[WITHDRAWN] Going electric?

[Hapilopper]

This has been withdrawn. Sorry for wasting your time.

Hello! I've had some ideas for writing an NS issue lately, hopefully this one will be alright. Not sure if I want to enter this for the contest or not.

@@NAME@@ going electric?
[DESC]
Climate change isn't slowing down any, and environmentalists have taken aim at the many automobiles on @@NAME@@'s roads. Several advocates - one for the environment, one for the automotive industry, and a third person have come into your office demanding an answer.
[VALIDITY] Cars must not be banned

[OPTION 1]
"We have to be good stewards of the environment," said @@RANDOM_NAME_1@@, one of @@NAME@@'s leading environmentalists. "Everyone knows that burning fossil fuels are harmful to the environment and accelerates climate change! And nothing has a bigger impact on our carbon footprint than all the fossil fuel-burning automobiles that pollute our everyday life! I ask you to issue a ban on new fossil fuel automobiles within five years, to convert all of our vehicles to clean electric cars! Our power grid will need to be upgraded to allow for all the new electric vehicles, but think of the good you'd be doing for our environment!"
[RESULT]
@@NAME@@'s power grid sometimes sputters under the weight of charging electric vehicles, but at least the air is clean.

[OPTION 2]
"We have to be good stewards of the economy," said @@RANDOM_NAME_2@@, an advocate for the automobile industry. "Forcing everyone to switch to electric vehicles will have a devastating impact on our economy. Electric cars are expensive, so are we going to help everyone buy them? And what about auto repair shops? Lots of mechanics and auto parts stores are going to go out of business. Let the car makers choose when they want to transition and you won't demolish the economy. Just, don't breathe in the air on the highways for now. We'll fix it. I promise."
[RESULT]
@@NAME@@ clings to their outdated technologies for dear life.

[OPTION 3]
A third person - one of those strange people who tend to pop up whenever you have these sort of debates - chimes in with an idea of his own. "So, I hear one talking about the environment, and I hear one talking about the economy," said @@RANDOM_NAME_3@@, whose rancid odor has polluted the room by now - more so, you swear, than any automobile could. "I've got a better idea. Renewable fuels - the stuff you put in and out of your body. If you got to go, you can go in your gas tank, you feel better and you've just filled up your car! It's clean, safe and effective! On top of that, you won't need public bathrooms anymore!"
[RESULT]
"Poor aim" has replaced "High gas prices" as the reason people can't fill their cars up anymore.

[Ko-oren]

It reads pretty well. One thing:

- the options (1 and 2 more than 3) could do with some characters: what do they do/look/sound like?

Also, for the description: I understand why the issue is brought to the leader, but why does Leader need to provide an answer for the actions/words of a group of activists?

[Of Memers]

and also there is a issue which I forgot its name but its kinda like this but instead it bans cars

[Hapilopper]

It reads pretty well. One thing:

- the options (1 and 2 more than 3) could do with some characters: what do they do/look/sound like?

Also, for the description: I understand why the issue is brought to the leader, but why does Leader need to provide an answer for the actions/words of a group of activists?

Thank you, Ko. I'll be putting in a revision sometime tonight with those questions answered.

[Southland]

I actually worked with a professor in college who did some surveys on the environmental impact of electric vehicles. He said that in some areas (like Florida I think), mass adoptions of electric vehicles would actually make pollution worse because they would be required to hook up to a power grid that heavily relied on gas or coal to generate electricity. This should be addressed in some capacity in your issue.

[Verdant Haven]

- Your speakers are described in each option as they talk to Leader – there’s no benefit to describing them in the description at the beginning! Their identity isn’t part of the dilemma, after all. If you delete the second sentence of your description, you’ve got a nice, clean, succinct base. Give it a little poke to perhaps include *why* environmentalists are taking aim at cars, and you’ll have a good description.

- Speaker one claims that nothing has a bigger impact on our carbon footprint than automobiles. That statement could use some support. While in the real world United States it is indeed the transportation sector that is (just barely) the largest source of CO2 emissions, globally it is fourth by a long way, behind power production, agriculture, and industry. As such, let’s provide some info to support this assertion, because it won’t match the lived experiences of many of our players (or else tweak the assertion to be that it is one of the major sources, rather than unequivocally the biggest).

- As Southland mentions above, power production is in some places a bigger source of pollution than cars, and switching to all electric could very easily exacerbate that. This would be a reasonable argument for speaker 2, or somebody else, to include.

- Option 3 is suggesting something I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of. Biomass fuel is real, to be sure, and people have burned things like cow pats for centuries, but does a system exist that would actually be able to sufficiently power even a small car off this? This seems more like a mad scientist/futurist type proposal than a back-to-the-land smelly hippy type proposal.

- Effect lines aren’t sentences – they don’t need capitalization on the beginning or periods on the end.

[Electrum]

The issue's premise is quite similar to #784. Highly suggest reading through the archives before drafting to avoid those kinds of errors as of course we cannot accept major overlaps into the issue base. It might be good to find a different angle