Abacathea wrote:Environmentally responsible governments are already working on reducing the emission level of automotive transport, so this resolution will not change anything for them, and all other governments will avoid changing their policies by insisting that any changes would be “economically unviable”.
Are they? Thats nice, how many legitimate WA law abiding governments have prioritised environmental works do you reckon? They may not have until the passage of this act, and as pointed out to the Sanctaria delegacy, the aforementioned "viable" criteria would still have to be shown to the IVEA when it came time for the committee to collect it's data.
Ambassador Chombers, you have misinterpreted your own proposal. Governments will be obliged to determine the current level of emissions by procedures created by IAEC, and to establish recommended emission standards, but they will not be obliged to enforce or even actively encourage the implementation of these standards by industry. And IAEC definitely will have no right to question the criteria that governments will use to determine the “economic viability” of measures they can take to decrease the emission levels.
At least the repealed GAR #239 “Vehicle Emissions Convention” demanded from member-states to "take all practical and effective measures”, what, in our understanding, was a less relative criteria than demand to "take any and all economically viable measures”. At least in theory the real circumstances determine what kind of measures can be “practical and effective” for achieving some goal, but the “economic viability” of any measure is determined by the economic doctrine of the national government. It is always possible to accept economic theories according to which interference into some specific sphere of economic activity is economically unsustainable approach (and thus any such interference would be absolutely "economically unviable").
And that act was repealed for the very reason you described. That requirement was deemed vague, and a burden to nations who were already at the relevant tech levels and so forth.
Your proposal is even more vague than the GAR #239.
Therefore Riasy changes its vote to AGAINST.
Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.
Do as you need to do, but nothing has changed since the discussion that wouldnt have been present had this been any other act.
If this act would have been different the discussion also would have been different. This act is not the way to reduce the emission level of automotive transport, but a simple blocker.
Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.