[Zagadka]

The Blue Planet Alliance is a non-profit environmental advocacy/lobby group - not so much Greenpeace as Sierra Club. We promote public services that lessen the impact on the environment and scientific advancement of green technology.

Among the issues we would lobby for are:

- Exploration of geothermal energy
- Exploration of tidal energy
- Use of solar energy on public buildings and funding for research at universities
- Subsidies for use of private solar panel installation
- Use of wind generation in applicable regions
- Replacement of coal power with the above and nuclear energy (we do not support "clean coal")
- Installation of compressed hydrogen fuel pumps at gas/petrol stations (perhaps mandatory with subsidies)
- Declaration of national forests, marine areas, and wildlife habitats
- Sustainable logging
- Study of algae applications
- Limitation on intensive farming and grazing
- Ban on slash and burn techniques
- Prevention of soil erosion, mostly using wind breaks
- Limits on CFCs and auto emissions similar to those of California
- Expansion and subsidization of rail networks for local and long distance commuting as well as industrial/commercial shipping
- Limits on commercial fishing
- Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty
- Oversight on genetic breeding of plants and animals, including laws requiring studies
- Ban on import of foreign flora and fauna

Subjects up for debate include bio diesel and ethanol, taxes on excessive use of public fresh water supply, and potential continued export of coal (as an economic necessity).

We face many industries entrenched in their investments, but conversion from coal and oil to green power sources will create new industry, new jobs, and a better life. Adoption of these protocols may be expensive initially, but will save money in the long term, and may prevent unrepairable environmental damage.

Our geographic location is ideal for geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind energy, and these measures would greatly reduce our dependence on foreign markets. The same location, however, makes even small environmental disasters extremely damaging. Our economy relies strongly on agriculture, and erosion and desertification will cost much more in damages and repairs than the costs of most of the other programs.

We are also situated in an area where we receive very little pollution, and we should be obligated to producing very little for the European continent.

Economically, protocols such as commercial fishing restrictions and non-intensive agrarian practices may cost some profit in the short term, but unchecked exploitation of these resources could eliminate them entirely, which would not leave much profit anyway. We must also carefully monitor fish population not only for ourselves, but for the other North Atlantic nations whose economies rely on commercial fishing. We have to share the ocean.

A nation of our size can take a model from Japan for national rail service that is efficient and fast, reducing air congestion and pollution from commercial and private traffic. The costs of these systems will be repaid to the citizens many times over as they employ its use, instead of spending even more money on airports and highway driving.

I am confident that we can reach an agreement with the industrial sector that benefits both our nation and their pocketbooks in a mid- to long-term time frame. Environmentalism is not a "leftist" or "liberal" ideology, but one of conservation and reuse of resources. Any competent manager can immediately recognize the benefits of sustainability. Clear cut a forest once, and you make a set profit. Sustainably log it, and you will have income for decades.

Subsidization of technology like solar panels will reduce the need to built more power plants. Subsidization of the installation of hydrogen pumps will encourage a new generation of motor vehicle. Subsidization of rail travel will reduce upkeep on roads and the need to build airports. All of these measures save money and guarantee that we can continue to make money.

We have many expenses to consider when building our new government. We can not reach all of these goals immediately, but we can roadmap them and commit to their introduction. I would recommend a special bond be issued to help start up some of the more essential programs; if they are made to work, the cost in repaying those bonds will be in our pockets.

[Falx]

How can a member of parliament also be a lobbyist?

[Dave]

Zagadka, conservation is a very important topic for our nation, and I'm glad you've taken up this important issue. I agree with much of your plan, but have some disagreements,

- Exploration of geothermal energy
- Exploration of tidal energy

Yes

- Use of solar energy on public buildings and funding for research at universities
- Subsidies for use of private solar panel installation

No to this, as it's aesthetically unattractive and solar energy is still very expensive.

- Use of wind generation in applicable regions

Qualified yes. I support wind power off-shore, where high-speed winds are always available. Onshore wind tends to be intermittent, but also windmills are unaesthetic and can ruin natural beauty.

- Replacement of coal power with the above and nuclear energy (we do not support "clean coal")

Yes, and we have ample thorium reserves with which to pursue this.

- Installation of compressed hydrogen fuel pumps at gas/petrol stations (perhaps mandatory with subsidies)

Absolutely not. Hydrogen takes four times as much energy to produce as it yields. CNG filling stations could be a good choice, however.

- Declaration of national forests, marine areas, and wildlife habitats
- Sustainable logging
- Study of algae applications
- Limitation on intensive farming and grazing
- Ban on slash and burn techniques
- Prevention of soil erosion, mostly using wind breaks
- Limits on CFCs and auto emissions similar to those of California
- Expansion and subsidization of rail networks for local and long distance commuting as well as industrial/commercial shipping
- Limits on commercial fishing

Yes

- Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty

Absolutely not, this would harm our economic competitiveness and simply outsource our own high carbon industries to even dirtier developing nations.

- Oversight on genetic breeding of plants and animals, including laws requiring studies
- Ban on import of foreign flora and fauna

Yes

[Zyx]

It's too late for me to be on POFO, but I should share that this nitpicking, if Cheesecake_Marmalade is reading, that Dave did is a no no. Dave should have summarized that he mostly agreed with little exceptions and major ones. Granted, Dave's method is better than Cheesecake_Marmalade's which comments on each and every one whether negative or positive and misses the point of associating them.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

Every one of these planks is good except for the ban on all foreign flora and fauna. Especially the flora part. I have no patience with botanical xenophobia.

[Zagadka]

Absolutely not. Hydrogen takes four times as much energy to produce as it yields.

... and has no byproduct on use, and can not be run out of

[Thunderhawk]

The people of the Hinterlands wont be buying much solar panels or green energy - our per capita income is half the national average, we simply dont have the money for fancy green technology.

We do not like your green regulations as it would shut down many of our local industries. It would also harm the economic strength of the country as a whole, and thus any blow to the economy will be felt hardest by the poorly developed regions, such as the Hinterlands. The green industries your policies would support would create jobs in the cities, not in the sticks - once again you green lobbyists are selling out the rural populace for the benefit of your urban condo crowd.


Of course, such opposition from the Hinterlands would be lessened if an investment was made in the region equal to or greater then the economic losses from your policies. And not a one-time deal either!

[Zagadka]

Get back to me when you're farming on sapped soil.

Nothing in our policy is forcing anything, other than sustainable land use. Proper education would provide upper mobility, and subsidies would help the energy be affordable. The up-front costs of installing solar panels are made up for by the free electricity they provide; an agrarian land owner does not use very much electricity, and this could remove their dependence on the energy grid entirely.

In a storm, a solid tree will not fare as well as a reed that bends.

If you are worried about income disparity, I suggest you support a government that would break up the monopolies that are really harming income of independent workers and provide more services.

[Thunderhawk]

Get back to me when you're farming on sapped soil.

Intensive farming is the only way a large part of the population of the hinterlands have a chance at a good standard of living, and they DO have that standard - by using chemical fetilizers and intensive forestry.

Proper education would provide upper mobility

You mean leave the land and go the cities. Yeah, good thinking. Then who will grow your food.

The up-front costs of installing solar panels are made up for by the free electricity they provide

Most of us dont have that kind of up front money, and even if we did we dont get that much sun. Sounds like you have never been to the hinterlands, its cloudy a good chunk of the time. Think Scotland as seen in the various movies: rugged land, often cloudy and poor soil.

an agrarian land owner does not use very much electricity

Youre obviously a big city tax and spend liberal who has never worked in real industry and has idealized the country as a resort. What do you think powers the water pumps? The barn lighting? the silo conveyer belts? The various mills? Agrarian industries arent huge electricity intensive factories, but they still use a great deal of electricity. Solar power might work for a house with low power usage, but we're talking about small factory levels of use.

Of course, there are places that arent so developed - they have even less money, especially to spend on city made do-little luxury goods like solar pannels.

In a storm, a solid tree will not fare as well as a reed that bends.

Then I suggest you bend your policy to be more friendly to the people of the hinterlands.

If you are worried about income disparity, I suggest you support a government that would break up the monopolies that are really harming income of independent workers and provide more services.

Yeah, right. How many parties support agrarian policies? How would their electorate feel about taxing the cities more, to suppor the rural communities?

Rather then pissing rural and urban populations off, why dont you stop you high minded green pie in the sky plans and allow us to live our lives like we have?


BTW, we could use a new power plant in the region. How about rather then building a new plant, you (government) give a bunch of vouchers to the people so they can buy solar panels themselves.

[Zagadka]

Intensive farming is the only way a large part of the population of the hinterlands have a chance at a good standard of living, and they DO have that standard - by using chemical fetilizers and intensive forestry.

Intensive farming will leave the land infertile. What will you farm then?

You mean leave the land and go the cities. Yeah, good thinking. Then who will grow your food.

For one, population growth means that people will have to leave "the hinterlands". For two, improvements in technology will reduce the need for manual labor while increasing per-acre yield.

Most of us dont have that kind of up front money, and even if we did we dont get that much sun. Sounds like you have never been to the hinterlands, its cloudy a good chunk of the time. Think Scotland as seen in the various movies: rugged land, often cloudy and poor soil.

Which is why we push for subsidies.

[you have our latitude and weather wrong]

Youre obviously a big city tax and spend liberal who has never worked in real industry and has idealized the country as a resort. What do you think powers the water pumps? The barn lighting? the silo conveyer belts? The various mills? Agrarian industries arent huge electricity intensive factories, but they still use a great deal of electricity. Solar power might work for a house with low power usage, but we're talking about small factory levels of use.

And you are a country bumpkin who can't count beyond his cattle? A 'big city' uses far more power, relatively, than any agrarian farm. You're talking about 'small factory'; we have many large factories and dense urban populations.

Then I suggest you bend your policy to be more friendly to the people of the hinterlands.

You don't want sustainability, subsidies and education? I'm worried people will overuse the land and render it completely useless.

Yeah, right. How many parties support agrarian policies? How would their electorate feel about taxing the cities more, to suppor the rural communities?

... that is what I am suggesting.

BTW, we could use a new power plant in the region. How about rather then building a new plant, you (government) give a bunch of vouchers to the people so they can buy solar panels themselves.

... that is what I am suggesting.

What do you think I meant when I wrote "subsidies for use of private solar panel installation" and "exploration of geothermal energy, exploration of tidal energy"?


EDIT

And in any case, how can you protest sustainable land use and the other policies, when no numbers have been mentioned? You don't know how much of an impact these policies would have. Neither do I. I merely present that we have an environmental standard.

[Thunderhawk]

Intensive farming will leave the land infertile. What will you farm then?

We will use fertilizer.

For one, population growth means that people will have to leave "the hinterlands". For two, improvements in technology will reduce the need for manual labor while increasing per-acre yield.

You know what the two largest technologies that have affected food production?
GM foods, and fertilizer.

Which is why we push for subsidies.

[you have our latitude and weather wrong]

I dont want partial subsidies. 80% coverage on items that cost ten thousand still leaves the average person to shell out 2k - money he dont have.
[geography is still up for discussion, ideal geography is no fun)

And you are a country bumpkin who can't count beyond his cattle? A 'big city' uses far more power, relatively, than any agrarian farm. You're talking about 'small factory'; we have many large factories and dense urban populations.

No, you dont get it city kid.
The electricity needed to run a house is tiny compared to running an industrial facility. Solar panels can supply residential power usage, not industrial usage, and pretty much every farm and most forestry camps need industrial levels of electricity. Solar pannels would supply enough.

You don't want sustainability, subsidies and education? I'm worried people will overuse the land and render it completely useless.

Our current system has worked for centuries, sounds sustainable to me. Your subsidies still aint enough and the "education" you want to give us is euphamism for abandoning our traditions to appease your green guilt of the month.

You don't want sustainability, subsidies and education? I'm worried people will overuse the land and render it completely useless.

We have an existing standard that works pretty well, the status quo.

[Zagadka]

Given the route of the votes, it does not seem likely I will be able to take a seat in Parliament, so I will focus my efforts on this "lobby".

We will use fertilizer.

This does not address crop rotation, amounts of fertilizer and river runoff, etc.

You know what the two largest technologies that have affected food production?
GM foods, and fertilizer.

GM foods should meet scientific trial standards, and fertilizer runoff.

I am more interested in the exact physical technology - more efficient machine tools, crop harvesting, etc. In well developed countries, one man can harvest vast amounts of many crops.

I dont want partial subsidies. 80% coverage on items that cost ten thousand still leaves the average person to shell out 2k - money he dont have.

Government loans can be made available. Tax cuts. If farmers are more efficient, this cuts the bottom line a great deal. Protections on food imports give you a steady market.

The electricity needed to run a house is tiny compared to running an industrial facility. Solar panels can supply residential power usage, not industrial usage, and pretty much every farm and most forestry camps need industrial levels of electricity. Solar pannels would supply enough.

The intention is not to completely power everything; it is to get every bit of energy we can at the smallest possible cost (fiscal and environmental). You can save good amounts of money in the long term by using solar power to supplement the general power grid. There is no harm in using solar panels, but they would provide added benefits. They would also serve as an emergency backup in the event of storms, when work crews could not restore power to rural areas.

Our current system has worked for centuries, sounds sustainable to me.

But our population is growing, and we will need to supply more people with smaller amounts of land.

Your subsidies still aint enough and the "education" you want to give us is euphamism for abandoning our traditions to appease your green guilt of the month.

Education is not a threat to tradition. And iti s not green guilt I am so concerned about as making sure that we can attain profit and growth without damaging our environment. If runoff from over-use of fertilized fields causes us to lose arable land, it is as bad for you as it is for us city folk, because your one valuable is your land. When that is destroyed, you will have nothing, and we will be importing food.

We have an existing standard that works pretty well, the status quo.

We are emerging into an industrial and commercial economy, and technology is rapidly outpacing natural growth. The status quo may have been working, but in 20 years, it will result in a dilapidated and underpowered agricultural center, and fixing that will be much harder and cost much more than preventing it.

[Zagadka]

As a side note, anyone who wants to lend support, I have a logo that you can put as a "badge" on your sig, as some people have taken to doing with their parties. Don't seem to have a following now, but it's about support and I urge discussion.

http://www.zagadka.net/pofo/BluePlanetAlliance.psd

[Figlio di Moros]

But our population is growing, and we will need to supply more people with smaller amounts of land.

That is the purpose of a Land-Value tax, but it's certainly more of a concern for urban populations that rural folk; y'all have skyscrapers and can utilize land reclaimation to expand your land, whereas farmers need as much land as possible to produce as much food as possible.

I'll consider some of your positions, but we ought to take a greater view to economic efficiency than merely appeasing your green values; if it costs a farmer 10k to buy and install solor panels, how long would it take them to recover the cost, and how much better panels might we have by then for how much cheaper?

[Zagadka]

I'll consider some of your positions, but we ought to take a greater view to economic efficiency than merely appeasing your green values; if it costs a farmer 10k to buy and install solor panels, how long would it take them to recover the cost, and how much better panels might we have by then for how much cheaper?

This is like buying a computer system; it will be outdated soon after, but that does not mean it should not be pursued.

Regarding land value, that is precisely one of my arguments. We can't magically make more arable land, so we must use technology to make use of that land more efficient. Say, an older hopper could handle 1 acre, while a new model could handle 3 in the same time. This makes land use per acre more efficient.

[HoniSoit]

I think the SLD and SN-RF can work on environmental issues.

[Figlio di Moros]

This is like buying a computer system; it will be outdated soon after, but that does not mean it should not be pursued.

You missed my point; the time it would take to recover the cost from a solar panel may not very well save us any money in the long term, which is my issue with your plan.

[Zagadka]

You missed my point; the time it would take to recover the cost from a solar panel may not very well save us any money in the long term, which is my issue with your plan.

Well, one, they would eventually pay for themselves. Two, the point isn't paying for themselves, as much as ensuring a more even and sustainable distribution of energy. Even if it costs more, even in a longish-run scenario, it is still energy that would otherwise be produced by older power stations - in our case, notably coal, which is very damaging (and finite).

[Figlio di Moros]

Well, one, they would eventually pay for themselves.

That's assuming they continue to function until such a time without need of repair or replacement. If a solar panel saves a farmer, say, a hundred dollars a month and costs him 10k, and needs to be replaced every fiftieth month... you get where I'm going with this? It's not necessarily economical.

Two, the point isn't paying for themselves, as much as ensuring a more even and sustainable distribution of energy.

They're not worth the costs of producing them, and yet somehow are supposed to be more sustainable? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Even if it costs more, even in a longish-run scenario, it is still energy that would otherwise be produced by older power stations - in our case, notably coal, which is very damaging (and finite).

Considering your other planks were to refit our power sources with geothermal and wind power, a position I strongly back, the continuation of coal power would be very short and more environmental & economical power sources would replace them in the near future without sinking funds into a solar panel scheme.

[Zagadka]

I fear that our economy is very coal-heavy, and moving against that lobby will be exceedingly difficult.

Energy production costs money. Solar panels are just one method of energy production. Diversity on relying on one type of energy production is dangerous in its own right, and solar panels aren't *that* inefficient - much of the time, it puts energy back into the grid. It also isn't something I would demand a mandate for... just something to encourage.