[PASSED] Repeal "Vehicle Emissions Convention"

[Auralia]

The original author of the target resolution supports this repeal.

Repeal "Vehicle Emissions Convention"
Category: Repeal

Recognizing that it is necessary to reduce vehicular emissions to reasonable levels,

Nevertheless believing that the flaws present in GAR #239, "Vehicle Emissions Convention" necessitate the resolution's repeal,

Dismayed that the target resolution ignores the law of diminishing returns by requiring nations to implement a progressive schedule for the reduction of emissions even if current emissions levels are already relatively low, which has the potential to cause substantial hardship to the automobile industry with little to no resultant environmental or health benefits,

Concerned that the target resolution also recommends that emissions be reduced by an arbitrary 75 percent regardless of current emissions levels,

Lamenting the target resolution's creation of the "International Vehicular Emissions Authority", a wholly unnecessary committee that is powerless to fulfill its mandate of ensuring compliance with the target resolution since it has no mechanism for doing so,

Confused by the target resolution's requirement that the automotive industry set aside "proportionate funding" for the reduction of emissions, as the resolution does not state what the funding must be proportionate to,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #239, "Vehicle Emissions Convention".

[San Leggera]

You have my support on this.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

[United Federation of Canada]

Carbon Dioxide is a non toxic gas that poses "No harm to the environment" huh?

It is only the biggest greenhouse gas there is.

OPPOSED

[Abacathea]

Couldn't take over the Internet so stamping on my act ey dear delegate?

Just out of curiosity why is it a bad thing to reduce emissions be it harmless or otherwise? And methane?? Harmless??? Your shitting me right?

Furthermore, recommends a figure which would cause a hardship regardless of current levels? Do you understand what a recommendation is? If I recommended you drop this baloney because of the hardship it would cause in eating up unnecessary space on the server would you feel obliged to follow that to the letter too? Don't be so pedantic.

My apologies... Here's your soapbox back...

[Ossitania]

If there is any case for a repeal of the target resolution, you're not going to find it by claiming that CO2 and methane pose no environmental risk.

[Koussath]

"Moreover, given the existence of people such as yourself in this assembly, a better resolution would never be written. I'm quite confident that Aurallia does not want any better resolution, and does not care about the problems of this document - were these problems you address not yere, you'd have found other things to nitpick, because you oppose the entire idea. Come out and be honest about it."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Approved, but get rid of that list at the end.

[United Bobtopia]

I don't like the current resolution, and I made my points very clear on the subject. Still, I will not be support the repeal resolution. The bill may be flawed, and the process may not have been with enough deliberation, but the world opinion on the matter is clear.

I am against this repeal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't like the current resolution, and I made my points very clear on the subject. Still, I will not be support the repeal resolution. The bill may be flawed, and the process may not have been with enough deliberation, but the world opinion on the matter is clear.

I am against this repeal.

By that logic nothing should ever be repealed.

[United Bobtopia]

By that logic nothing should ever be repealed.

Nonsense. Hell, I'm one of the first to cheer on a repeal. We have an institution that loves to create committees, and stick their noses where they just don't belong. Thing is, I reckon there's a mighty big difference between revisiting an issue that was hotly debated and seriously flawed, versus insta repealling one that has overwhelming support and can be lived with.

If y'all have sufficient reason for a repeal, let me know. As written it's a knee jerk reaction to messed up, but relatively benign, bill.

[Bears Armed]

Carbon Dioxide is a non toxic gas that poses "No harm to the environment" huh?

It is only the biggest greenhouse gas there is.

OOC: Wrong. Molecule-for-molecule, Methane and various CFCs [at least] are significantly stronger 'greenhouse gasses'.

If there is any case for a repeal of the target resolution

How about this reason?

Opposed, for the following reasons:

(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

It's important to consider the the law of diminishing returns here. This would be a good idea for vehicles with relative emissions of 100, but not for vehicles with relative emissions of 1. In the latter case, there is no real need to cut emissions any further, and any attempts to do so would largely be a waste of resources.

[Ossitania]

If there is any case for a repeal of the target resolution

How about this reason?

I'm aware of that, I have read the repeal. I was just commenting that the inclusion of the "CO2 and methane aren't bad" point is not going to help.

[Auralia]

How about this reason?

I'm aware of that, I have read the repeal. I was just commenting that the inclusion of the "CO2 and methane aren't bad" point is not going to help.

I agree that the clause will likely do more harm than good. I'll remove it.

[Auralia]

Approved, but get rid of that list at the end.

Done.

[Abacathea]

I can't fathom for the life of me what you're not understanding about that 75% Auralia, it is literally mind boggling that you can't grasp that a 75% reduction, in a recommendation I might add, is a plus. So I have to ask dear Auralia, is this a personal dislike to me, or the act because it can't be non biased.

As I've repeatedly said, a lot of nations are trying to have their cakes here and eat it, they wanted a defined reduction of emissions in a mandate, and yet take issue with one in a recommendation. It's ridiculous, and you're merely fueling the fire with this nonsense. 75% of a reduction of even 1 gram of emissions is still .75 grams of reduction, per vehicle, per nation. That is a substantial amount to reduce harmful emissions by, which you seem to be ignorant too given you didn't even quantify methane or CO2 as harmful until it was pointed out to you by several nations, and this hardship you've repeatedly referred to, again, encourages.

OOC:
If this repeal passes I'll personally walk away from the WA and the general assembly as a whole, the act in itself is granted not perfect, i'll put my hands up and state that there is one or two things even looking at it now I would do differently, but repealing on the grounds which you are is complete bullshit.

[Auralia]

snip

A few points:

• Ambassador, this repeal is not a personal attack. I simply believe that the target resolution is flawed and should be repealed.
• You seem to be under the impression that emissions reduction is always a good idea, regardless of current emissions levels. However, this is not true because of the law of diminishing returns, which states that "adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns." (Wikipedia) In other words, when emissions are already relatively low, a great deal of effort will be required to reduce emissions by a very small amount, causing economic hardship for very little environmental benefit. The resolution ignores this reality, both in the progressive schedule mandate and the 75% recommendation.
• CO2 and methane are, in fact, not pollutants, in the sense that they pose no direct environmental or health risks. I accept that they contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect, but that is only an issue if you accept the notion that the climate is driven by strong positive feedbacks which will drastically amplify the greenhouse effect and cause catastrophic global warming. (In real life, a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels would only result in a temperature increase of ~1 degree Celsius, excluding feedbacks.) While Auralia remains skeptical that that a natural, relatively stable system could be driven by positive feedbacks, other nations are not. Hence, I decided it would be in the best interests of the repeal effort to remove the reference to CO2 and methane.

[Kamptyn]

"Kamptyn accepts this resolution to repeal the one that is about to be passed. We need to work together to create a better and more plausable resolution that all nations can abide. Not one that can ruin nations who rely on the income of the automobile industries that are at risk."

[The Willing]

The Willing does not support this repeal and believes that it is a death grab to stop any legislation on this matter.


The Ministry of External Affairs

[Dilange]

Support.

[Auralia]

If there are no further comments, I intend to submit this soon.

[United Federation of Canada]

If there are no further comments, I intend to submit this soon.

Good luck with this, as you will need it.

[Flugenstein]

The delegation from Flugenstein supports the Repeal. We do recommend, however, that after the repeal a similar law is proposed for ratification. We agree with the spirit of the law, and we do like the "recommendations" but, to make this plan feasible, the language needs to be clearer to make this law have substance.

[The Two Jerseys]

Support.

[Isladestel]

You have my support as well.

[Christian Democrats]

SUPPORT