[Draft] Environmental Protection Act

[Bergnovinaia]

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 and preserve the many planets environment. Also acknowledging that the advancement of industry could be hurt by any such Act.

Also recognizing that several nations do not pollute the earth and even have futuristic green technology. However, several nations do not have such technology and are polluting our planets.

Nonetheless, if the planets are to be preserved, reductions to certain industries must occur and our nations must pursue renewable sources of energy.

Article I, Section I

a) All automobile industries may continue to build vehicles that consume fossil fuels.
b) Automobile industries that pursue a future in vehicles that do not burn fossil fuels (and does not create an equal or greater carbon footprint) must receive a reasonable of government funding (based on the achievement).

Section II,

a) Uranium mining industries may continue mining uranium at current rates but is to be reduced at least 5% in 10 years.
b) Nations are to explore ways to safely dispose of uranium that causes little or no damage to the environment.

Section III,

a) Wood Chipping Industries may continue cutting down trees at current rates.
b) 5 years from the date of the Environmental Protection Act passes, only 40% of trees can be cut down per every acre.
c) 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 1% of their net income 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.
B) Member nations are not required to follow any of this bill with the exception of Article I section III subsection c (unless they already have recycling plants) if they have green technology. Green technology is to be defined as follows: technology that 1) allows the burning of fossil fuels to be decreased by said product by 50% or more, 2) have any clean renewable energy source, and 3) automobiles in said nation are at least 75% more eco-friendly than comperable cars.

[Rashuta]

I don't mine uranium or use fossil fuels already, and being that we are large manufacturers of green technologies, so I can give turbines and solar panels to other nations, or I can make them more effecient

[Bergnovinaia]

Good to know.

[Bergnovinaia]

anyone else???????

[Hirota]

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.

The main problem I can see regarding legality is I'm not certain that throwing around these numbers is legal, or actually explains things.

Also, I'm going to oppose regardless. Hirota relies upon it's Uranium mining industry. Why should we reduce our mining operation if we already have satisfactory methods of preventing excessive environmental impact?

[Raedon]

There seem to be a few problems dealing with article one: one, the numbers seem large and extrenuous making it difficult for smaller nations to deal with out making any increased difficulty for larger more impacting nations and the exact funds should be reduced to percentages like the specified fields (trees to 25% in 5 years etc.) to deal with countries and corporations of varying sizes. Secondly there is no mentioned enforcement or way of forcing corporations to comply is it a no allowed if not followed will it be left up to member nations with no outside enforcement even if overtly ignored. One possiblity could be a fine. Finally the country seems to be required to just accept an additional tax burden that others will benefit from only slightly less than them, which seems to largely inconvenience many nations encouraging them to first vote down and later ignore the EPA, rather there should be some fund to help pay for countries giving incentives, this could be done with the early mentioned fines, and this number could cause more failing countries to cause greater incentives or a high number of succesful changes to allow for another increase in standards using competition to your advantage.

Best of Luck with the bill
The Radoh

[Bergnovinaia]

Ok I'll get tid of the numbers.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

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.

[Rashuta]

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

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

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.

[Meekinos]

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.

[Rashuta]

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

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

[Rashuta]

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.

Really, wow, that is stupid, the WA already has laws, and it is impossible for everyone in the world to get together

[Bergnovinaia]

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[/quote]

actually it's aimed at the world as a whole.[/quote]

Really, wow, that is stupid, the WA already has laws, and it is impossible for everyone in the world to get together[/quote]

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.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

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.

The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang of Qin has no official opinion on the internal problems or policies of Bergnovinaia. We do, however, require assurances of financial equivalence or profit prior to supporting any environmental measure in the World Assembly.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

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.

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

I agree with you. However, I'm not sure how to write a financial assurance into my proposal.

[Finland6]

I wouldn't listen to this bill at all :|

[Bergnovinaia]

I wouldn't listen to this bill at all :|

Why? Do you support global warming?

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

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.

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

Couldn't you use recycled paper?

[Meekinos]

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.

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

So it should be the save earth bill. I will add in the part that if nations have already achieved "greeness" for lack of a better term can do not need to set aside funds for exploration of new resources.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Couldn't you use recycled paper?

We neither support nor object to the domestic use of recycled paper in King Zhaoxiang of Qin, nor do we support or object to logging and the creation of new paper. In our opinion, that is a matter for economies and supply and demand, not governments. Further, we formally protest this blatant intrusion by Bergnovinaia into our domestic policy.

We will not enter into legislation that requires us to provide government funding to automobile companies based on the fuel efficiency of the cars those companies make (Section I). We do not wish to have car companies that sell no cars, but exist on our taxpayer's money in the form of environmental incentives. $10 billion dollars is outrageous, and we will not pay it. There is no requirement on the citizen's of member nations to buy the cars made by the companies that receive funds, and if there were we wouldn't support it.

Similarly, we will not have mandatory recycling centers with no assurance that our populace will actually use them (Section III). There is no compulsory recycling for the citizens of the member states in the proposed legislation, and if there were, King Zhaoxiang of Qin would not support it.

We have similar grievances with all of the other articles and sections.