At Vote: Ban on Leaded Fuel [Complete] [Complete]

---

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that internal combustion engines burning various organic fuels, such as short-chain hydrocarbons, are a method widely used for propelling vehicles,

Aware that burning short-chain hydrocarbons in some types of engine can lead to irregularities in the combustion cycle, a situation called ‘knocking’ that both reduces fuel-efficiency and increases wear on the engines,

Informed that one solution found for this problem is the addition of other chemicals to the fuel as ‘anti-knocking agents’, with organometallic compounds containing Lead (e.g. Tetra-Ethyl Lead) as a common choice for this role although reliable alternatives to them also exist,

Concerned that using those organometallic compounds for this purpose disperses Lead into the environment where it can be taken up directly by some life-forms and can also pass on accumulatively up the food-chains involved, possibly crossing national borders in the process, because Lead is a cumulative poison to many types of organism and can cause serious health problems even at sub-lethal dosages,

Believing it desirable to end this spreading of poison;

Defining the term ‘leaded fuel’ to mean any fuel mixture including organometallic compounds of Lead, or of any other metal of comparable or worse toxicity;

Hereby requires that each WA member nation _

1. Begin at once to restrict the numbers of vehicles requiring leaded fuel for efficient running that it produces and imports, so that the annual average number of such vehicles in use for civilian purposes within its borders for any year after one year has elapsed since the date of this resolution’s passage (or since the date when the nation first joined the WA, if later) will be no higher than the annual average number of them in use there for the year immediately before that initial date, and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that initial date no such vehicles at all are produced there for civilian use;

2. Begin at once to restrict the amounts of leaded fuel that it produces and imports for civilian use, so that the total amount of such fuels available for civilian purposes within its borders per year after one year has elapsed since the same initial date as for clause #1 will not exceed the total amount that was available there for that use during the year immediately before that initial date (or, if supplies were restricted during that previous year because the nation was at war for any part of that year, the total amount available there for that use during their most recent full year of peace instead if their government would prefer this figure), and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that initial date no such fuels at all are produced within its borders or brought into therein for civilian use;

3. Begin at once to restrict both the numbers of vehicles requiring leaded fuel for efficient running and the amounts of leaded fuel which it produces and imports for military use, on the same basis as it must restrict the availability of such vehicles and fuels for civilian use within its borders, unless it is in a state of open warfare at any stage during the four years following the relevant initial date in which case it may postpone the deadlines once by whichever is less out of a further four years or the duration of hostilities.

---

Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted in the tally.

Ministry vote recommendation: For

Ministry Review
Written by Sciongrad

This resolution, despite the complicated language, is actually very sensible. As always, we first must look at the issue and whether or not it deserves international consideration in the first place. The resolution seeks to prohibit the use of lead and other equally toxic substances as "antiknocking agents" (which are substances uses to prevent gradual engine damage). At a first glance, this may seem very specific or overreaching, however, upon further analysis, we begin to see the extranational effects of using leaded fuel. For example, burning leaded fuel can cause permanent health damage to those exposed to it or its fumes. However, it can also be ingested by plants and animals, moving through the food chain and causing permanent damage to entire ecosystems. So this is clearly an issue worthy of attention by the General Assembly.

The content itself is also satisfactory. While it may be somewhat confusing to read at first, it does do a solid job of prohibiting leaded fuel while also allowing member nations a reasonable time span to slowly phase out lead and other toxic antiknocking agents from use.

This goes to vote this minor.

No strong feelings, but I am inclined against.

For.

For

For

The proposal's author here. My thanks to those of you who are supporting this.


I won't try to vote in this region's poll, but here are my answers to various complaints about the proposal that I’ve seen people (from various regions) make so far:

1) This isn't as NatSov-friendly as the Bears' other proposals have usually been.
Admitted. However, as one clause in this proposal's preamble points out, once the Lead has entered the food-chain (for example: the Lead is initially absorbed by plants, bits of those plants are eaten by insects who accumulate it to higher levels than the plants did, those insects are eaten by small birds in which the cumulative level becomes even higher, and then those birds migrate across a border into another nation where they in turn are eaten by birds of prey or even by people...) so there is an international aspect to the matter.

2) This will hurt my nation's automotive industry and thus its economy.
If you are talking purely in terms of OOC stats then, yes, I admit that this will be the case… although your Environmental stats should rise slightly in compensation.
However if we look at the matter IC, which was the basis on which the proposal was drafted, instead: (A) Nations that haven't yet adopted internal combustion engines or that have already progressed past using them wouldn’t suffer, and neither would nations that use internal combustion engines but that currently don't use leaded fuels... and those nations potentially might actually benefit, through increased sales of vehicles and/or unleaded fuel to nations that have been using leaded fuel.
(B) The relevant industries in those RL nations that have made the same changeover don't seem to have suffered significantly because of it.
(C) The eventually-reduced levels of Lead in the environment should (according to RL studies that could plausibly apply to Humans [& Bears] in NS too) result in better health and lower crime-rates that would not only be good things in themselves but also [hopefully] help the economy as well.

3) It's too complicated.
Basically it gives you 4 years in which to phase-out the use of leaded fuel, and of vehicles that require leaded fuel for efficient operation. The added complexity is just to provide possible extensions to that period in cases where that would be particularly reasonable i.e. for nations that don't join the WA until after this passes or because of wars.

4) It should just have required that nations make the changeover eventually, without setting any deadlines at all.
If I'd done that then the Mods would almost certainly have struck the proposal down as illegal for 'Optionality'. One can get away with having just "Urges" clauses in a 'Mild' Proposal, but I am fairly certain that 'Environmental/[one industry]' proposals count as stronger than 'Mild'.

5) Allowing production & use to continue at the last year's rates right up until the final deadline, and then cutting them completely, is a bit silly.
So, if this passes, institute a more detailed phase-out in your nation during that period instead: Nothing in this proposal's text would prevent you doing so. I deliberately left this option open so that nations can decide how to handle that process themselves, as best suits their particular circumstances, as long as they do comply with the final deadline.

6) This would mean that everybody has to replace their car within four years, which would be too much (and probably too expensive).
No, they'd only have to get their existing cars converted to run on unleaded fuel instead, which in most cases should be a lot simpler and cheaper than replacement.

7) But my nation's automotive is still only at a 'developing' level...
In that case making the change now would probably be easier and cheaper than doing so later on.

Thank you for posting here, Bears Armed .

3-1, I have switched to for.

Aye

Aye

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.