[PASSED] Ban on Leaded Fuel

[The Dark Star Republic]

The inclusion of the war exception is not a good idea. The WA law on war is not well suited to such an exception: if a country is immense hostile aggression to which they do not consent, they are not in the eyes of the WA at war, yet at the same time if they have decided to pursue a campaign of aggressive territorial expansion, they are.

[Herby]

It still refers to "vehicles", without any qualifier, so -- yes-- it would cover aircraft.

Does that include race cars? A lot of stock car racing fuels contain lead.

[Bears Armed]

It still refers to "vehicles", without any qualifier, so -- yes-- it would cover aircraft.

Does that include race cars? A lot of stock car racing fuels contain lead.

OOC: Still?

Wikipedia says that

In race vehicles

Leaded fuel was used in professional auto racing.

Since 1993, Formula One racing cars have been required to use normal unleaded 'super' petrol compliant with EU standards—the same petrol provided by ordinary petrol stations.[20]

NASCAR switched to unleaded fuel in 2008 after years of research, spurred when blood tests of NASCAR teams revealed elevated blood lead levels.[21][22] An initial test in 2005, using unleaded fuel, with usually dependable motors had led to five cars retiring with engine troubles in a single race.[23]

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: Ethanol can't bring octane levels as high as lead can (modern premium is 91, 4star leaded was 97).

SUNOCO has a 93 octane blend (was until recently 94). They also make a racing fuel at 100 octane.

[Louisistan]

OOC: Ethanol can't bring octane levels as high as lead can (modern premium is 91, 4star leaded was 97).

SUNOCO has a 93 octane blend (was until recently 94). They also make a racing fuel at 100 octane.

OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.

[Defwa]

SUNOCO has a 93 octane blend (was until recently 94). They also make a racing fuel at 100 octane.

OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.

OOC: Damn german engineering making it cost more to fill up my VW

[Wrapper]

Does that include race cars? A lot of stock car racing fuels contain lead.

OOC: Still?

Er, perhaps that's the '60s version of the Love Bug?

EDIT: Actually, yes, it's still used in racing today, just not in NASCAR.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: We no longer have sunoco up here... and I was unaware of the European varieties, though i'd bet the additive within is not exclusively ethanol. Either way, point taken.

[Louisistan]

OOC: We no longer have sunoco up here... and I was unaware of the European varieties, though i'd bet the additive within is not exclusively ethanol. Either way, point taken.

Not sure about the additives. But their definitely unleaded. German fuel has 5% Ethanol and the new E10 fuel has 10% Ethanol. AFAIK, the Swiss use less Ethanol if any.
/Edit: OOC, obviously

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Still?

Er, perhaps that's the '60s version of the Love Bug?

Good point.

Anyhows, alternatives could have been developed easily enough even back then if there'd been enough political pressure...

_____________________________________________________________________

EDIT: If the proposed repeal of 'National Economic Freedoms' doesn't pass, have I done enough in this proposal's preamble to demonstrate that the use of leaded petrol "causes an extreme hazard to national populations"?

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.

OOC: It is possible for a fuel to have a Research Octane Number (RON) more than 100, because iso-octane is not the most knock-resistant substance available. Racing fuels, avgas, LPG and alcohol fuels such as methanol may have octane ratings of 110 or significantly higher. Typical "octane booster" gasoline additives include MTBE, ETBE, isooctane and toluene.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Yes, we can all read wikipedia; there's no need to plagiarise.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Additional question added to the 'legality check' request.

[Wrapper]

OOC: From the link:

Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?

Unmodly opinion, I don't see why it would be required, it hasn't for all the other resolutions that have passed since then. Would be shocked if the mods go against this precedent.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: From the link:

Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?

Unmodly opinion, I don't see why it would be required, it hasn't for all the other resolutions that have passed since then. Would be shocked if the mods go against this precedent.

OOC: I would literally have an aneurysm if they made that call.

[Wrapper]

OOC: I would literally have an aneurysm if they made that call.

I'd originally written something like, "I'd like to see how high DSR would jump" then decided take it out, but, yeah.

[Bears Armed Mission]

I'd actually be rrather surprised myself, but am operating on a "better safe than sorry" basis... and remembering how back in NS-UN days getting disarmament proposals around a blocker that guaranteed nations rights to possss all of the weapons that were "necessary for national defence" required including a line explcitly stating that the weapons being targeted by the proposal weren't necessary for that purpose.

[Ardchoille]

1. Is the subject already covered thoroughly enough by GA Resolution #257 ‘Reducing Automobile Emissions’, so that this proposal would be illegal for amendment/contradiction/duplication? That earlier resolution talks specifically about ”gases”, and apparently the Lead compounds released due to burning leaded fuel are actually [finely-divided] solids suspended in the gaseous exhaust rather than gasses themselves which is a technicality that some governments might otherwise exploit…

I think you've successfully squeezed it into a very small gap. The preamble of "Reducing Automobile Emissions" talks of "waste emissions", "waste products", and "these pollutants", which I think would have been enough to cover particulate emissions as well, but the active definition is quite specific about "gases".

The proposal is plugging a loophole, which justly raises questions about whether its an amendment. In my opinion it's not. The impact of banning lead in petrol seems wide enough to allow the WA to recognise it as a separate issue. Reducing Automobile Emissions come at the question solely from the carmakers' PoV, while your proposal comes at it from the fuel industry side as well.

2. Concerning the transition periods which this potential legislation would allow for some of the changes involved ...<snip> ... Is this proposal legally okay on that basis?

The proposed law comes into being instantly. If the law's text allows some gradual, but clearly limited, compliance without creating a loophole that would render the rest of it toothless, I can't see a problem.

Additional question:
Does the current wording of the preamble do enough to show that the use of leaded fuel poses "an extreme hazard to national populations", as required for this proposal to be legal in the context of [the un-repealed] GA Resolution #68 'National Economic Freedoms'?
Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?

Well, of course you have to ...

*THUD!*
*ambulance sirens*
"... flatlining! Paddles! STAT!"

... use your own good judgment.

If you were going with my original interpretation, you would have to. But since you're going with the interpretation that mods collectively developed over time, you're fine. You have shown, in your "concerned" and "believing" prefatory clauses, that there is an issue you consider sufficient to warrant invoking NEF's exemption.

Mods aren't required to rule on whether the issue is a hazard, extreme, or affecting national populations, but merely that you have included what you believe is an appropriate issue in your proposal. It's still up to the WA voters to decide whether they agree with you.

Not-a-ruling: I may have missed some discussion, but have you considered tasking the International Automobile Emissions Commission (IAEC) with some supervisory or monitoring role here? It's not necessary for legality, it's just my thrifty dislike of one-hit wonder committees. If it's a character-count problem, please disregard.

[Ardchoille]

Sorry about the threadjack, Bears.

If anyone has any views on the subject of reviving committees after repeals, I just split off five posts on the subject to make a new thread here.

[Bears Armed Mission]

1. Is the subject already covered thoroughly enough by GA Resolution #257 ‘Reducing Automobile Emissions’, so that this proposal would be illegal for amendment/contradiction/duplication? That earlier resolution talks specifically about ”gases”, and apparently the Lead compounds released due to burning leaded fuel are actually [finely-divided] solids suspended in the gaseous exhaust rather than gasses themselves which is a technicality that some governments might otherwise exploit…

I think you've successfully squeezed it into a very small gap. The preamble of "Reducing Automobile Emissions" talks of "waste emissions", "waste products", and "these pollutants", which I think would have been enough to cover particulate emissions as well, but the active definition is quite specific about "gases".

The proposal is plugging a loophole, which justly raises questions about whether its an amendment. In my opinion it's not. The impact of banning lead in petrol seems wide enough to allow the WA to recognise it as a separate issue. Reducing Automobile Emissions come at the question solely from the carmakers' PoV, while your proposal comes at it from the fuel industry side as well.

2. Concerning the transition periods which this potential legislation would allow for some of the changes involved ...<snip> ... Is this proposal legally okay on that basis?

The proposed law comes into being instantly. If the law's text allows some gradual, but clearly limited, compliance without creating a loophole that would render the rest of it toothless, I can't see a problem.

Additional question:
Does the current wording of the preamble do enough to show that the use of leaded fuel poses "an extreme hazard to national populations", as required for this proposal to be legal in the context of [the un-repealed] GA Resolution #68 'National Economic Freedoms'?
Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?

Well, of course you have to ...

*THUD!*
*ambulance sirens*
"... flatlining! Paddles! STAT!"

... use your own good judgment.

If you were going with my original interpretation, you would have to. But since you're going with the interpretation that mods collectively developed over time, you're fine. You have shown, in your "concerned" and "believing" prefatory clauses, that there is an issue you consider sufficient to warrant invoking NEF's exemption.

Mods aren't required to rule on whether the issue is a hazard, extreme, or affecting national populations, but merely that you have included what you believe is an appropriate issue in your proposal. It's still up to the WA voters to decide whether they agree with you.

Thank you.

*(sends over a de luxe gift basket of Bears Armed’s produce; each basket contains a variety pack containing a jar each from six 'special' varieties of honey, a large jar of more 'mainstream' [but still high-quality] honey, a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup, a bottle of treacle-rrum [105% proof]*, a bottle of 'methegrryn' [a strong variety of Mead, flavoured using selected herbs], a selection of cheeses, and assorted fruits and nuts)*

Not-a-ruling: I may have missed some discussion, but have you considered tasking the International Automobile Emissions Commission (IAEC) with some supervisory or monitoring role here? It's not necessary for legality, it's just my thrifty dislike of one-hit wonder committees. If it's a character-count problem, please disregard.

Partly "a character-count problem", partly (to be honest) that doing so simply occur to me until this draft was 'ready'. If I'd introduced another committee instead then I'd certainly be willing to transfer its role to the IAEC, but with the text as it currently is I don't hrreally see any committee as being needed anyhows...

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think you managed to break the forum code.

EDIT: Ty for the fix, Ard.

[Louisistan]

OOC: I think you managed to break the forum code.

OOC: I'm not even mad. That's impressive! (and requires somewhat careless forum coding to begin with )

[Wrapper]

This is what happens when you give a bear a keyboard.

Sent up a mod flare.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: I'm curious. How did I do that? I do know about nesting the formatting codes properly (i.e. "last in, first out"), and thought that I'd done so with the only ones I added...

This is what happens when you give a bear a keyboard.

"Speciesist!"

[The Dark Star Republic]

You swapped the tags when you spoilered Ardchoille's quote, closing with [/quote][/spoiler] instead of [/spoiler][/quote].

---

Still not very keen on the war exceptions in the draft.