This has been something that I forgotten a while back, and, maybe, after giving it some thought, I'm going to stick with this resolution through thick and thin, instead of my slaph-dash and utterly ineffective method of trying to throw everything and hope it sticks.

Anyway, I'm posting this resolution here to see if there can be anything fixed before I send it to Jolt.

You're going to get alot of people saying this doesn't really do anything, because it doesn't, and then a bunch of other people saying it does to much. Even though it doens't really do much, It still does to much... still following me? Crap. Ok I'll try to confuse you again.

You're merely affirming current laws on this, not making much new except for the credits.

You're not making allowances for nations that don't use fossil fuels now, but might in the future.

Oh and there's still the Kennyite Creative Solutions Agency's "solution" of upping your carbon production just before this goes into effect to get maximum benefit from this... Honestly I'd just never advance the year in my nation, kinda like that Rudolph Christmas/New Years special(which like the Oasis came complete with it's OWN caveman).

Ahh screw it, you're in direct conflict with 72 anyhow. Cheerio.

I'll comment on two conditions: 1) that you don't go "oy! is unpossible" and immediately abandon yet another proposal. (You're welcome to abandon it if it does prove unworkable, but stick with it for a little while. :), and 2) you don't reflexively make changes. Comments are provided to get you to re-evaluate what you've written, and improve it, not just cut-and-paste whatever everyone else says (which is one way y'alls FoPE went terribly wrong.)

Category? How is this Free Trade and not Environmental: All Businesses?

This is meaningless pap. All "previous" enviro resolutions mean fuck-all to this one. There is one resolution (use Safalra's new search feature if you don't know which one) that you need to be particularly addressing in your preamble.

Really? What global warming? This isn't real-life; you have to establish in your preamble that said condition exists. You also need to establish that it is an international concern requiring international efforts. And everybody hates "regulations"... they're representative of bureaucracy. People want action.

I'm as green as they come (and anti-business as well), but even I would say "no duh" to this, and can guarantee that the vast majority of conservative regions are going to turn off and vote no right here.

Hmm, other than the title, this is the first reference to carbon emissions much less standards. Why are they important? This is also where the greenies are going to start going "uh-oh". so you're going to have to justify not just "realize" that different nations are at a different place with regard to emission standards.

Hoping? Try for something a little stronger than sitting around singing Kumbaya.

Believing. When you address carbon emissions and standards, tuck in quotas as well. Remember, if a delegate can miss interpret something they will.

I'm going to assume this is the absolute lowest recommended real-life quota, otherwise you're going to wish you had a batch of howling banshees swirling around your head rather than the enviros. Work on the wording here so it doesn't sound like "We're authorizing industry to spew great big hunks of poison into the air. And that resolution I mentioned earlier? This clause will need to work in concert with it.

You probably want to use a previously established committee here. This clause more clearly contravenes that earlier resolution.

Rewrite with respect to the previously existing resolution.

As a greenie, you've lost me here. I sure as hell don't want three or four corporations around the world buying up all the units and then making a wasteland of wherever they're at only to move to somewhere else and fuck over that land as well. Consider an annual cap as well as a lifetime cap or some other regulating mechanism.

grammar: of their obligation. "Reminds" is weak in an already weak clause. "Strongly urges" "Asserts that" are possibilities.

You also might want to consider the role of agribusiness in carbon emissions and whether they need to be specifically included, excepted or can be safely ignored.

Looking forward to seeing your second draft.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the one I quoted in my post, and he's right, you're going to have to give that resolution a long hard look before you think about this one again. Doesn't mean you should stop, but try to work with 72 without conflicting with it.

Really? You want to tell us exactly how, because R72 doesn't seem to preclude further, detailed efforts that apply to more than just the auto industry.

And no, I wasn't.

I'd like it if it was as simple as including more stuff than a previous resolution to avoid conflicts, but what little experience I've had with this stuff, that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you want to go further, you'll have to be either very careful(and risk skipping on what you want to do), or skip on it entirely. Or repeal it, that works too.

Which one then?


126?
227?

This kind of thing is covered... alot... Feels like it's been done to death, but hey always room for more. If it's solid.

Edit: Probably 126 I'd guess?

See, that's the "unpossible" attitude that I referred to. There is absolutely no resolution to be written that's "easy". Even resolutions on which the UN is currently silent require careful thought and construction and will take more than a day or two to draft. They generally require some research as well, not only into pre-existing resolutions, but into the subject matter itself.

You are right, and to be honest your post was a heck of alot more helpful than mine anyhow, so I'll bow out of the conversation.

Out of Context Theater Presents:

Preach on!


Thank you.


:lol:

Won't do any "unpossible" attiudes. I do think this is a good idea, but it will take time to actually fix it. So that is what I am going to do.

Let's start.

The goal of this resolution is to allow nations to freely trade Carbon Emission Quotas. It's not decreasing Carbon Emissions at all (hence, not enviromental), it is allowing for the international quotas Emissions to be traded, thereby helping businesses comply with the resolutions and promoting a financial incentive to change their policies so they don't pay as much.

Er. Going to need to work on it soon...Will need to address the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases, as they are the two resolutions on the book that reduce fossil fuels.

I'll see if I work on the preamble after the operative clauses. I'll come back to this in the afternoon...

Hm...er...would a simple changing of a word suffice? I modifed the terms "carbon emissions" to "fossil fuels", and Carbon Uni as well in order to have it comply with the earlier resolutions.

Make sense.

And there's a problem. If I do a rewrite, and in some strange case, the previous resolution gets repealed, then my resolution is useless. If I do a rewrite, I have to be careful, as so not to have a HoC violation.

The goal was for this clause to apply to all international regulations on carbon emissions, both in the past and in the future. Though, here's an attempt:

A lifetime cap (as well as an annual cap) doesn't sound something the RL Kyoto Treaty has...but then you don't have OMGTKK in the real-life UN. An annual cap is okay, but how do you expect a lifetime cap to work?

Agribusinesses in fact do carbon emissions, and it is interesting that there are no exemptions for them as well in existing resolutions.

Since providing an exemption for them would contradict all those other resolutions (unless you are suggesting that they not be allowed to get carbon emissions at all, instead just complying with the original resolution as stated, which may also be impossible since everyone else is complying with the new resolution and it might create some paperwork trouble), I think it is okay to safely ignore them.

EDIT: New Preamble

Can I suggest setting aside the preamble for now? While I'm a fan of pretty preambles, one of the mistakes I've made in the past is devoting too much time to it when, ultimately, it counts for nought in legislative terms. The operative section is what matters, and the preamble can be written after that. (A bit like: birth is what matters. Romantic stories about the moment of conception can be made up later, so it doesn't if right now you do it in a chemical toilet in a field full of cows.)

I like this idea and hope you do stick with it, so I'll try to provide as much help as I can; it was an idea for a proposal I was considering doing myself. I agree with much of what Rubina's said, except in one regard: I do think this should be Free Trade (if perhaps not Strong). That again is a decision that should only be made after the proposal is fully written.

Why do you need to define what a carbon unit is, at least in terms of tons of CO2? You don't use that definition anywhere else in the proposal.

I simply don't believe you can allow nations to buy carbon credits above the limits imposed on by standing legislation: that's contradiction.

And I was reading, a while ago, an interesting piece in the New Scientist about the possibility of including reforestation projects in carbon trading schemes. Would you consider such projects, carbon sequestration, even research projects, to be included, so that companies could earn positive credits? (And bear in mind, some nations run the credit system on the individual level, not just the corporate one.)

Presumably it's the strength designation can wait, since the proposal should be written to the category?

Rereading the description for the free trade category and the proposal, I'm confuzzled. Creating the system of carbon emission quotas and units and then requiring business to participate in such a system doesn't seem to me to be reducing business regulation/increasing economic freedoms. Especially when the proposal includes a clause that essentially says over time that "product" will be made to cease to exist by a regulatory committee. (Not a challenge, just would like to know.)

It seems to me exactly like Chemical Transport Standards, only this time the standards are for carbon emission not product labeling.

The same but different? :)

With Chemical Transport Standards the "commodity" pre-existed the resolution; in this case the "commodity" doesn't.* With CTS, the regulations are designed to increase confidence and speed in trading (clear, standard labeling allowing an increase in safe international movement); the regulations here are, if anything hampering a business' ability to operate by forcing them go to the expense of buying units (essentially getting govt. permission) when they want to expand operations, rather than just building another smokestack.

*unless the commodity is the carbon emission itself and then that gets ugly.

Good idea.

Provide a reference point for the Commitee. But it would likely be better to cut it to save space.

Huh. Good idea that I forgotten about. I'll add that as a restriction and avoid the whole "cap" as well, as the cap would be the limits imposed by standing legislation.

That's also a good idea. I might add in the UNEA can examine all "reforestation projects, carbon sequestration, and research projects" and award Carbon Credits, but based on what? How much carbon emissions it would save would be reasonable enough, but I have to make that clearer.

Also will be adding the term "individuals" as well pending the next draft.

Clarification:
The resolutions on the book already force businesses to not build that other smokestack, without government approval (so that the nation does not violate the UN resolutions). The business now has to go through the expense of buying units (but they could buy them from other governments as well or corporations, they do not need to get them solely from the government they are residing in) or earn the Carbon Credits through "reforestation projects", but it is better than being prohibited from ever building that smokestack.

It reduces barriers to commerce, hence why I consider it "Free Trade".

I'm kinda siding with Ruby on this one. You seem to be straddling categories: yes, you're reducing barriers to trading carbon credits, but you're also making carbon credits mean something.

In an of themselves, carbon credits are a non-entity; they only matter in an environment (HA!) of emission regulation. You need to have that regulation in order to mandate the free trade of carbon credits. I mean, Environmentaldisasteristan doesn't care about carbon credits, as they have no restrictions on the amount of crap they put out.

You seem to be either putting the cart before the horse (as no UN regulation exists to make these credits valuable) or you are trying to do both in a single proposal. And we know how well that works.



I'm not laying down a ruling here, but that's how I see the current state of affairs.

Hm.

The reason that I wouldn't want to pass two resolution, a resolution creating Carbon Units, and a resolution mandating the Free Trade of Carbon Units, because the second resolution would depend on the first resolution, creating a HoC violation. If the first resolution creating Carbon Units get repealed, then the second resolution mandating its free trade ceases to be useful at all. {EDIT: That being said, if it could be legal (and the other part of trying to combine both the definition and the "free trading" of the Carbon Units/Credits is not legal, I could very well just do it.}

What I do see however that may be questionable (and therefore, rather to be avoided) is that I am trying to first grant Carbon Units meaning and value by using existing legalisations (UN laws) as a basis for how many Carbon Units should be given out to each nation [if Nation A needs to reduce its usage of Fossil Fuels by 10%, due to already existing UN Laws on the subject, the UN will give out Carbon Units equal to 90% of current existing Fossil Fuel usage]. Then, with the limitations in place, the nations could trade the Carbon Units so they remain in compliance with the UN resolutions. The laws concering the enviroment already exist.

Though, since there is no specific mention of Carbon Units existing in the UN, I could see it being ruled illegal. I hope not. I'll wait for Gruen to come and respond, who has helped previously on this idea, and hopefully will help again. If it is at all feasible, I'll try to define Carbon Units and then give it meaning.

(But, preparing for that cirmustance in which it cannot be done, I could start by adding in a clause restricting total carbon-based emissions by UN nations, by, say, another 5%, and use that as the basis and definition for the Carbon Units...which would surely put the resolution squarely on Enviromental, All Businesses. Not something I would prefer, but it is better to stay legal than sorry.)

Any particular reason you're avoiding environmental?

Mostly because I know many nations and companies are upset about the "environmental costs" associated with Enviromental resolutions, and even if they do believe in supporting the enviroment, they may feel that current efforts are more than enough.

The thing I don't want enviromentalists to be pigeon-holed as people who harm economic development, and therefore have many people become opposed to it. By passing this resolution that could help nations improve their economies via the free trading of "carbon units", you can lessen the burdens of enviromental resolutions and ensure economic development, thereby proving wrong the arguments that enviromental resolutions harm economies of both rich and poor nations (as the gameplay mechanics says).

You are not going to convince anyone of anything, politics-wise, by playing around with categories.

Okay. Not only that, but I just realized that if I go ahead with the idea of reforesation projects, it really does improve the enviroment, and doesn't...er...you know, help free trade. A tree, planted in the middle of nowhere won't help the economy at all.

So, it is much better instead to go and change it to "Enviromental: All Businesses", and hopefully, stick with that rather than go to Free Trade. Alright. I'll try for a new draft of Operative Clauses soon.

EDIT:

Just a note, this is 10 votes from quorum.

...

I must have misjudged. Instead of thinking it only stays on the floor for endorsements for 3 days, it does it for 4 days. Meaning, wow.

Still think it's rather unlikely that it will make it to quorom, and I'm not so certain what are the improvements that will be suggested by the General Assembly, however, if there are good improvements, I'll request for it to be pulled (and to be honest, due to QoD's good skill, I think I will be pulling it after hearing from him). Hopefully, there is no hurry, what with your proposal in queue.

It made quorum, and is in the queue now, but should be stalled until mine passes.

In order to try and fix flaws in this resolution, I recommended for it to be withdrawn. Please suggest any good ideas to make this resolution better.

I suggest a clause that states 72 sexually adventurous women will be awarded to ambassadors from nations with exceedingly low carbon emissions.:D

I'd go with what the guys have already said, unless there's something someone else sees missing.

Semi-bump again hopefully to gain some more advice.

Did we cover exactly WHAT a carbon unit is?

I think 2 is entirely superfluous, as the decreases will happen without you having to mention it(assuming the resolutions stay on the books for reduction).

3 may work better if it explicitly outlines that the earnable carbon credit will be exactly equal to or less than the environmental impact of the projects. "Equal to" or "less than" is the choice there, "less than" will appeal more to the greenies.

4 is entirely superfluous as well, for the same reason as 2. It's redundant to say that acquiring more credits than you are allowed to acquire is not allowed.

Beyond that, a few of general points.

One: If you don't define a carbon unit as a quantity of pollution, it's not...useful. You've said it's tradable, but nothing in this resolution would keep me from selling all my carbon credits and then polluting the exact same as I did before(and defining my carbon credits as 0% of my total pollution). My carbon credits aren't actually bound to my pollution, despite 2b assuming that they are.

Two: To be totally honest with you, allowing entire nations to barter away their pollution is a scary thought. A few nations buying up as many credits as they can and pumping the pollution out would cause more problems than it solves.

Three: Which brings up a final point, under this resolution and any resolution that give carbon credits a value, you reward the polluters and penalize the responsible people.

This brings me up to my parody of the day.

Captain Planet is not amused!



Real heroes don't pollute anyhow.

We know this is true because it is a real world problem. Not to stray from our world, but in RL the environmental system is a joke with its pollution credits when companies can sell what they don't use to companies that need more.

Oh, you gotta love Captain Planet for sporting the mullet.

Okay then. Let start, because I know that this is going to be the main argument against this Resolution.

Thing was, the definition of Carbon Units was removed because it was seen as superfluous. I'd rather that I'm going to keep both "superfluous" statements, Clause 2 AND the Definition of Carbon Units, just because saying more stuff is better than saying less stuff and leaving room for confusion.

"Less than" may be, er, a bit unfair, but it's better than "none", so yeah, that'll go in.

Again, maybe the same as keeping the "superfluous" definition of Carbon Units, even though I believe it is not.
***
Now, I understand that there are some preceived flaws with the RL system, but it is relatively new, so it's hard to judge if it is good or bad unless in hindsight.

One, Clause 4 exist because it ensures that the Pollution overall generated by the NSUN remains the same as mandated by existing UN resolutions. It does not matter WHAT NATION produces the Pollution, as long as the Pollution slowly gets decreased. It also prevents nations from buying up Carbon Units and polluting more than is legally allowed under current Resolutions.

Basically, there is no chance that major corporations are going to start buying up Carbon Credits and polluting all over the place. That would contradict Clause 4.

Two, I feel that instead of rewarding polluters, I am penalizing them. Polluters have to pay for the Carbon Units, and under most cirmustances, that would be those who go beyond the existing UN Resolutions (I also have my IC nation subscribe to the belief that "the enviroment" issue is primraly an issue for developed countries, developing countries need to worry about more important stuff, like suriving). Basically, those who reduce their pollution can make money by selling them to poorer nations who cannot afford to reduce Carbon Emissions without harming their economy.

Meanwhile, nations who are polluters have to either start "Environmental Projects" or buy Carbon Credits from more eco-friendly nations. Either way, it does act to discourge nations from being polluters, and encourages nations to start being more eco-friendly so that they can start profiting too and saving money.

Three, unlike RL, UN Resolutions are mandatory, and the environmental regulations far more harsher. You have to reduce your carbon emissions NO MATTER WHAT, with few exceptions, even if you already are at a 'subsistance' level where your pollution is very mininal. If my interpertion is right, a new nation has to start following the UN resolutions calling for a curb of Carbon Emissions in 8 years starting from the day it enter the UN, rather than from the day when the Resolution was adopted, meaning that there will always be UN Nations reducing their pollution level and having a suffering economy overall.

This resolution acts as a compromise. New nations who cannot afford enviromental policy changes can still continue to exist with a somewhat healthy economy in return for doing stuff to save the environment.

There is an exception to Three, which is OMGTKK. But, OMGTKK also said that we write resolutions not for those who abuse loopholes (altough we do need to plug them)...but rather for those senisble nations who follow the letter and the spirit. While OMGTKK may sell off their Carbon Credits at a lower rate, most nations who will sell Carbon Credits are rather eco-friendly indeed.
***
I do hope that QoD/Gruen does post eventually though, and provide me with some political cover for this. I like his ideas.

That being said, if a resolution has too many flaws and cannot be redeemed, I'll abandon it. The goal of the UN is to make the world a better place, and if a resolution I write somehow doesn't make it a better place...well, erm. The goal isn't the limelight, but rather saving the UN.

Yeah, but the problem is that people who do a hell of alot of polluting NOW will get their allotted credits for free and then be able to sell them if they want.

Besides, if the carbon credits exist in any kind of free market, net pollution will never go down. You're just moving it around from poor nations to rich ones.

Douria: Good point. Hm. Er. Going to have to have it be delayed until the start of Janurary 1st, just to avoid the 'allocated credits' problem. (Or, heh, start the first Carbon Credit allocation on Earth Day)

And, yeah, the Free Market quote is true (altough trading is not the only way to gain Carbon Credits, enviromental projects also work). But, the original goal of this resolution (which has since been proven to be stupid) was to provide political cover for any future reductions in Carbon Emissions, by having it boost the economies of all nations via the free trade of carbon credits. Even now, however, any future reduction in Carbon Emissions can use this Proposal to justify such a reduction, in that they can claim it "won't harm poor countries".

Subject to revision, as always. I'm not exactly happy with 3b and may seek to change it though...

I think the definition is a little weird. I don't know much chemistry, but I would strongly bet different industrial processes yield different effects, and hence it might be better to define it in terms of product, not fodder: one of ton of carbon dioxide emitted. (I would also note that there are non-carbon emissions that need regulating, but let's keep it simple for now.)

More importantly, I still don't see how 2(b) can even pretend to be legal. FFRA says nations have to decrease their emissions by x%; not that they can buy their way out of that prerogative. While your approach arguably makes sense, previous legislation has imposed limits by nation. You can't simply ignore those limits.

In the following year, The Republic of UN Member Nation is required to decrease its emissions by at least 2%. Given it was granted 100x carbon units the previous year, this now means it only has 98x carbon units. Allowing UN Member Nation to buy anymore carbon units is either illegal (because exceeding 98x carbon units contradicts FFRA) or stupid (because, knowing this, no nation would make such a purchase).

If you are going to use the same national approach as previous legislation, the only room for a trading system is if you set a supply of carbon units below the current ceiling level, meaning nations can trade up a bit if they want.

You might consider, though, not taking such a national approach. After all, in many countries it'll be private firms that actually need the carbon units. They absolutely can trade carbon units; they still have to obey, and member nations enforce, rules on national emission levels, but that doesn't matter so long as TNCs are able to spread the sites of their emissions around.

An additional suggestion: you could allow the UNEA to purchase, using any excess funds or donations specified for that purpose, carbon units off the market to further promote research and development.

:rolleyes: Can it.

There's also a few grammar spots, but they can be fixed in the final draft.

Thanks Gruen. Will hopefully fix up the grammar in the final draft.

New revision.

Mmm. Nope. Someone beat you to it, and there's no way you can top this:

:dumbass: