by Bergnovinaia » Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:09 pm
by Rashuta » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:18 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:17 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:53 pm
by Hirota » Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:19 pm
The main problem I can see regarding legality is I'm not certain that throwing around these numbers is legal, or actually explains things.Bergnovinaia wrote:I would appreciate any comments you have. This is a VERY, VERY rough draft.
Environmental Protection Act
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by Bergnovinaia
Recognizing that something needs to be done to save our planet’s rapidly deteriorating. Also acknowledging that the advancement of industry could be hurt by any such Act.
Nonetheless, if the planet is to be preserved, reductions to certain industries must occur and our nations must pursue renewable sources of energy.
Article I, Section I
All automobile industries may continue to build vehicles that consume fossil fuels.
Automobile industries that pursue a future in vehicles that do not burn fossil fuels (and does not create an equal or greater carbon footprint) can receive as much as $10,000,000,000 (based on the achievement) in government funding in said member nations.
Section II,
Uranium mining industries may continue mining uranium at current rates but is to be reduced at least 10% in 10 years.
Nations are to explore ways to safely dispose of uranium that causes little or no damage to the environment.
Section III,
Wood Chipping Industries may continue cutting down trees at current rates.
5 years from the date of the Environmental Protection Act passes, only 25% of trees can be cut down per every acre.
Recycling organizations will be mandatory in every member nation in order to recycle items such as paper, aluminum, etc.
Article II, Section I
A) Member nations are required to set aside at least $500,000,000 (or equivalent amount) to research reusable forms of energy. Countries that have a struggling economy, are underdeveloped, or considered as a third world nation do not have to devote these mandatory funds until their economy reaches a stable level.
by Raedon » Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:39 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:38 am
by King Zhaoxiang of Qin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:48 am
by Rashuta » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:53 am
King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin would only vote for such legislation on the basis that the incentives matched the costs. If we are required to spend $500 million researching and implementing "green" forms of energy, we want assurances that the outcome will be profitable.
"Profitable" meaning actual money. Not the continued existence of a species or the temperature of the planet as a whole.
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:54 am
King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin would only vote for such legislation on the basis that the incentives matched the costs. If we are required to spend $500 million researching and implementing "green" forms of energy, we want assurances that the outcome will be profitable.
"Profitable" meaning actual money. Not the continued existence of a species or the temperature of the planet as a whole.
by Meekinos » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:02 am
by Rashuta » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:04 am
Meekinos wrote:GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42 WA Environmental Council already deals with environmental protection.
Also, this fails to take into account that not all nations have "global warming issues" or that they are even on planets that are threatened by climate change. Nor are all nations making use of modern technology. Some have backward, primitive technology; others have futuristic, "green" technology. Your proposal is aimed at such a small demographic that it almost doesn't seem worth it.
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:05 am
Rashuta wrote:Meekinos wrote:GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42 WA Environmental Council already deals with environmental protection.
Also, this fails to take into account that not all nations have "global warming issues" or that they are even on planets that are threatened by climate change. Nor are all nations making use of modern technology. Some have backward, primitive technology; others have futuristic, "green" technology. Your proposal is aimed at such a small demographic that it almost doesn't seem worth it.
it is aimed at the alliedstates if you are not part of it then goodbye
by Rashuta » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:08 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:Rashuta wrote:Meekinos wrote:GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42 WA Environmental Council already deals with environmental protection.
Also, this fails to take into account that not all nations have "global warming issues" or that they are even on planets that are threatened by climate change. Nor are all nations making use of modern technology. Some have backward, primitive technology; others have futuristic, "green" technology. Your proposal is aimed at such a small demographic that it almost doesn't seem worth it.
it is aimed at the alliedstates if you are not part of it then goodbye
actually it's aimed at the world as a whole.
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:11 am
Meekinos wrote:GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42 WA Environmental Council already deals with environmental protection.
Also, this fails to take into account that not all nations have "global warming issues" or that they are even on planets that are threatened by climate change. Nor are all nations making use of modern technology. Some have backward, primitive technology; others have futuristic, "green" technology. Your proposal is aimed at such a small demographic that it almost doesn't seem worth it.
by King Zhaoxiang of Qin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:12 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:do you actually realize that the continued existance of a species and the temperature of the planet may also be profitable. For example, I don't know about your nation but my nation is a low lying island. If the remperature increases and the icecaps melt I wont have my island and hence it would be very unprofitable.
by King Zhaoxiang of Qin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:14 am
Rashuta wrote:King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin would only vote for such legislation on the basis that the incentives matched the costs. If we are required to spend $500 million researching and implementing "green" forms of energy, we want assurances that the outcome will be profitable.
"Profitable" meaning actual money. Not the continued existence of a species or the temperature of the planet as a whole.
If every person/thing is dead nothing can buy your products
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:15 am
King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:Rashuta wrote:King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin would only vote for such legislation on the basis that the incentives matched the costs. If we are required to spend $500 million researching and implementing "green" forms of energy, we want assurances that the outcome will be profitable.
"Profitable" meaning actual money. Not the continued existence of a species or the temperature of the planet as a whole.
If every person/thing is dead nothing can buy your products
The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang of Qin feels that the great and noble nation of Rashuda overstates the case.
by Finland6 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:17 am
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:22 am
Finland6 wrote:I wouldn't listen to this bill at all :|
by King Zhaoxiang of Qin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:23 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:
I agree with you. However, I'm not sure how to write a financial assurance into my proposal.
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:25 am
King Zhaoxiang of Qin wrote:Bergnovinaia wrote:
I agree with you. However, I'm not sure how to write a financial assurance into my proposal.
We also do not know how. Nor do we think it's standard practice to do so, nor do we think your aim can be achieved in a manner consistent with financial equivalence or profit within a reasonable time frame.
The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang of Qin is proud of its Book Publishing industry. We require a lot of timber, and are not predisposed to supporting environmental legislation in a general sense.
by Meekinos » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:35 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:I mean the WA world. And the laws are only a council that when reading over it sounds like it just helps us feel warm and fuzzy and allows us to say "LALALALALA!!" when we are talking about climate change.
by Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:39 am
Meekinos wrote:Bergnovinaia wrote:I mean the WA world. And the laws are only a council that when reading over it sounds like it just helps us feel warm and fuzzy and allows us to say "LALALALALA!!" when we are talking about climate change.
You are making an error, ambassador. You are assuming that all nations share the same issue with climate change. It fails to account for nations where there is no climate change or global warming threat. Also, nations already making use of the technology that is "green" would not be willing to set aside for money under the last mandate because it would be wasted. Further, your proposal continual maintains the singular of 'planet' as if all WA members are part of that planet when in fact it may not be the case.
by King Zhaoxiang of Qin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:48 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:
Couldn't you use recycled paper?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement