NationStates Jolt Archive

There are two UN proposals which cover the same subject. I believe the latter to much more inclusive and well thought out. Passing them both as UN law would be a tremendous and unnecessary burden on our businesses.

I do hope that everyone voting for the current proposal http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=un has already chosen to vote against the upcoming proposal http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal. Otherwise such short-sightedness could prove disastrous in the UN.

This is a public message from the Neo-Communistic states to the Commonwealth of Giedi.

Our enviromentalists have found slightly higher traces of radioactive uranimum in your terretorrial waters than is the normal earth standard. We considered radioactive materials toxic. Though we know that your country is rather enviromental aware, we found that these particals, even though in minute proportions come from small spoils that slipt through your cleaning system. However with the current resolution you give us no other option. Improve the world, start somewhere. Unless you make sure absolutely nothing will enter the water anymore, one week after this resolution passes we will declare war on the Commonwealth of Giedi, because we feel forced to declare war on the Commonwealth of Giedi to shut down its uranium mining. We are secretly working in the intrest of other uranium mining nations to increase there monopoly by the way. They however feel secure enough that there army can withstand the UN. We are very sad to do this, but absoluty no toxic materials, means absolutily no toxic materials.

This ultimatium will never be followed through. However it is our last, maybe final attempt to stop the horror you unleashed on the world due to bad formulating. We are an enviromental conscious nation, but your initiative gives us enviromentally aware people a bad name. At this stage it will also not take the resolution anymore of the table, but at least I want to show the writer of the resolution what a horrible legal error he made. We hope that this awareness will result in more awareness in the future, and maybe an update of this resolution.

Neo-Communists, for a better world, but not with a sledgehammer.

ps. We are also very sad that the deligates failed to see this crusial error and managed to correct this.

huh

The Free Land of the Stonies is voting for the actual UN Resolution.

However, we will spread the news of a UN proposal by Vassfforcia, that we consider valuable and even better than the actual resolution.
We would like to add an amendment reguarding petrol transportation. Black Mareas are one of the worst source of pollution, contaminating huge landcoast areas. We think that toxic substances must include petrol and derivates. We also think that double hull for supertankers should be obligatory (this proposal is inspired from the UE one after the sink of the Prestige)

Both resolutions are valuable and do not contradict themselves, we stonies do not see why we shouldn't vote this one. Oceanic Waste Dumping is an urgent problem that need to be answered now. Making a new resolution will only delay the answer to the problem for big business' greatest benefit.
We thus need to sign Oceanic Waste Dumping NOW.
Bob Marley, Public Relations from the Free Land of Stonies

I better hope you hurry up before war breaks out supported by big business trying to take out the competetion.

UN in real is slow. Mainly because one mistake is worse than than moving to slow.

I also hope you made sure your new resolution will not only add, because adding is impossible to this resolution, but also correct the old one.

Ok you lot are wierd what is the problem with two un resolutions coming up

The Allied States of Armandal agree...

we will NOT allow dumping of ANY kind in our waters or within 300 clicks of them... we will enforce this with military force OR with trade embargoes and sanctions if we dem fitting... we back the UN but voted agianst the dumping of toxic waste in regional waters of any kind.... non industrial countries (even more so nations like ours that are islands) should NOT and will not be forced to allow this dumping in our waters... pollution is not a problem for our nation or any of the 10000 islands.... we stand by our UN delegate on his vote 100%

"The Governing Houses of Armandal"

It is totally preposterous to have a 5-7 year prison sentence for those who dump toxic wastes... I will vote against this proposal and I recommend all others to do so as well...

Ok you lot are wierd what is the problem with two un resolutions coming up

The Oceanic resolution covered most bases and has been put into affect, this resolution is not only redundand and needless, but it is an improper extension of the UN charter rules and regulations...the UN is not a Government, Governing board, or governing body either...it can not enforce such specific detail as to how each government should legislate their laws on such things, they can ask you not to do it as a member state but they cannot tell you that you would have to fine, jail or force community service nor can they even suggest it...it's not their place nor is it within their power. Everyone who disagrees can read the description of the UN right here in the UN forums page. It was a valiant effort for the clean-up idea but it really needs to be worked on some more before being considered for a vote. So in short, vote against it.

If you feel that I do not favor matters of the enivironment, and that is the reason for me making my suggestion, your wrong, I voted for the previous resolution protecting the water from dumping...

Make wise decisions, and good luck. :D

The all-benevolent all-knowing government of Davius wishes to express its extreme concern at the current can of worms opened by the UN environmental lobby. Moreover, this proposal does not actually define what 'waste' actually is. A nuclear power plant returns water to the rivers after the boiling process - should this *really* qualify as dumping?!?

Perhaps we should be encouraging industry to take the environment more seriously, rather than simply howling disapproval and slapping fines on any caught so much as knocking a bucket of waste over.

The large industry does not regulate itself without any legislation concerning dumping. Consumer bans could make companies more aware of the environment but still their main role is to make profit. One of the ways to save costs is by dumping.
Because the former resoltution does not mention rivers and other open water/ground water this resolution is necessary to include these waters.

The Empire of the Upperlands therefore states a vote for the resolution should be made.

This is the same post I have posted on two other threads regarding the same topic.

Press Release from the United Socilaist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the "Stop Dumping, Start Cleaning" legislation pending on the UN floor. However, it must be made clear that we are in full support of environmental cleaning and preservation. Our country spends billions of dollars a year on keeping our natural landscape clean and beautiful as well as regulating businesses which use dangerous chemicals. Also, the previous resolution, which banned oceanic waste dumping, enjoyed our full support. The current resolution is admirable in its zeal to prevent the destruction of our world's environs, but it is blatantly over-regulatory and steps too far in mandating a country's sovereignty. The UN exists to foster communication between countries and provide general rules by which we rule our countries, not micromanage our economies and social programs.

As the Incorperated States of Tom Joad and Kingdom of JBRoyal have previously stated, this resolution will cause an immediate rise of the bureaucratic regulatory state. While the USSK finds the aforemention countries' lack of existing environmental protections unfortunate, it is not within the UN's realm to dictate they follow a set standard. The USSK respectfully requests that the Federation of Whoway immediately withdraw its resolution from consideration so we may continue to more relevant business that the UN was charted for.

Signed,
For People of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Famich Myasnikov

Our main objection to this proposal is the harsh punishment. Specifically the prison sentence. :shock:

It is the worst resolution in the game's history. It is unworkable and unenforceable.

The all-benevolent all-knowing government of Davius wishes to express its extreme concern at the current can of worms opened by the UN environmental lobby. Moreover, this proposal does not actually define what 'waste' actually is. A nuclear power plant returns water to the rivers after the boiling process - should this *really* qualify as dumping?!?

Perhaps we should be encouraging industry to take the environment more seriously, rather than simply howling disapproval and slapping fines on any caught so much as knocking a bucket of waste over.

We, Minhiriath Condrafox the First, feel the need to express our concerns regarding this topic. If we disregard disagreement on basic ways of living are we not in effect all brothers and sisters sharing the same livingspace to some extent? Then why do we quibble about the necessity for a clean environment? We of Imperium Minhiriath take into regard that pollution affects not only ourselves but also our neighbours, their neighbours and theirs etc.. Therefore any state who seriously pollutes the global environment is violating our livingspace as well as anyone elses and should commit theirselves to cleaning up or face the wrath of the Supreme Being at the Ending of Times. We feel this will more than make up for any failure of endorsement of the proposed laws and therefore vote in favor of the issue - simply because it will be endorsed in the end anyway and shows the acceptance of the Will of the Supreme Being.

We make no threats. We endorse His Will.

signed,
Saint Fauna,
Supreme Priest of Information

The Jingoistic States of Kernwikare deaply opposed to this proposal.
It should be our right to decide how we dump waste within our own land

The Jingoistic States of Kernwikare deaply opposed to this proposal.
It should be our right to decide how we dump waste within our own land
The Commonwealth of Abysseria votes against this proposal primarily because of the resolutions punishment. While we feel it is important to discuss and include ramifications for such a proposal, the mandatory 5 - 7 year prison sentence will not be effective, nor a deterrent. Harsh extremes are rarely effective in promoting long term change.

While supportive of the concept, we again vote no on this environmental resolution. Abysseria will gladly support a resolution of this nature in the future, if it is drafted well.

We of the Upperlands do agree with Kholodsk about the their objection against a bureaucratic system. However, IF the resolutions only state a rough example the different countries should be able to intergrate it into their legislation in a way the would like to. So it's in the most effective way introduced in the different countries and not by some über law. That way you would get two different systems which leads to the bureaucracy.

Signed,
For the people of the Kingdom of Upperlands
Minister of Environment, Jan-Peter Bakelende

We of the Upperlands do agree with Kholodsk about the their objection against a bureaucratic system. However, IF the resolutions only state a rough example the different countries should be able to intergrate it into their legislation in a way the would like to. So it's in the most effective way introduced in the different countries and not by some über law. That way you would get two different systems which leads to the bureaucracy.

Signed,
For the people of the Kingdom of Upperlands
Minister of Environment, Jan-Peter Bakelende
While that sentiment is noble in that it attempts to make vague resolutions applicable to all member nations, it is, unfortunately, misguided. If a member nation, upon passing of a vague resolution, is accused of violating said resolution there will be almost no practical or appropriate way to approach, punish, sanction or otherwise deal with the accused member nation. As such, vague resolutions become easy to circumnavigate, ignore, and otherwise useless. If resolutions aren't specific, UN members can avoid working together to create a common global standard - which is the point of a UN!

IT IS NOT THE UN'S PLACE TO DICTATE PUNISHMENTS FOR CRIMES TO MEMBER STATES! THAT IS UP TO THE NATION TO DECIDE!

It also annoys me that you seem to think everyone follows the same model as the US. Not everyone has 'federal' prisons. NOT EVERYBODY HERE IS AN AMERICAN.

Bloody typical arrogance.....

IT IS NOT THE UN'S PLACE TO DICTATE PUNISHMENTS FOR CRIMES TO MEMBER STATES! THAT IS UP TO THE NATION TO DECIDE!

It also annoys me that you seem to think everyone follows the same model as the US. Not everyone has 'federal' prisons. NOT EVERYBODY HERE IS AN AMERICAN.

Bloody typical arrogance.....
Bloody typical arrogance, or just someone that wasn't thinking about what would make a clear resolution? Debate formally and politely, please. :)