[PASSED] Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"

[Mosktopia]

Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #236

The General Assembly:

Notes that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

Documents that GAR #236 defines a renewable energy installation (REI) as "facilities which will generate power derived from naturally occurring resources that will have the least impact and damage on the environment through their operation," which is an unreasonably strict definition and automatically excludes a large number of power-generating methods and facilities that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

Recalls that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"

Believes that the strict definition of REI makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an economically viable position to actually build said REIs - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

Notes that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance," which unfortunately does not allow member nations to designate REI locations based on ease of construction, access, and/or maintenance, but rather focuses only on the narrow issue of ensuring the least possible environmental disturbance - forcing those member nations who can afford to build REIs to do so in suboptimal places;

Understands that Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, together require nations to identify areas where REIs would cause the least environmental disturbance and build REIs on those sites, even if:

1. The nation does not need any more energy facilities,
2. The nation is already entirely reliant on clean energy,
3. The site is of historical or cultural significance,
4. There is already something of great value built on the site,
5. Building a power generating facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
6. The nation would rather spend the considerable resources necessary to build a power generating facility on other equally environmentally-friendly projects, such as wetlands restoration or recycling centers;

Acknowledges that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and through the free choices of individual citizens;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #236, "Renewable Energy Installations".

Co-authored by [nation=short]Mousebumples[/nation]

Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #236

The General Assembly:

Noting that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

Concerned that GAR #236's definition of a renewable energy installation (REI) is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods and facilities that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

Recalling that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"

Regretting that the strict definition of REI makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an economically viable position to actually build said REIs - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

Recalling that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance;"

Concerned that Clause (i) does not allow member nations to survey for optimal locations based on ease of construction, access, and maintenance, but rather focuses only on the narrow issue of environmental disturbance - forcing those member nations who can afford to build REIs to do so in suboptimal places;

Troubled by Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where REIs would cause the least environmental disturbance and build REIs on those sites, even if:

1. The nation does not need any more energy facilities,
2. The site is of cultural significance,
3. There is already something of great value built on the site,
4. Building a power plant on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the considerable resources necessary to build a power plant on other equally environmentally-friendly projects, such as wetlands restoration or recycling centers;

Satisfied that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and through the free choices of individual citizens;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #226, "Renewable Energy Installations".

Co-authored by Mousebumples

Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #236

The General Assembly:

Noting that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

Concerned that GAR #236's definition of a renewable energy installation (REI) as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods and facilities that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

Recalling that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance;"

Concerned that Clause (i) does not allow member nations to survey for optimal locations based on ease of construction, access, and maintenance, but rather focuses only on the narrow issue of environmental disturbance - forcing member nations that build REIs to do so in suboptimal places;

Recalling that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"

Regretful that the unreasonably strict REI definition makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an economically viable position to actually build said REIs - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

Troubled by Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where REIs would cause the least environmental disturbance and build REIs on those sites, even if:

1. The nation does not need any more energy facilities,
2. The site is of cultural significance,
3. There is already something of great value built on the site,
4. Building a power plant on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;

Disappointed that GAR #236 misled member nations by claiming to provide a "boost to economies, industries and employment" when it has actually caused economic harm;

Satisfied that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #226, "Renewable Energy Installations".

Co-authored by Mousebumples

Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #236

Noting that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

Disappointed that GAR #236 mislead member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" when it has proven quite harmful to industry and the general economic health of member nations;

Recalling that GAR #236 defines a "renewable energy installation" as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment;

Concerned that this definition is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

Aware that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance;"

Concerned that Clause (i) does not require member nations to consider placing renewable energy installations in areas where they would have the greatest capacity to produce energy and/or where they would be most easily built, accessed, and maintained;

Cognizant that the author of GAR #236 has agreed that the text of GAR #236 does not allow for renewable energy installations to be built in areas where they would function to their best capacity;

Aware that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"

Regretful that the unreasonably strict definition of "renewable energy installation" makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an "economically viable position" to actually build said renewable energy installations - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

Troubled by Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where renewable energy facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance and build renewable energy facilities on those sites, even if:

1. The site is of religious or cultural significance,
2. There is already something of great value built on the site,
3. The nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
4. Building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;

Noting that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens;

For all the forgoing reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #226, "Renewable Energy Installations".

Co-authored by Mousebumples

Repeal "Renewable Energy Installations"

Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #236

Noting that that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," is well-intentioned and seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

Appalled that GAR #236 misleads member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" when it has actually had the opposite effect;

Recalling that GAR #236 defines a "renewable energy installation" as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment;

Concerned that this definition is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

Troubled by provisions (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where renewable energy facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance and build renewable energy facilities on those sites, even if:

1. The site is of religious or cultural significance,
2. There is already something of great value built on the site,
3. The nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
4. Building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;

Worried that in order to provide expensive renewable energy at "minimal cost" many nations will have to heavily subsidize the industry;

Deeply troubled by the prospect of saddling future generations with excessive national debt in order to support renewable energy subsidies;

Noting that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens;

For all the forgoing reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #226, "Renewable Energy Installations".

Recognizing the issues posed by fossil fuels as an energy source, the threat of a catastrophic failure of nuclear power and the need to have a sustainable power source which is cost effective, clean and sustainable.

Further recognizing the boost to economies, industries and employment that the undertaking of renewable energy projects would provide in both the short and long term.

Aiming to avert international power and fuel crisis by ensuring nations have access to self sustaining power applications within their borders, and to ensure any and all businesses which make environmental impacts to utilize natural resources for power requirements.

Clarifying for the purpose of the act Renewable energy installations (henceforth noted as R.E.I's) as facilities which will generate power derived from naturally occurring resources that will have the least impact and damage on the environment through their operation.

Encouraging Nations who have the provisions to do so, to build as many forms of R.E.I's as practical in order to ensure maximum potential for consistent environmental energy supply to the grid,

Hereby mandates;

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance.

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so.

(iii) Nations to establish a taskforce or government body tasked with monitoring and maintaining these facilities to ensure both their safety and their steady output of energy.

(iv) Nations to provide it's citizens with information regarding these energy sources and to provide users the option to switch energy providers should they wish, without penalty.

(v) Irrespective of governmental control or privatization of these facilities, this energy is to be provided at a minimal cost to the recipient to prevent monopolization of resources by Non-Renewable energy providers.

(vi) Subject to section (v) nations are to require businesses which make negative environmental impact either directly by nature of their business or indirectly through supply or receipt of their goods to undertake a commitment to utilizing renewable energy within their business while encouraging them to ultimately reach a target of total reliance on renewable energy.

Further encourages nations who are capable of constructing and producing a surplus of renewable energy not only to do so, but to effect through sale, trade or the spirit of goodwill the supply of renewable energy or it's technology to nations unable to do so without assistance

Seeing Abacathea's new environmental proposal lead me to research some of their earlier work. I think I found some problems in "Renewable Energy Installations," so I decided to draft a repeal. I want to be clear that I like the idea of something like this on the books and I'm willing to wait for a replacement to be drafted (may even try myself). But the original has some serious issues, imho.

Comments (and suggestions for improvement) please!

[Moronist Decisions]

Grammar-Nazi Mode:

the site is of religious or cultural significance,
there is already something of great value built on the site,
the nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
the nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;

Clauses might require better capitalization

Worried that in order to provide expensive renewable energy at "minimal cost" many nations will have to heavily subsidize the industry even if the nation;

It appears you have an incomplete sentence here. Also, some commas appear to be missing.

My reading of this draft and its intended effect is mostly positive. Good luck!

[Mosktopia]

*snip*

Fixed. Thanks for the support!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Mosktopia, did you actually read through the debate that happened on REI's drafting thread? I suggest you to do so.

[Mosktopia]

OOC: Mosktopia, did you actually read through the debate that happened on REI's drafting thread? I suggest you to do so.

Seems kinda long... Can you give me the gist of it?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Mosktopia, did you actually read through the debate that happened on REI's drafting thread? I suggest you to do so.

Seems kinda long... Can you give me the gist of it?

If you're willing to engage in the drafting process here, you really ought to be willing to put the effort forth to educate yourself fully on the subject matter, ambassador...This is your draft, after all. Not Miss Leveret's.

[Mosktopia]

Seems kinda long... Can you give me the gist of it?

If you're willing to engage in the drafting process here, you really ought to be willing to put the effort forth to educate yourself fully on the subject matter, ambassador...This is your draft, after all. Not Miss Leveret's.

Okay, well can you at least give me a hint about what I should be looking for? The way Araraukar put it, I'm not sure if Ambassador Leveret knows of some something in the thread that defeats my repeal arguments, or strengthens them, or if there's waldo in there somewhere, or what?!

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: The author's own repeal seems like a more relevant starting place. REI really is a terribly written resolution.

[Mousebumples]

I'm afraid that I agree that this proposal should be repealed and while I was not around during the drafting process (or present on the forums during the At Vote stage), I agree with many of the ambassadors in that discussion that a drafting period of much greater than 10 days would have been beneficial - especially in light of the timing, as the proposal was passed just after the holidays.

Here's a quick look at your repeal text, with my usual markup. (inserted text; removed text; general commentary)

Noting that that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," is well-intentioned andseeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but I'm not disputing that it is well-intentioned, but simple may be best in this case. And, I'm not sure where you are on character count, but extraneous words or phrases are ones I tend to cut out.

Appalled that GAR #236 misleads member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" - through uncertain theoretical gains in employment for the construction and maintenance of such projects while neglecting to recognize the inherent loss of jobs with the closure of non-renewable energy sources and the potential increase in expenses due to the cost of such construction and maintenance, which may be much greater than the previous expenditures for the standards that were already in place; in when it has actually had the opposite effect; Elaborating on this more may be beneficial. I don't mean get into the game mechanics side of "This category tanks the economy" (because it does), but perhaps adding something as above may be useful. That's rough text and could probably stand to be clarified a bit further or perhaps separated out into multiple clauses (or a fun and fancy list!), as I think this is a strong argument for this repeal.

Recalling that GAR #236 defines a "renewable energy installation" as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment;

Concerned that this definition is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods and locations that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine; I think it would be useful to expand on this clause a bit more as well, as I think this is another strong point for repeal. (And, yes, it was brought up in the drafting thread, so I would also encourage you to at least glance through that. Some of the arguments are more IC posturing, but there are definitely some very good points against the resolution that you may be well-served to take note of.

Dismayed that the aforementioned unreasonably strict definition of "renewable energy installation" may result in a further increase in costs, as WA member nations are not instructed to balance potential impact and damage to the environment with cost-effectiveness or even straightforward effectiveness, which may result in the financing of construction of renewable energy installations that are inefficient and a drain on finances within WA member nations;

Aware that Clause (ii) reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so."

Regretful that the unreasonably strict definition of "renewable energy installation" makes it unlikely that a great number of WA member nations will be in an "economically viable position" to actually create said renewable energy installations, which makes the environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

Troubled by provisions (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where renewable energy facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance and build renewable energy facilities on those sites, even if:

1. The site is of religious or cultural significance,
2. There is already something of great value built on the site,
3. The nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
4. Building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects; This isn't a terrible list, but I honestly don't think this is your strongest argument. We'll see what other feedback you get on this one, but this clause may be worth scrapping, or else simplifying into a single line or two, rather than a multi-point list.

Worried that in order to provide expensive renewable energy at "minimal cost" many nations will have to heavily subsidize the industry; Ahhhh, misconception here. If the nation is not in an economically viable position to create said REIs, they don't have to be created. As such, I've stricken this whole argument. If you really wanted to include something along these lines, you could mention Clause (v), which in some ways punishes those nations with a strong economy by forcing them to (a) create said REIs that may not be in optimal locations, and (b) subsidize industry if the costs far outweigh the benefits. Regardless, this clause needs some serious work, if you're planning to include it.

Deeply troubled by the prospect of saddling future generations with excessive national debt in order to support renewable energy subsidies; False. Again, see Clause (ii).

Noting that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens; Note: if you're going to include this argument, I'd suggest moving it up in the repeal text. Those ambassadors that don't already know this are likely to have their eyes glaze over by the time they get to the end of any repeal text. Also, while this is a "friendly" topic, it's not like you're asking people to repeal "Save the whales!" and they think that repealing it means they need to start killing whales or something.

For all the forgoing reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #226, "Renewable Energy Installations".

A few other arguments you could add/consider:

• Does it harm the environment to shut down, say, a coal-burning power plant? Yes, it's a non-renewable, non-clean resource .... but what does such a closure do to the environment? (If it's not good, that would be a valid argument against.)
• C (iii) - what if the designated site for said REI did not result in a steady output of energy due to a poor location choice, as environmental impact was the only criteria we were given to follow?

Honestly, there may be more flaws in the original that I'm overlooking (sorry for tearing it apart, Aba!), but this is probably plenty, I would think, to work on repealing this, if that's your aim. I personally don't think it needs to be replaced, but my nation was already about 90% renewable energy before this passed, so these sorts of resolutions don't really change things for us very much. (OOC: minus the statwanking stuff).

Yours,
Adele Hale
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Abacathea]

You're forgiven mousey, there's a sense of love for ones first born that has caused me never to repeal this myself, although I would be lying if I said I would be ok with it being repealed too. But that's life. I'll be abstaining from the vote. I have my CTA to refine here and a couple of SC projects in the pipeline too. Maybe I can refine REIs in due course and get it back on the books knowing what I know now vs then.

[Mosktopia]

Thanks for all the replies. I did a quick read through of the REI drafting thread and I did notice that many of my arguments were brought up in drafting. I'll comb through it a little closer in the coming days to make sure I'm not including any previously-debunked complaints or failing to bring up a very good repeal argument.

Particular thanks to Mousebumples for their incredible critique. Since I've adopted just about every suggestion they made (including copying their words verbatim), I'm offering Mousebumples a co-author credit, should they choose to accept it.

I really like my "Troubled" list argument, which is intended to point out the absurdity of requiring nations to build REIs on least-impactful sites without any exceptions. Of course, I'll certainly amend/scrap it if others agree that it's a bit over-the-top or unnecessary.

I also left the "Appalled" line alone (with very minor tweaks), because I couldn't get it to sound right. Here's the best I could do:

Appalled that GAR #236 misleads member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" through renewable energy installation projects, while failing to recognize the inherent economic damage caused by:

1. Increased energy costs,
2. The loss of non-renewable energy project jobs, and
3. The ongoing costs of maintaining new power plants;

... which I don't really feel great about. Do other's have suggestions?

Finally, I saw that Abacathea, in their own repeal draft, mentioned the fact that GAR #236 doesn't allow nations to build facilities in areas where they would function the best. I'm willing to offer a second co-author credit to Abacathea so I can keep that argument as written (though their above reply suggests that they would prefer not to have their name on a repeal of their first resolution).

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm willing to offer a second co-author credit

Moot, since you can have only one listed co-author per the Branding rules.

[Mosktopia]

I'm willing to offer a second co-author credit

Moot, since you can have only one listed co-author per the Branding rules.

Oh.

[Abacathea]

Don't worry about it. I get to redraft the REI so that I itself is fine by me. Bumples is a hell of an author. Use the argument

[Moronist Decisions]

FTR: I am not convinced at present that such a replacement would meet the needs to all species and tech levels in the multiverse, or that it is needed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"And now, in the best traditions of this institution..."

The Ambassador puts on his GESTAPO-issued Grammar Nazi uniform and waves around his ping-pong paddle.

Noting that GAR #236, "Renewable Energy Installations," seeks to make the world a more eco-friendly place; but

"Boilerplate.

Disappointed that GAR #236 mislead member nations by claiming to generate a "boost to economies, industries and employment" when it has proven quite harmful to industry and the general economic health of member nations;

"Misled, not mislead. Common mistake because it sounds correct, but 'led' is the perfect tense of 'to lead'; 'lead' is just a base metal. Proved, not proven. It's an active verb, not a passive. 'Quite harmful' is a weird phrase in a formal legal document. Are biological weapons 'quite murderous'? Are diplomats 'quite deserving of protection'? Or do you think, perhaps, we can do without that particular qualifier? I'm also not sure I buy your argument here: much of it is based on the idea that REI is bad law, but not necessarily economically disastrous. More just administrative bullcrap. I'm fine including this line, but I wouldn't give it such prominence.

Recalling that GAR #236 defines a "renewable energy installation" as a power plant that "will have the least impact and damage" on the environment;

Concerned that this definition is unreasonably strict and excludes a large number of power-generating methods that are renewable, efficient, and very eco-friendly simply because they are not the absolute least-impacting facilities one could imagine;

"I personally hate underlining formatting in online documents (and this will be hosted on the WA's online site. It's an anachronism of the pre-hyperlink age. For emphasis, italicise. Also not sure you want to separate off these lines; I would make them all part of one clause.

Aware that Clause (i) of GAR #236 reads: "(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance;"

"Again, this is purely stylistic, but some of your verbs sound so...vapid. 'Aware'? Yes, so is anyone who's even glanced at the document. I would 'recall' here, or be 'concerned'. REIs should not need extraneous punctuation. Also, you abbreviate here, but elsewhere spell out in full. Ideally, they should be spelled out in full at the first mention, and abbreviated thereafter: but whatever, be consistent.

Concerned that Clause (i) does not require member nations to consider placing renewable energy installations in areas where they would have the greatest capacity to produce energy and/or where they would be most easily built, accessed, and maintained;

"'Does not require' is not a strong argument. It makes it sound like you're angling for a replacement that does require. I think this would be better phrased along the lines of: 'does not allow member nations to survey for optimal locations for REIs based on ease of construction, access, and maintenance, but rather imposes...' or words to that effect. I would also suggest blending this clause into the previous, as per my earlier suggestion.

Cognizant that the author of GAR #236 has agreed that the text of GAR #236 does not allow for renewable energy installations to be built in areas where they would function to their best capacity;

"The next time I see someone be cognizant of something I am going to murder them. But, that's not a reasonable objection. What is a reasonable objection is that this clause is not clearly differentiated from the former one. As such its impact isn't very forceful: it reads almost like a new thought rather than a logical consequence of the foregoing."

Aware that Clause (ii) of GAR #236 reads: "(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so;"

As the Ambassador reads the word 'aware', he twitches violently.

Regretful that the unreasonably strict definition of "renewable energy installation" makes it unlikely that many member nations will be in an "economically viable position" to actually build said renewable energy installations - making the positive environmental impact of this resolution minimal, at best;

"I really like 'unreasonably strict': that's an excellent phrase. If anything, I wish it had greater prominence in the document. Maybe this could be moved up? In fact, given your whole document is about REIs, making this one of the first clauses would make sense, as it's critiquing the very definition. I would lose the mock quotes, though, around 'economically viable position': it sounds a little bitchy. I'm also concerned that this clause undercuts your contentions elsewhere that nations will be 'forced' to build REIs in undesirable locations.

Troubled by Clauses (i) and (ii) of GAR #236, which together require nations to identify areas where renewable energy facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance and build renewable energy facilities on those sites, even if:

1. The site is of religious or cultural significance,
2. There is already something of great value built on the site,
3. The nation does not need anymore energy facilities,
4. Building an energy facility on the site would be foolhardy or dangerous, and/or
5. The nation would rather spend the resources necessary to build the facility on other, equally environmentally-friendly projects;

"I agree with you, but I would just use 'cultural' rather than 'religious or cultural'."

Unfortunately, the Ambassador is caught in a coughing fit, and unable to expand on this point.

(OOC: But I will. NS is like, insanely atheist. Because most of its users are angsty teenagers. I was, when I started playing - and I was every bit as obnoxiously anti-religious as them. I would avoid explicit mentions of religious significance unless absolutely necessary.)

The Ambassador takes a sip of water, and resumes.

"'Any more' should be two words, not one, and seems to me like a much stronger argument than the others, deserving the top spot in your list. I really like the last point as well, but maybe an example would help?

Noting that if GAR #236 is repealed, member nations can still demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy via national legislation, international agreements, and - most importantly - through the free choices of individual citizens;

"House of Cards rules don't really matter in repeals, so you could maybe mention existing obligations under WA law here. Otherwise I agree.

"All in all, a strong repeal argument. I would also consider mentioning the lack of attention paid to the basic principle of decentralisation of energy, the lack of economic support for developing economies through a funding mechanism, and the mixing of goals - I believe in laws to keep down prices, fight monopolies, and support renewable energy, but not all at once.

"We look forward to seeing this proposal progress."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Mosktopia]

*snip*

Excellent critique!

I did a quick turn around on a new draft, taking many of DSR's suggestions. I'll explain more about the changes soon (it's late here).

[Moronist Decisions]

Could you perhaps put "(R. E. I.)" after the first time "renewable energy installations" is mentioned?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Could you perhaps put "(R. E. I.)" after the first time "renewable energy installations" is mentioned?

OOC: I don't have time to respond tonight to the new draft, but the above is a good suggestion, and exactly what I was trying to recommend before. But I think REI would be better than R.E.I. - punctuation marks aren't usually used in acronyms.

[Mousebumples]

You're forgiven mousey, there's a sense of love for ones first born that has caused me never to repeal this myself, although I would be lying if I said I would be ok with it being repealed too. But that's life. I'll be abstaining from the vote. I have my CTA to refine here and a couple of SC projects in the pipeline too. Maybe I can refine REIs in due course and get it back on the books knowing what I know now vs then.

Yeah, I can understand that. First proposals often have more glaring issues that more refined legislation might - and, to be honest, the Environmental category is a tough one to have a proposal pass in and not be repealed. I don't know that I'll be able to support your redo, as I have a pretty high threshold of what I'm looking for in order to support a proposal in that category .... but we'll see, I suppose.

Particular thanks to Mousebumples for their incredible critique. Since I've adopted just about every suggestion they made (including copying their words verbatim), I'm offering Mousebumples a co-author credit, should they choose to accept it.

Glad I could help, and I think co-authorship would be awesome. Although, I'll warn you - I'll probably have even more wording quibbles if you list me as a co-author. Not now, maybe, but at sometime over the past few days. It's getting late here, but I'll try to take another look once you have an updated draft posted.

Finally, I saw that Abacathea, in their own repeal draft, mentioned the fact that GAR #236 doesn't allow nations to build facilities in areas where they would function the best. I'm willing to offer a second co-author credit to Abacathea so I can keep that argument as written (though their above reply suggests that they would prefer not to have their name on a repeal of their first resolution).

For the record, I don't know that using an argument that they happen to have in their own repeal draft would require you to give Aba credit, as it's quite possible to come up with said argument without reading said repeal draft. (I never read it, to be honest, since I didn't want to get any ideas.) Using the argument verbatim is one thing. However, that would seem like a pretty handy trick to keep any of your resolutions from being repealed - write a repeal with EVERY CONCEIVABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST IT, never submit, and then forbid anyone from using any of the arguments in any other repeals. Not a mod, etc., but that's just my two cents on the subject.

[Separatist Peoples]

Finally, I saw that Abacathea, in their own repeal draft, mentioned the fact that GAR #236 doesn't allow nations to build facilities in areas where they would function the best. I'm willing to offer a second co-author credit to Abacathea so I can keep that argument as written (though their above reply suggests that they would prefer not to have their name on a repeal of their first resolution).

For the record, I don't know that using an argument that they happen to have in their own repeal draft would require you to give Aba credit, as it's quite possible to come up with said argument without reading said repeal draft. (I never read it, to be honest, since I didn't want to get any ideas.) Using the argument verbatim is one thing. However, that would seem like a pretty handy trick to keep any of your resolutions from being repealed - write a repeal with EVERY CONCEIVABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST IT, never submit, and then forbid anyone from using any of the arguments in any other repeals. Not a mod, etc., but that's just my two cents on the subject.

Funnily enough, we had an ambassador planning to do exactly that with GAR#2 not altogether long ago. The plan was to repeal GAR#2, write a replacement, then never submit it, in some insane bid to destroy the World Assembly. For some strange reason, not long after this debacle, the nation just up and ceased to exist. I've always wondered about the extent of the powers at the disposal of the Secretariat...

[Mosktopia]

Okay, reply to DSR:

Misled, not mislead. Common mistake because it sounds correct, but 'led' is the perfect tense of 'to lead'; 'lead' is just a base metal. Proved, not proven. It's an active verb, not a passive. 'Quite harmful' is a weird phrase in a formal legal document. Are biological weapons 'quite murderous'? Are diplomats 'quite deserving of protection'? Or do you think, perhaps, we can do without that particular qualifier? I'm also not sure I buy your argument here: much of it is based on the idea that REI is bad law, but not necessarily economically disastrous. More just administrative bullcrap. I'm fine including this line, but I wouldn't give it such prominence.

Fixed spelling mistakes and made some nit-picky grammar changes. I also moved this provision to the second-to-last spot.

I personally hate underlining formatting in online documents (and this will be hosted on the WA's online site. It's an anachronism of the pre-hyperlink age. For emphasis, italicise. Also not sure you want to separate off these lines; I would make them all part of one clause.

Changed to italics and consolidated to one clause (the first "Concerned" clause).

Again, this is purely stylistic, but some of your verbs sound so...vapid. 'Aware'? Yes, so is anyone who's even glanced at the document. I would 'recall' here, or be 'concerned'. REIs should not need extraneous punctuation. Also, you abbreviate here, but elsewhere spell out in full. Ideally, they should be spelled out in full at the first mention, and abbreviated thereafter: but whatever, be consistent.

I changed some of the verbs, though honestly I think most people really don't read those and just skip to the meat of the clause. The extraneous punctuation is present in the original and I'm quoting directly. I went through and changed all of my "renewable energy installations" to "REIs" per requests by DSR and Moronists Decisions, but I don't think I can change the ones in the direct quotes.

Does not require' is not a strong argument. It makes it sound like you're angling for a replacement that does require. I think this would be better phrased along the lines of: 'does not allow member nations to survey for optimal locations for REIs based on ease of construction, access, and maintenance, but rather imposes...' or words to that effect. I would also suggest blending this clause into the previous, as per my earlier suggestion.

Changes made (the second "Concerned" clause).

The next time I see someone be cognizant of something I am going to murder them. But, that's not a reasonable objection. What is a reasonable objection is that this clause is not clearly differentiated from the former one. As such its impact isn't very forceful: it reads almost like a new thought rather than a logical consequence of the foregoing.

I did away with the author-agrees-there's-a-problem argument in the current draft. I may bring it back if folks think it's worth mentioning.

I really like 'unreasonably strict': that's an excellent phrase. If anything, I wish it had greater prominence in the document. Maybe this could be moved up? In fact, given your whole document is about REIs, making this one of the first clauses would make sense, as it's critiquing the very definition. I would lose the mock quotes, though, around 'economically viable position': it sounds a little bitchy. I'm also concerned that this clause undercuts your contentions elsewhere that nations will be 'forced' to build REIs in undesirable locations.

I tried to smooth out the dissonance. Now the second "Concerned" clause argues that nations who do build REIs cannot optimize their placement, and the "Regretful" clause argues that most nations wont be able to build REIs (even in suboptimal places) because of the strictness of the definition. I think that adequately smooths over your point about these two arguing in different directions. Now they build on one another: 1) not many will be able to build REIs, and 2) those who do cannot build them in the best spots.

I would just use 'cultural' rather than 'religious or cultural'...
Any more' should be two words, not one, and seems to me like a much stronger argument than the others, deserving the top spot in your list. I really like the last point as well, but maybe an example would help?

I removed the word religious, though I do like the mental image of a 700-year-old cathedral being buldozed because it sits on a key area for an REI. Maybe I'll bring it back before all is said and done.

"Anymore" is a perfectly cromulent adverb where I'm from.

Rearranged the list a bit per DSR's suggestion. I tried to think up a good environmental project on the financial scale of a renewable-source power plant to add as an example, and while I came up with several (wetlands restoration, recycling centers, carbon capture and storage facilities) they just didn't fit well into the clause without making it seem clunky. If someone wants to suggest a format, I'll consider it. Otherwise I'll assume folks reading the repeal will be able to think up other environmental projects that a nation might want to spend their money on without the need for an example.

House of Cards rules don't really matter in repeals, so you could maybe mention existing obligations under WA law here. Otherwise I agree.

I may get into specific resolutions, but for now I like the clause as is. The Renewable Research Committment comes to mind, since it deals with renewable energy (though it only seems to deal with funding research, not necessarily developing practical renewable technologies...)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Our only criticism is the last sentence. Wouldn't it be better to start the proposal saying "The General Assembly; Noting blah blah" and simply end "Hereby repeals blah blah"?

And a 700 year old Cathedral would be a cultural building or it wouldn't.

[Mosktopia]

Our only criticism is the last sentence. Wouldn't it be better to start the proposal saying "The General Assembly; Noting blah blah" and simply end "Hereby repeals blah blah"?

I think you're right.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This draft is in excellent shape, and we have only a few final comments.

I removed the word religious, though I do like the mental image of a 700-year-old cathedral being buldozed because it sits on a key area for an REI. Maybe I'll bring it back before all is said and done.

"Of course - but surely a 700 year old cathedral has 'cultural significance'. It's honestly not something that matters, and you're free to include 'religious' if you like; I was just trying to avoid an unnecessary stumbling block.

"Anymore" is a perfectly cromulent adverb where I'm from. :)

"Yes, it is - but you're not using it as an adverb here; it's an adjective, and should be two separate words.

Rearranged the list a bit per DSR's suggestion. I tried to think up a good environmental project on the financial scale of a renewable-source power plant to add as an example, and while I came up with several (wetlands restoration, recycling centers, carbon capture and storage facilities) they just didn't fit well into the clause without making it seem clunky. If someone wants to suggest a format, I'll consider it. Otherwise I'll assume folks reading the repeal will be able to think up other environmental projects that a nation might want to spend their money on without the need for an example.

"I think some of those are excellent, such as wetlands restoration or carbon capture. I think a simple 'such as...' on the end would be fine, but it's not like it particularly matters.

"Finally, I'm still a little concerned by the proximity of 'Regretful...' and 'Troubled...', which seem at diametric opposites. I'd prefer the 'Troubled...' clause immediately followed 'Concerned...' #2.

"And I think on balance I disagree that 'the free choice of individuals' is the 'most important' means of committing to renewable energy; individuals tend not to be responsible for energy generation. But if your intention is to make an ideological statement there, I will likely not be able to dissuade you."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer