[Antrium]

The original proposal can be found here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_r...utions/start=17

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution,

RECOGNISES that effort needs to be made to reduce dependency on non-renewable energy sources,

NOTES that many economically developing nations do not use polluting vehicles on a large scale,

OBSERVES that such nations are therefore unlikely to significantly contribute to air pollution through vehicle emissions,

FURTHERMORE NOTES that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is technically difficult and expensive,

OBSERVES that Resolution #18 requires economically developing nations to duplicate the effort made and expense incurred by nations that are in a much better technological position to conduct the research,

REASONS that such funds would be spent more effectively elsewhere,

CONCLUDES that the funding of expensive duplicate technologies by economically developing nations is illogical and unnecessary,

and REPEALS UN Resolution #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

[Xtraordinary Gentlemen]

I plan to vote in favor. Not only do less developed countries shoulder an equal burden and receive almost none of the benefit, but UNR18 also violates proposal regulations by citing a real life situation, namely acid rain in the American northeast.

That said, I'd also support a replacement that addresses both issues.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I will point out though, that this resolution mistates some facts.

For example, while Brazil has not gone to hydrogen power as such, it has gone to a sugar-cane based ethanol for fueling motor vehicles. It has had the effect of make Brazil less dependent on imported petroleum, and it is just a few years away from the ending the use of petroleun for motor vehicles completely.
(Oddly enough, both CNN and the reality series The Amazing Race have featured this in March.)

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

I support this repeal, for both the reasons XG and GS put forward. This resolution doesn't bode well for poor or low/past-tech nations, who will have trouble developing the tech (and future nations, who may have passed it). In addition, it ignores the possibility of alternate fuel sources.

[Eisophca]

For.

[Keeslandia]

Sorry, we're so green we just can't support the repeal. We vote "no."

[Groot Gouda]

bugger lowtech nations. I'm against this repeal.

[Fonzoland]

May I point out (as I did numerous times in jolt) that Res #18's only action is requiring that nations start developing hydrogen powered veichles? No finishing, promoting, selling, or otherwise utilising said veichles is required. In my interpretation, inventing the wheel satisfies this requirement, and the resolution is meaningless.

[Groot Gouda]

Then we can leave it where it is, no worries, no need for repeal.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

FonzolandApr 11 2006, 07:58 PM May I point out (as I did numerous times in jolt) that Res #18's only action is requiring that nations start developing hydrogen powered veichles? No finishing, promoting, selling, or otherwise utilising said veichles is required. In my interpretation, inventing the wheel satisfies this requirement, and the resolution is meaningless. [/quote]
LMAO Damn straight. I guess I wasn't paying attention when you said this in jolt. Ah, well, my support for the repeal stands...

[Federalist]

No, I will only support repeal if there is a viable replacment in the works. Though Hydrogen power is years away from being a viable option, it helps if we start to do research into its uses. The main problem with hydrogen power for cars is storage and amount needed. I mean it takes 100 cubic feet of hydrogen to travel just 20 miles and it needs to be kept in a liquid form which only happens at a temperature of less than -400 degrees-F I think. A little bit of work from everyone goes a long way.

[Domnonia]

The arguments for repeal are absurd. We vote no.

[Mikitivity]

Though my nation agrees that industrialized nations should be accountable for the pollution they create, we feel that the Leg-ends argument based on sustainable development has enough merit for the body to consider the repeal with an eye toward a future replacement. Mikitivity has voted YES, though also respects the position of nations that wish to support the original resolution.

[Federalist]

TIE BREAKER TIR BREAKER!!!! WE NEED A TIE BREAKER!!!!!!!!!!!

[Antrium]

I plan on casting the region's vote sometime Friday afternoon (US Central Time, as always)

[Fonzoland]

I believe our delegate has the right to break the tie.

[Domnonia]

Oh of course!

[Antrium]

FonzolandApr 12 2006, 08:05 PM I believe our delegate has the right to break the tie. [/quote]
I believe I do.

I don't know if I will have much time tomorrow so I am tentatively casting the region's vote AGAINST the repeal, and if I have time I will check back to see if anyone else voted.

My reasons for voting against are that because the original proposal doesn't enforce anything, but it does encourage something. If someone wants to pass a better resolution on the topic, they can with the original still in place. At that time, I would support a repeal, but not until then. I feel that any resolution to help the environment (except for that solar energy one, I had some serious problems with it) is worth supporting.

Also, it's most likely going to lose either way I vote.

[Domnonia]

Ha. Defeatist and status-quo all at once. LOVE IT.

[Antrium]

The resolution "Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"" was defeated 7,077 votes to 4,732.

Yay...I mean...I have no opinion... *runs away*