Green Energy Act


  • Commission

    Green Energy Act
    Introduction

    The European Union understands the threats that the burning of fossil fuels presents to our world with effects such as,
    -rising sea levels
    -increased global tempratures
    -destruction of wildlife, including some important endemic species

    As a result the European Union Council does pass the following act to improve the regions environmental record;

    Section I - Green Electricity

    Under the terms of this act Green electricity is any generation of electricity using means which produce little to no greenhouse gases and do not require fossil fuels to produce energy. This includes,
    -Solar Energy
    -Wind Energy
    -Wave Energy
    -Tidal Energy
    -Nuclear Energy

    Under the terms of this act in order to meet the requirements of Section II then nations must electricity generation from Section 1.

    Section II- Green Energy Generation Quotas

    Under the terms of this act nations within the European Union must use the sources of energy generation as listed in Section I to meet the below quotas.

    Green Energy Production Must meet the following quotas by the year stated;

    Deadline 1- June 2015- 5-8% of total national energy Generation
    Deadline 2- July 2017- 15-20% of total national energy generation
    Deadline 3- August 2020- 25-30% of total national energy generation
    Deadline 4-September 2025- 30-40% of national energy Generation

    This is the minimum level of green energy generation that is required to be met by a nationstates. If these quotas are not met by the required date then under Section III of this act penalties shall be applied

    Section III- Penalties

    In the event that a nation does not meet the deadline then a penalty clause shall be issued by the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy (section IV) shall issue mandatory financial penalties for each year that the deadline (see section II) is not complied with.

    (all currencies are in Euros (?))

    Failure to meet Deadline 1- ?2,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 2- ?4,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 3- ?6,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 4-?10,000,000 per year over

    Any financial penalties shall be paid directly into the European Union Regional budget under the supervision for the Economics Commissioner.

    In the event that financial penalties go unpaid then the nationstates then the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy shall enact legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice.

    Section IV- Pan European Agency for Green Energy

    Under the terms of this act the Pan European Agency for Green Energy will be set up under the sight of the Office of the Internal Affairs Commissioner. The Director of the PEAGE will be elected by European nations on a basis of every 12 months to monitor nations progress in the development toward more green energy sources.

    All European Nations will be required (on an annual basis) to declare the percentage of national electrical energy generation that is source from green energy sources as stipulated in Section I. Nations which fail to do so when requested by the Director will face a penalty of ?1,000,000 paid directly into the regional budget or the possibility of legal action in the ECoJ

    The PEAGE will be responsible for the development of harmonisation in the sector of greener energy across the whole of the European Union.

    Secction V- Final Paragraph

    This act aims to begin the process toward creating a greener region suitable for all people. It is important to consider the generation of green energy in the fight agains climate change because in order to save ourselves from the harsh reality that is the future we must make changes now.

    Discussion starts now and ends at 00:00 (forum time) on the 18th December 2013


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    [Sarcastically] Wow this is dream legislation for ALDGE we certainly welcome it and will fully support this brave and exciting move!



  • we welcome the green act proposal .



  • Red Croatia will think about this before formating a stance.



  • QUOTE (Davishire @ December 16th, 2013 - 23:45)

    Failure to meet Deadline 1- ?90,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 2- ?100,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 3- ?400,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 4-?500,000,000 per year over

    In the event that financial penalties go unpaid then the nationstates then the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy

    Secction V- Final Paragraph from the Author

    Just a few typos you may want to fix:
    500,000,000 euros has the pounds symbol
    Change "In the event that financial penalties go unpaid then the nationstates then the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy..." to "In the event that financial penalties go unpaid by the nationstates, then the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy..."
    "Section" was spelt "Secction" accidentally.



  • I have some issues with this legislation. First, The Confederacy would have preferred a treaty because I suspect this will be dead on arrival but I think this act is a good starting point of discussion.

    It seems to me like the main goal of the act is to reduce carbon emissions. However, this act doesn't actually require that to happen at all. Consider a nation that is actually increasing the amount of energy it uses. It can undergo a 10% increase in energy use, 90% of which can fall into the green energy category and 5-8% of the nation's energy profile would be green energy. However, not only has this nation not reduced its carbon emissions, it has actually increased them. But is still in compliance with the act.

    Another problem I have with this act is that it considers Nuclear Energy as green energy simply because it's not fossil fuels. Nuclear energy has very high environmental impacts and is not very clean. Inimican environmentalists have fought battles over the use of widespread nuclear energy. Inimicus is perhaps one of the least environmentally friendly nations in the EU and given its 50 Nuclear power plants might not even have to do anything as a result of this act.

    Another issue is that if the goal is to limit carbon emissions then you're not affording nations the flexibility to reduce them in ways like investing in mass transit to reduce the amount of cars on the roads or to even just become more efficient with the fossil fuels they do use. The path to reducing emissions isn't just about switching to green energy, although it's a large part of it. The act penalizes nations that are reducing their carbon emissions with ways other than having a larger share of green energy.

    In the current form, we do not support this act.


  • ECoJ

    "I've been listening to all opinions in the council so far, but I cannot agree with anyone except with the concerns of the councillor from Gun-Toting Animals. As you all know, green legisation isn't in the interests of Inimicus, but this part of this act is especially concerning:

    QUOTE

    Section III- Penalties

    In the event that a nation does not meet the deadline then a penalty clause shall be issued by the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy (section IV) shall issue mandatory financial penalties for each year that the deadline (see section II) is not complied with.

    (all currencies are in Euros (?))

    Failure to meet Deadline 1- ?90,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 2- ?100,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 3- ?400,000,000 per year over
    Failure to meet Deadline 4-?500,000,000 per year over

    Any financial penalties shall be paid directly into the European Union Regional budget under the supervision for the Economics Commissioner.

    In the event that financial penalties go unpaid then the nationstates then the Pan-European Agency for Green Energy shall enact legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice.

    How dares the Davishirian councillor prospose penalties for not reaching the prosposed deadlines?! You're practically saying to countries that they aren't allowed to develop themselves in a way that suits them best. Instead, you're saying they should watch their emissions, which haven't even proven to cause global warming (and no, I'm not denying global warming, it's very evident that temperatures have risen in the past 100 years, but so have they in medieval times, when there weren't any cars or emissions). And before you all criticise me on this point, as Mr Benfield was some time ago, consider the situation in your own country. Do you want to put strains on your economy by doing everything you can to cut down on carbon emissions, and afterwards you get to hear 'It's not enough' and you get a huge fin. five hundred million euros is the equivalent of 2300 new houses (when calculated with a surface of 150 m2), or, for the ALDGE's sake, 230 wind turbines (?2,181,978 per turbine [[*click*]]).

    That is my main concern on this subject. But of course, we're not going to vote in favour of this act."

    Ralph Jaevons, Minister for EU affairs of Inimicus and Inimician councillor to the EU


  • Commission

    Considering what has been said I do propose the following amendment to replace all of Section II of the act with contextual changes to Section III of the act.

    _Section II- Reduction in Total National Greenhouse Gas emissions

    Under the terms of this act is is required that member states of the European Union reduce the total carbon emissions alongside the introduction of green energy, This could be done by;
    -Increasing use of public mass transit systems
    -Increasing use of green energy sources
    -Improving efficiency of current fossil fuel energy generation
    -reduction in the amount of fossil fuels burned
    -increasing development in areas such as carbon neutral products

    Under the terms of this act European Nations must reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 30-40% before the year 2035

    Failure to meet this target will result in a one off financial penalty of ?1bn with an additional penalty of ?300,000 for every 6 months after this date.

    All European nations are required to report total reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the European Green Monitor every June with official results being published every July. Failure to publish total reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will result in action being taken._

    I also propose that the name of the act be changed to European Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    We would like to see a declarations stating that nuclear energy is NOT included in the bill. We know Davishire's record on all things nuclear and this could be a back door attempt to legitimise a programme they've been attempting to operate illegally which is enrichment of uranium for weapon usage.

    We also need a boundary set around emissions for countries who are already operating at a sensible level of carbon emissions. Os Corelia can't reduce much past our existing levels and we don't want to be needlessly penalised.



  • While I do agreement environmental regulations are needed, a one size fits all act is not appropriate. Environmental dealings and such should not completely determine a nations course, especially one who is a developing nation. So much of this act would be entirely unfair.

    You could set up a system depending on what each nation wanted. For those who wanted 20% maximum green energy they could given their timelines and if they miss them they would face bigger fines than nations who want 80% green energy. This offers an incentive to want green energy but it also makes sure that it is what that nation wants, not some universal bill which could prove a logistical challenge for many nations. So as the bill stands right now, I will vote against it.



  • Cuxi Anyas was the next to comment on the proposed legislation.

    'I am pleased to see environmental legislation brought before Council for discussion and regret that my contribution is perhaps a little late and not as detailed as it could be.

    In general Nouvelle Picardie is not very interested in defining what are green methods of generating electricity and then legislating a proportion of electricity generation that they must account for. The resources available to each nation will differ and it may be that for some the costs of switching to green methods would be more than the benefits. Some back of the envelope calculations suggest that for Nouvelle Picardie at a, likely low, carbon price of about ?10 per tonne the costs of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 30-40% would be at least an order of magnitude greater than paying the proposed penalties for non-compliance. On the other hand for a less populated nation, such as the Vatican, the proposed penalties are probably excessive. There is also the challenge of historical emissions by countries that have long been industrialised and that requiring the same emissions reductions of developing countries may sentence them to poverty.

    Perhaps setting a maximum annual emissions target to limit greenhouse gas concentrations, and therefore climate change and ocean acidification, to a certain point beyond pre-industrial conditions would be possible. The total emissions could then be divided by our population to give a per capita limit to emissions for the EU. Legislation could then require nations to meet the common per capita emissions limit while leaving the means to do so open (for example a nation unable to economically meet their per capita emissions requirement could buy the ability to emit more greenhouse gases from a nation with emissions lower than their maximum limit).

    I thank my colleague from Davishire for bringing forward this legislation and have noted the diversity of opinion during the discussion."



  • I think we should have a few days extension on the debate because this is a complex and controversial issue that needs more viewpoints to be expressed.


  • Commission

    Shall we extend the debate until 18:00hrs on 21st December?



  • Let's do it until 18:00 on the 22nd, to give councillors more time to draft amendments.



  • Red Croatia has decided not to support this bill dues to the over-ambitious expectations that this bill would set up. Shifting our economies in order to please this request would be too much for even a country like Red Croatia to handle, and we don't even want to think about what the other countries that are in a much worse position to introduce green energy would have to deal with assuming this was introduced. The resources we use in order to run our electronic devices are quite a sensitive topic, and approaching it this way isn't what Red Croatia would have in mind. Protecting the environment can be done in other, more economy-friendly ways.

    Heather Von Henderson
    Red Croatia's EU Councilor


  • Moderator

    The environment is becoming an increasingly important topic for Inquista and it's definitely something I hold dear to my heart, so I'm glad to see that environmental legislation has been brought to the Council floor. However, as one of the many Councillors who brought up ideas during the environmental discussion in the Council the other week, I feel disappointed that none of the opinions or ideas were utilised and the whole discussion has become a missed opportunity.

    While I do embrace green legislation in open arms, I don't really believe this legislation tackles it in the right way. As numerous Councillors have pointed out, some nations (such as the Vatican, or Inquista) simply can't just stop using fossil fuels and then start building nuclear power plants or wind turbines in the middle of who knows where. This legislation simply isn't realistic for every nation. One size doesn't fit all. And by reducing emissions from say, fossils fuels, to nuclear emissions, you aren't really doing anyone a favour.

    By setting up emissions limits or quotas you aren't impacting the environment in a way that will help the environment. A small slash in Co2 won't effect anything. You are only going to impact the people and businesses in negative way. I at least believe that we should tackle environmental issues through genuine and tangible initiatives. Reducing emission limits by certain amounts, whether it be percentage or whatever, is really vague and open ended.

    And the amendment proposed by the Councillor from Davishire isn't going to make it much better, unfortunately. The proposed amendment means that such nations have to now introduce public transit systems, and have to limit businesses on how much they can pollute. So, at the end of the day, all the bill and the proposed amendment would have nations create an efficient public transportation systems and limit businesses and nations on how much they can pollute.

    Again, I must stress this just isn't the way to go about it. I just don't think this a beneficial way to help the environment. We should take genuine steps to help the environment, steps that everyone can benefit from. In the Councillor discussion I brought up multiple ideas, such as creating a program to protect endangered wildlife and national parks, creating a pan-European recycling program, creating green initiatives in the the Patent Agency or through University cooperation. These are just a few ideas that I came up in the moment. We have so many possibilities and we already have so many great programs that we can utilise to genuinely help the environment and further environmental research.

    This is much more of a treaty, while I believe we should create programs to combat the environment, not just restrictions. Restrictions do more harm than good. This is just some friendly criticism. I just believe that this bill and all the amendments should be scrapped and that the environmental discussion should be utilised. At least then we will be able to take some serious steps in protecting a world we all share together.

    Edward Firoux, Inquistan Councillor


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    Insead of letting another batch of legislation fall to pot we need to salvage th good bits.


  • ECoJ

    What do you say the good bits are?


  • Commission

    What bits do the international community feel can be saved. We can then develop on those


  • ECoJ

    "Well, of course, I don't think any bits are good, but I'd like to hear the others."


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.