Advertisement
by Democratic Mahaland » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:19 pm
by Enn » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:31 pm
Democratic Mahaland wrote:1) A carbon pollution reduction target be set for all nations existing on Earth. This will consist of a global target (such as 20% by 2050) and minimum national targets (such as 10% by 2050). Nations will be able to make realistic individual targets according to their carbon pollution capabilities but will be encouraged to announce targets of atleast 20%. Please not the above percentages and time frames are examples, not sugestions.
by Democratic Mahaland » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:37 am
Enn wrote:OOC: Years are very problematic. For one thing, you've got FT nations that are well past 2050. For another, you've got Past-tech nations, for whom 2050 is centuries, or even millenia away. To say nothing of Magitek, where the entire concept of AD is out of place.
by Bears Armed » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:48 am
Democratic Mahaland wrote:The Constitutional Monarchy of Democratic Mahaland would like to announce the following suggestions for the CPRS:
1) A carbon pollution reduction target be set for all nations existing on Earth. This will consist of a global target (such as 20% by 2050) and minimum national targets (such as 10% by 2050). Nations will be able to make realistic individual targets according to their carbon pollution capabilities but will be encouraged to announce targets of atleast 20%. Please not the above percentages and time frames are examples, not sugestions.
2) That a subsidary body of the WA be established with the purpose of ensuring that nations are able to achieve their targets efficiently and economically. This may include a fund to assist poor or developing nations establish renewable energy production plants and international cooperative research into affordable and efficient forms of renewable energy.
3) Nations existing on planets other than Earth also be encouraged to become more environmentally sustainable.
by Democratic Mahaland » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:04 am
by Rutianas » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:30 am
James Bluntus wrote:
With all due respect Paula. As a Mod has said previously. This debate is not about whether climate change is real or not.
Handing over to the private sector is encouraged but it is not compulsory.
Exactly how would I word it, without saying the word. "Earth". Not every single RPer RP's with planets.
Those nations can gain assistance from those nations that are in surplus with electricity supply.
Yours,
Renegade Turnist.
by Maul-5 » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:34 pm
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Maul-5 wrote:Are you sure that the earth is warming at an increasing rate that is our fault? Are you sure it's not;
1. Natural fluctuations.
2. Improper measurements
3. Forged results divulged in email messages between eminent climatologic scientists
?
Kat said we're not supposed to talk about that.
by James Bluntus » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:45 pm
Rutianas wrote:James Bluntus wrote:
With all due respect Paula. As a Mod has said previously. This debate is not about whether climate change is real or not.
Handing over to the private sector is encouraged but it is not compulsory.
Exactly how would I word it, without saying the word. "Earth". Not every single RPer RP's with planets.
Those nations can gain assistance from those nations that are in surplus with electricity supply.
Yours,
Renegade Turnist.
I don't care how you word it. It's one we would be opposed to if we were even in the WA anymore. As it is, our kittens, who are in the WA, are opposed to this. While they have their own ways of creating electricity through hamster technology, they are very much opposed to the thought of assisting other less developed nations. Why, pray tell, should anyone more advanced assist those who are less so? It would put a strain on their own systems, even if they have a surplus. How, exactly, would these less fortunate nations pay for said electricity if they are not developed enough to provide it themselves?
And since you have declared in your proposal that Climate Change is real, then by not allowing us to debate it severely destroys your proposal as is. It is not real in the Imperial Republic. Our kittens have informed us that they are not suffering any kind of Climate Change as they have no polluting energy sources. But why should we stop at just energy sources if you're so concerned over pollution causing this mythical Climate Change? Why not ban all use of fossil fuels. We've heard they're really nasty. That would, of course, ban gasoline run cars among other things. Let's just go ahead and cause a major break down of society in many many nations. That sounds good. That sounds really good.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
(OOC: Editing your post almost a day after it's been written and responded to doesn't help much. I don't know how many people go back and read the whole debate to see if anything has changed, but I know I don't normally do so. )
by Zarabad » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:52 pm
by James Bluntus » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:00 pm
Zarabad wrote:not to sound trolling here... but Zarabad has no intention of following this because climate change is bologna...
by Krioval » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:26 pm
James Bluntus wrote:Dear Ambassador.
While I respect your view that climate change is "Mythical". Your view is one that is not widely supported by the majority of Ambassadors within the GA. The majority of the Ambassadors acknowledge that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. As a result of the general census that this bill should be improved. I am going to continue to listen to the majority of Ambassadors that would like to see this proposal improve and passed. One thing that this proposal will not do is ban fossil fuels. It may encourage the disuse of fossil fuels but it will not ban them outright. This is still very early in the drafting stage. I am not going to rush into submitting this.
by Democratic Mahaland » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:53 am
by James Bluntus » Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:39 am
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME
ALARMED that the planets throughout the universe is warming at an increasing rate as a result of greenhouse gases being trapped in the atmosphere.
ALARMED that some nations are not doing anything to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
BELIEVES that legislation must be urgently enacted to bring an end to Climate Change.
Hereby enacts the following,
(1) Mandates the shutdown of polluting energy source stations 15 years after the renewable energy plant of the nation's choice has been operation.
(2) Encourages governments to hand electricity industries to private investors to assist in the change over from polluting energy sources to renewable energy sources.
(3) This resolution does not prohibit public ownership of electricity industries.
(4) Encourages nations to set targets for emission cuts by the time that the polluting energy sources shut down.
(5) Gives the individual nations the right to choose which renewable energy source they would like to adopt.
(6) Encourages the disuse of fossil fuels.
(7) Establishes the World Assembly Renewable Energy Fund to assist nations in implementing renewable energy initiatives.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:06 am
by Burninati0n » Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:21 am
by Rutianas » Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:41 am
James Bluntus wrote:Dear Ambassador.
While I respect your view that climate change is "Mythical". Your view is one that is not widely supported by the majority of Ambassadors within the GA. The majority of the Ambassadors acknowledge that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. As a result of the general census that this bill should be improved. I am going to continue to listen to the majority of Ambassadors that would like to see this proposal improve and passed. One thing that this proposal will not do is ban fossil fuels. It may encourage the disuse of fossil fuels but it will not ban them outright. This is still very early in the drafting stage. I am not going to rush into submitting this.
by Maul-5 » Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:17 am
Rutianas wrote:James Bluntus wrote:Dear Ambassador.
While I respect your view that climate change is "Mythical". Your view is one that is not widely supported by the majority of Ambassadors within the GA. The majority of the Ambassadors acknowledge that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. As a result of the general census that this bill should be improved. I am going to continue to listen to the majority of Ambassadors that would like to see this proposal improve and passed. One thing that this proposal will not do is ban fossil fuels. It may encourage the disuse of fossil fuels but it will not ban them outright. This is still very early in the drafting stage. I am not going to rush into submitting this.
I don't see overwhelming support for the fact that climate change is real. Nor do I see a bunch of people standing up and saying that something should be done about it. In fact, the majority here seem to think this proposal just will not work. If you truly listen to the majority, you'd drop this. The World Assembly is made up of a lot of different species and cultures. To make a blanket statement like 'climate change is on all the worlds because of fossil fuels' is foolish and undeserved. Some nations may not use them. Some nations may not have discovered them. I assure you that if those worlds are suffering from climate change it is not because of fossil fuels; therefore this proposal will do nothing to assist them in controlling their climate change.
Also, encouraging governments to get private investors involved reeks of encouraging capitalism. While this method may work for some, it does not for others. Now, perhaps if this were to read 'local private investors' then maybe, just maybe, it would be just a bit more palatable for us. And that's not saying much. I'm still very much against anything that will cause more harm than good. You still have not explained how nations without any way to create renewable energy is supposed to comply with this. These nations would be hard pressed to develop. And before you say that more technologically advanced nations should provide them with energy, think on whether or not those nations are even allowed to provide that kind of assistance. There may be technology sharing laws in place.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
by Flibbleites » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:34 am
Maul-5 wrote:Rutianas wrote:James Bluntus wrote:Dear Ambassador.
While I respect your view that climate change is "Mythical". Your view is one that is not widely supported by the majority of Ambassadors within the GA. The majority of the Ambassadors acknowledge that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. As a result of the general census that this bill should be improved. I am going to continue to listen to the majority of Ambassadors that would like to see this proposal improve and passed. One thing that this proposal will not do is ban fossil fuels. It may encourage the disuse of fossil fuels but it will not ban them outright. This is still very early in the drafting stage. I am not going to rush into submitting this.
I don't see overwhelming support for the fact that climate change is real. Nor do I see a bunch of people standing up and saying that something should be done about it. In fact, the majority here seem to think this proposal just will not work. If you truly listen to the majority, you'd drop this. The World Assembly is made up of a lot of different species and cultures. To make a blanket statement like 'climate change is on all the worlds because of fossil fuels' is foolish and undeserved. Some nations may not use them. Some nations may not have discovered them. I assure you that if those worlds are suffering from climate change it is not because of fossil fuels; therefore this proposal will do nothing to assist them in controlling their climate change.
Also, encouraging governments to get private investors involved reeks of encouraging capitalism. While this method may work for some, it does not for others. Now, perhaps if this were to read 'local private investors' then maybe, just maybe, it would be just a bit more palatable for us. And that's not saying much. I'm still very much against anything that will cause more harm than good. You still have not explained how nations without any way to create renewable energy is supposed to comply with this. These nations would be hard pressed to develop. And before you say that more technologically advanced nations should provide them with energy, think on whether or not those nations are even allowed to provide that kind of assistance. There may be technology sharing laws in place.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador
On the Planet of Maul-5 for instance there is no such warming, the termperature has in fact left a cooling period because of us pumping methane into the atmosphere.
It is a very smelly planet.
by Maul-5 » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm
by Bazatia » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:08 pm
Tsaraine wrote:Somewhere in Philadelphia, one school administrator has just smacked another school administrator upside the head. "Damnit, Jenkins! I told you we should just have gone with chastity belts!"
by Ostronopolis » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:15 pm
by Democratic Mahaland » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:42 pm
Bazatia wrote:The Republic of Bazatia cannot support this bill in its current form. The bill does not define "pollution" and "renewable energy". Also, it does interfere with many nations' internal affairs. Also, our nation has concerns about this bill. Bazatia relies mainly on Nuclear Power generation, would that be considered a renewable energy? Also, we would not want to have to help a developing nation develop an entire power grid, as that would severely damage our economy.
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Honoured ambassador to James Bluntus, I still feel that there is no credible evidence to prove that the whole universe is warming in general. While it may be true for some planets, it may be the opposite in others.
by Flibbleites » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:32 am
What if we don't want to see it progress, what if we want to see it die a horrible flaming death?Democratic Mahaland wrote:1) Many nations have been quick to criticise aspects of this proposal. Rather than just belitiling arguments can they please offer alternative sugestions. If they do this than this proposal can progress and improve.
by The Palentine » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 am
Flibbleites wrote:What if we don't want to see it progress, what if we want to see it die a horrible flaming death?Democratic Mahaland wrote:1) Many nations have been quick to criticise aspects of this proposal. Rather than just belitiling arguments can they please offer alternative sugestions. If they do this than this proposal can progress and improve.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
by Grays Harbor » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:36 am
Democratic Mahaland wrote:1) Many nations have been quick to criticise aspects of this proposal. Rather than just belitiling arguments can they please offer alternative sugestions. If they do this than this proposal can progress and improve.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Republic of Mesque, The Overmind
Advertisement