| FAILED: Repeal "Renewable Research Commitment" |
Quote:
Original resolution is one you shake you head at wonder how it ever (a) was deemed legal and (b) passed.
I'm pretty sure I voted for the original.
 The first three criticism in the repeal show a lack of creative thinking. The original resolution is sufficiently vague to allow collaboration and international research. Also, it's strange to suggest that nations shouldn't research the same things. Scientists don't isolate themselves. They read each other's publications and apply studies to their own research. That's how cooperation and collaboration happens even in the absence of formal agreements. The arbitrariness of the 5% funding level doesn't bother me. I don't expect authors to do hard research on every issue. I doubt there's even been any research done in the real world on the optimum level of research funding by individual fossil fuel power plants. On a the policy side, I don't think 5% of expenditures going to renewable energy research is all that unreasonable. It serves as a green tax with actual functions. Rather than having that money go to the government, it'll go to creating new green energy research labs within dirty industry, or even just donated to existing green energy research companies. The last four criticisms in the repeal are all things that can be addressed in other resolutions. Renewable Research Commitments isn't the be-all-end-all of green energy resolutions. Want to talk about energy grid modernization? Go ahead a write a resolution on it. Want to force member states to implement policies suggested by green energy think tanks? Okay, go ahead and try. I would personally vote against this repeal. It looks like people are already doing that, though I suspect for a wide variety of reasons.
Your argument amounts to saying that the original resolution is sufficiently vague and pointless that the repeal lacks bite. While true, it's hardly a ringing endorsement for keeping such a waste of paper. And stuff like this has always bugged me. The WA is better than the NSUN in some respects, such as its laws on trade, IP right, and criminal justice; but its environmental law is much worse. Bad environmental laws breed cynicism, the impression that "environmental warriors" (remember On Recycling?) are naive and unthinking and that all environmental legislation can therefore be condemned. Striking out bad environmental legislation is important to strengthen the case for good legislation.
That said, this will be defeated.
I'm saying it's a harmless resolution at its worst, so why waste the time repealing it? It doesn't prevent anything the repeal author wants to do. I don't think it's even a bad resolution, in terms of policy. There are a lot of ideas about green energy, and it's not like a 5% green tax on dirty power plants has never been proposed before.
The World Assembly does get a lot of environmental law wrong. There used to be a good WA Environmental Council resolution, until it was repealed in a bait-and-switch move, to make way for an environmental blocker that thankfully never made it past drafting. I imagine repealing Renewable Research Commitments won't be followed with a better resolution, either.
The Third Imperium will vote FOR.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
(05-09-2014, 03:03 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I'm saying it's a harmless resolution at its worst, so why waste the time repealing it? It doesn't prevent anything the repeal author wants to do. I don't think it's even a bad resolution, in terms of policy. There are a lot of ideas about green energy, and it's not like a 5% green tax on dirty power plants has never been proposed before.I guess I just think it would be a shame to let trolls like Mousebumples poison the well for everyone else. Writing a repeal of WA Environment Council on grounds it didn't do enough and then planning to either not replace it or replace it with a watered down blocker was asinine, underhand, and hateful - but, it was by Mousebumples, so I repeat myself. But that doesn't mean we have to assume bad faith on the part of every repeal author. Doing so just plays into the hands of the people who detest this game so much they have to try to ruin it for everyone else. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |