incentive thing, legality wise. It may do you well to get a check on that, I'm not too sure personally, but I think it is allowed, but I'm only about 52% sure.

NOTING That the Global Economy will benefit greatly from imports of Green technology as well as putting the unemployed to work in Green jobs.

Again, I'd like to see some evidence to back this up. This is merely a blind assumption. Furthermore, how can you "import" green technology? You haven't defined it in this resolution, so how are you supposed to import "something"?

DECLARES That Green technology, while not required, would bring local and international economic benefits.

AUTHORIZES A State's rights to mandate Green technology.

"While not required"? What exactly does this proposal do? So far, it's all optional and creates a committee, both illegal manouvers. Also, I have a problem with "authorizes a state's rights". While that clause itself is illegal, it implies optionality, it should be written as "REAFFIRMS", or something along the same lines.

Hereby allows a state to offer Green Tax incentives to businesses that install Green Technology.

Again, I have another problem here. Since it's not already legislation, WA member nations don't need the WA's permission to set tax benefits or incentives; as such, "allow" is the problem here. Again, it also implies optionality.

As far as I can tell, this proposal, as stands, is very much illegal. A lot of work is to be done to it. I have made some suggestions, but I also have to stress I fail to see how this is an international issue which can be addressed by the World Assembly. I wish you luck in any future authoring attempts, but my nation cannot support the proposal.

Yours.,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think there needs to be more clauses on how the WA should fund key green projects such as new fusion energy and mass transit. Just my casual ideas here.