[DRAFT] Universal Clean Energy Act

[Reghana]

This is a two part piece of legislation. It requires the repeal of GA182, and then offers the following as a replacement. Please help in adding to and refining it so that it can be submitted properly to the floor. Could anyone help Reghana endorse this repeal and subsequent proposal?

---

THE PROPOSAL

ARGUMENT

Asserting that the World Assembly need not subsidize discovery of new clean energy forms, but instead, must subsidize the development of existing forms in nations where they are not already present or not sufficiently widespread enough to allow the consumption of fossil fuels to end.

Recognizing that there are nations in all stages of development in many areas not limited to the production and consumption of energy alone.

Acknowledging that requiring smaller nations with energy production facilities currently using fossil fuels to allocate 5% of facility expenses towards clean energy research would not be sufficient for said nations to develop plans, construct infrastructure, implement protective measures, and maintain clean energy infrastructures, let alone research new energy solutions.

HEREBY

Defines clean energy as any renewable source of energy with minimal negative environmental impact.

Instructs World Assembly nations to devote 1% of their gross domestic product to a World Assembly fund for subsidizing the development, construction, maintenance, and protection of clean energy infrastructures suitable to the needs of nations receiving the subsidy. (Could use help in this area, what should we actually DO?)

[Bears Armed]

It's probably best to have separate threads for the two proposals, and just keep them linked to each other.

THE REPEAL

Commending GA182 for its laudable effort in promoting the research of renewable energy.

Concerned that GA182 is vague and placed the burden of energy research and development on facilities instead of governments.

Recognizing that some provisions of GA182 were not applicable to nations already relying solely on clean energy. Thus, said nations were not given the responsibility of assisting other nations.

Offering -LINK TO DEBATE THREAD HERE- as a viable replacement for GA182.

OOC: You can't include a link like this in a proposal, and using the word "Offering" might be seen as making this too close to an 'operative' clause and the proposal therefore illegal under the rule against including new legislation in a repeal. On the basis of past rulings, I suggest a change to "Hoping for the passage of a better resolution on the subject of clean energy;" instead.

THE PROPOSAL

Description: A proposal requiring member nations to assist in the subsidizing of clean energy infrastructure abroad.

OOC: If this is supposed to be the line of text that appears directly under the proposal's title, then you don't get to choose the contents of that line: It's generated automatically by the game, on the basis of the category and [for categories that have them] area-of-effect that you specify when submitting the proposal... and that you really should specify here, too.

Asserting that the World Assembly need not subsidize discovery of new clean energy forms, but instead, must subsidize the development of existing forms in nations where they are not already present or not sufficiently widespread enough to allow the consumption of fossil fuels to end.

Recognizing that there are nations in all stages of development in many areas not limited to the production and consumption of energy alone.

Acknowledging that requiring smaller nations with energy production facilities currently using fossil fuels to allocate 5% of facility expenses towards clean energy research would not be sufficient for said nations to develop plans, construct infrastructure, implement protective measures, and maintain clean energy infrastructures, let alone research new energy solutions.

The grammar and punctuation of those clauses could stand improvement.

Defines clean energy as any renewable source of non-polluting energy.

IC:
"Some of this organisation's more technically-advanced member nations will probably want to argue for the inclusion of various energy-generating methods might not strictly-speaking be "renewable" within the definition of "clean": Nuclear fusion, for example?
"They might also argue that no form of energy-generation is completely "non-polluting", because -- if nothing else -- all are likely to release at least some waste heat into the environment..."

Instructs World Assembly nations to devote 1% of their gross domestic product to a World Assembly fund for subsidizing the development, construction, maintenance, and protection of clean energy infrastructures suitable to the needs of nations receiving the subsidy.

IC:
"You will get a LOT of protests that for many member nations 1% of GDP is a ridiculously LARGE amount of money for dedication to this purpose, especially in those nations that currently have very little taxation."

"Also, you need to explain which WA committee* will administer that proposed fund, and the basis on which it will decide which nations get what subsidies."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


(* OOC: However there's no need to go into any detail about the committee's composition, if you create a new one for this purpose: all WA committees are automatically presumed to be staffed by efficient & incorruptible WA bureaucrats [or "gnomes"], so that authors don't have to worry about making them work, and assigning the duties to anybody else is actually against the rules...)

[Dooom35796821595]

Why should we give 28.5 trillion monies per year to backwards nations still unable to see beyond their own nose? Our nation has many forms of "clean" renewable energy and are open to trade negotiations to allow other nations access to such technologies. However we will not support such blunt methods to solve a problem that dosen't exist, after all species die all the time.

However we will support the repeal of the existing legislation, for similar reasons that we reject it's proposed replacement.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We refuse to give any amount so massive as one percent of our GDP. One percent is more than some nations have as a national budget. No."

[Grays Harbor]

Defines clean energy as any renewable source of non-polluting energy

As with any simplistic, one size fits all, definition you seem to neglect that "clean and renewable" energy sources require a means of collection and storage. Those means frequently, if not always, require large amounts of so-called "rare earth" metals which require mining, are frequently in short supply, are not renewable, and are quite expensive as a general rule. You may as well mandate that all energy sources be composed of unicorn farts and rainbow aether.

[Reghana]

Defines clean energy as any renewable source of non-polluting energy

As with any simplistic, one size fits all, definition you seem to neglect that "clean and renewable" energy sources require a means of collection and storage. Those means frequently, if not always, require large amounts of so-called "rare earth" metals which require mining, are frequently in short supply, are not renewable, and are quite expensive as a general rule. You may as well mandate that all energy sources be composed of unicorn farts and rainbow aether.

That is a very amusing, yet unfortunately true, way of looking at it. We realized this when drafting that clause, but left it that way so that there could be debate. However, could you go so far as to indulge us with an alternative wording perhaps? How would you have this clause put? If you would have it put at all that is. And it is not intended to be one-size fits all at the end. We would like to itemize clauses so that they might address nations of various themes.

[Araraukar]

However, could you go so far as to indulge us with an alternative wording perhaps?

I think the consensus currently is "idea is not viable in this form, drop it".

[Reghana]

Defining clean energy very broadly to mean non-polluting and renewable is like defining an apple to be a fruit. It stays. It is open to interpretation. So in regards to the definition of clean energy, you can disagree with the way it is worded, but without offering an alternative definition, it wont make any difference.

[Reghana]

"We refuse to give any amount so massive as one percent of our GDP. One percent is more than some nations have as a national budget. No."

One percent is of course arbitrary and debatable. Perhaps if we create the WA energy fund, and request charitable donation rather than demanding nation's resources, that could be a viable alternative. Would that be a better option?

[Frisbeeteria]

Well, there are two things that absolutely need to be dropped.

Instructs World Assembly nations to devote 1% of their gross domestic product to a World Assembly fund for subsidizing the development, construction, maintenance, and protection of clean energy infrastructures suitable to the needs of nations receiving the subsidy.

1% of GDP always seems to be "tiny" amount suggested in this sort of naive proposal. It's absurdly high, of course. The entire Energy industry in the US amounts to only 4.5% of GDP, and other nations are of course much lower. And when you charge a set fee of 1% for a vast nation like China with minimal native energy resources and an enormous, spread out population, versus the same charge for Iceland with its concentrated population and wealth of "clean" geothermal energy; you're making an entirely arbitrary and therefore meaningless suggestion.

Defines clean energy as any renewable source of non-polluting energy.

There's no such thing. Solar panels must be manufactured and maintained, which cause pollution. Dams and tide motors must be built and maintained, which cause pollution. Wind farms have the same limitations, plus visual and sound pollution. Your proposal is little more than a simplistic bumpersticker idea.

One percent is of course arbitrary and debatable. Perhaps if we create the WA energy fund, and request charitable donation rather than demanding nation's resources, that could be a viable alternative. Would that be a better option?

Not really. You can't leave it voluntary on the funding side, or you'll get zero volunteers.

I think the consensus currently is "idea is not viable in this form, drop it".

I'd go with this.

[Reghana]

It's probably best to have separate threads for the two proposals, and just keep them linked to each other.

Agreed. Thank you!

[Reghana]

There is a lot more stifling going on here, which is great! I just hope that someone starts to focus on suggesting alternatives.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We refuse to give any amount so massive as one percent of our GDP. One percent is more than some nations have as a national budget. No."

One percent is of course arbitrary and debatable. Perhaps if we create the WA energy fund, and request charitable donation rather than demanding nation's resources, that could be a viable alternative. Would that be a better option?

"Funding is the least of the problems here, unfortunately. All committees are funded by the WA General Fund, so I'd drop that part entirely if I were you. You have a much more significant issue in your definition of a clean energy resource, and then you need to have this actually do something. If the WA is footing the bill for subsidies, then nations don't actually have to do anything, which creates a problem for the legality of your proposal. I strongly suggest focusing on the repeal separately from the replacement, and starting over completely with your replacement. Blow it away, rethink some things you want nations to cooperate on on the international level, and come back with a fresh idea. This is too limited to really work with right now."

[Separatist Peoples]

There is a lot more stifling going on here, which is great! I just hope that someone starts to focus on suggesting alternatives.

OOC: the problem is that you have too little viable material to suggest an alternative. Sometimes "throw it out" is the best we can give you without writing a resolution for you or changing your idea entirely. I suggest, as I do all new players, that you take some time to debate other proposals instead of writing your own. The details you have to learn here are too much to impart effectively in a single guide, and trying to combine the nuance of debate with the added stressor of writing is incredibly discouraging to new players. Take some time to join in the debates, ease into the atmosphere, and put this on hold until you're a bit better educated.

[Reghana]

OOC: So you are basically calling me a newb at debating ideas and making proposals therefore mine is invalid. Not good logic. I think if you look beyond that, there are many other poorer worded proposals that have been adopted.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So you are basically calling me a newb at debating ideas and making proposals therefore mine is invalid. Not good logic. I think if you look beyond that, there are many other poorer worded proposals that have been adopted.

OOC: that's not at all what I said. Your proposal doesn't do anything. Ergo, there's not a lot we can change without writing it for you.

I'm offering you the same advice we offer everybody who is new here, mods and veterans alike. Believe it or not, we're trying to help. If you'd rather I treat you as if you already know everything about the GA, I can, but you won't like it and you won't find it helpful at all. This is me trying to help you take the easiest route to learn.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: So you are basically calling me a newb at debating ideas and making proposals therefore mine is invalid. Not good logic. I think if you look beyond that, there are many other poorer worded proposals that have been adopted.

OOC: The "but I think other passed resolutions are worse!" argument is, at best, a bad argument. At worst it is akin to stomping your feet and pouting.
When "naive and simplistic" has been mentioned by multiple players, that might be because the draft is, in fact, naive and simplistic.
Nobody has said that this idea is invalid because you are a "newb" or are bad at debating. It has been said, however, that it is a badly worded and naive draft because it is in fact, badly worded, naive, and simplistic. It is a bumpersticker or t-shirt slogan, and not much else. The idea as you have presented it is unworkable in its current form and is unlikely to be redeemable.
Every person here has at one time or another presented a flawed proposal. That is not unusual. To persist in believing that the only reason nobody likes yours is because you are new is stubbornness and just a little self-centered. Don't fall into that trap.

[Chi Endahl Plains]

Yes agreed. More data is needed. Let us work together.

[Reghana]

Very well, we will rewrite the proposal and edit the post. Time and assistance would be appreciated.

[Wallenburg]

Very well, we will rewrite the proposal and edit the post. Time and assistance would be appreciated.

Time we can give you. Most of us are patient enough. Assistance will only be given when your new proposal goes up for review.