NationStates Jolt Archive

As the Cutting Trees resolution was vague, and gave no room for human judgement and rationale, I have proposed the following amendment to help make the amendment for feasable:
Description: Whereas the cutting of trees in many places does not lead to widespread deforestation, and whereas forcing many nations to replant trees where they regrown naturally is costly and a waste of time, let it hereby be Resolved that the replanting of trees will not be mandatory where it can be shown that there is sufficient reforestation on the part of nature, sufficient being the sprouting of at least 1 tree for each one cut within 2 years of the logging activity.

This is only logical and necessary to make the previous resolution practical.

That would be silly. Trees take a long time to grow, young trees cannot sustain ecosystems and they cannot prevent things like soil erosion in the same way that larger trees do. Even if they do grow naturally they will probably die quickly if deforestation is allowed. So really we need another resolution to further limit deforestation as simply replanting trees is not enough. Unsustainable exploitation of the environment should never be allowed no matter what the percieved economic benefits of doing so may be.

There always needs to be a balancing act. Where I live, the town is rather depressed and unemployment is high. What could help this? Improved transport links, which would attract more business to the area. You need to weigh everything up, and of course, I am completey for the by-pass, for the good of my town. I fully support this amendment.

There always needs to be a balancing act. Where I live, the town is rather depressed and unemployment is high. What could help this? Improved transport links, which would attract more business to the area. You need to weigh everything up, and of course, I am completey for the by-pass, for the good of my town. I fully support this amendment.

Any short term economic benefit is outweighed by the long term environmental damage that will result from it. If improved transport links really are necessary then they should not involve new roads, instead there should be greater investment in public transport with the aim of reducing the number of people driving. That and of course less dependence on failed neo-liberal economic theory could help reduce unemployment

warning:liberals will now say socialist economies will collapse.I'm sure that's why mine is more dynamic than many a liberalist countrie's :roll: .

I do not support this resolution and see it as rather damaging the enviroment than the intended protection of the enviroment.

Someone tried doing this already, but good effort. :)

That would be silly. Trees take a long time to grow, young trees cannot sustain ecosystems and they cannot prevent things like soil erosion in the same way that larger trees do. Even if they do grow naturally they will probably die quickly if deforestation is allowed. So really we need another resolution to further limit deforestation as simply replanting trees is not enough. Unsustainable exploitation of the environment should never be allowed no matter what the percieved economic benefits of doing so may be.

No. We need to allow nations to decide for themselves how and what they are going to deal with the deforestation in their own nations. I am against the tree resolution, and always will be. While your heart is in the right place, my sovereignty is being ignored and trampled.

~Korunida~