03-11-2003, 21:57
I've got a serious problem with the new UN proposal. While there's nothing wrong with cleaning up and preventing further dumping, the specifics of this will not benifit nations and their people in the long run.
First off, the term "wastes" needs to be better defned. Here, its only vaguely assumed to mean something harmful to the environment, and therefore should be specified as "toxic wastes".
Second, the new proposal gives the UN too much control over individual governments. A responsible government knows what is best for its own citizens, and by setting a specific number of years for prison sentences, number of hours for community service, and monetary amount for fines (A nation's citizens may be too poor to pay), it is restricting nations in ways that may not be for their best intrests.
Third, and most importantly, the required three organizations per community is not at all pratical, and possibly harmful to nations. How are small nations with only a few million inhabitants or many small towns of only a few hundred residents supposed to create these organizations? Three organizations in a village of 500 people will ultimately harm a country. And in a large country of several billion inhabitants, how is the government to manage the thousands of organizations that this resolution will create?
I urge UN nations to vote against this proposition, and reissue a revised one that will 1) Still end the dumping of toxic wastes and begin cleanup of environmentally damaged sites 2) Leave it to national governments to determine prison sentence lengths, community service hours, and fine amounts and 3) Establish national, not local, cleanup organizations and provide for their presence throughout a country.
First off, the term "wastes" needs to be better defned. Here, its only vaguely assumed to mean something harmful to the environment, and therefore should be specified as "toxic wastes".
Second, the new proposal gives the UN too much control over individual governments. A responsible government knows what is best for its own citizens, and by setting a specific number of years for prison sentences, number of hours for community service, and monetary amount for fines (A nation's citizens may be too poor to pay), it is restricting nations in ways that may not be for their best intrests.
Third, and most importantly, the required three organizations per community is not at all pratical, and possibly harmful to nations. How are small nations with only a few million inhabitants or many small towns of only a few hundred residents supposed to create these organizations? Three organizations in a village of 500 people will ultimately harm a country. And in a large country of several billion inhabitants, how is the government to manage the thousands of organizations that this resolution will create?
I urge UN nations to vote against this proposition, and reissue a revised one that will 1) Still end the dumping of toxic wastes and begin cleanup of environmentally damaged sites 2) Leave it to national governments to determine prison sentence lengths, community service hours, and fine amounts and 3) Establish national, not local, cleanup organizations and provide for their presence throughout a country.