NationStates Jolt Archive

Lake Sustainability Resolution

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Tedmonton
Description: For years the lakes of numerous nations have been abused and destroyed for profit. In many nations, this is reaching critical leavels, almost to the point where all the lakes are polluted and can not support life. If we destroy the lakes now, they're gone. Forever. My reasons for this proposal are twofold:

1. Enviromental Concerns
The destruction of lake systems has a major destructive effect on the enviroment. Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if pollution continues at the rate that it is currently. These animals would be dead, and thier would be no way of resurecting them, short of cloning, which rases an entirly diferent moral issue. The simple fact is that the destruction of lake systems is simply pointless destruction as there is no way to make the lakes renewable without seriously cutting the money that they make, which is the reason for thier destruction anyway! The mindless destroying of a valuable national resorce will, in the long run, achieve nothing.

2. Thoughts of the future
By destroying the lakes today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through tourism or fishing. People don't recognise that, while lakes make more money more quickly when fished and polluted on the mass scale, in the long run, monetarily the same amount of money could be produced by carefully fishing limited quotas on an annual basis and enforcing stricted pollution controls. This way, the lake systems would thrive and be sustainable and would be more valuable on the international market due to the decreased availability of the fish and water. Over a longer amount of time, the money produced would, in fact, outstrip the money made by the wanton destruction. The lake would, with help, renew its self and go on making money. As and added bonus, tourism would increase.

Solution
While decreasing the fishing and chemical industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all effects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of lake systems that it has fallen into a cycle of.


Approvals: 12 (Bloodmoon-Hyperion, Annach Morannonil, The Trent, Brodiemania, Hovin, Cherry Cola, Quantum Group, Thrace-Tailteann, Alalalalalah, BaBaZuZu, Gemfish, Tactical Grace)

Is this the actual text you will be submitting? I have to say, it is rather difficult to read. If you're still interested in working on it to make it more smooth (and fixing several typos), I'd be happy to help.

Agreed, there are a number of grammatical and typographical issues that need clearing up. I think we need some more specific methods for compliance. I'm also very wary of proposals with exclamation marks...

That said, I approve of the spirit of the proposal and look forward to a re-drafting.

Best wishes
Ann Clayborne
Speaker for the Environment

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint views all bodies of water and waterways within its borders as national resources, and not something with which the United Nations should be concerning itself.

We will oppose any proposal which limits or regulates our management of our own natural resources.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

The theocracy of Shirresh while applauding and agreeing with the intent of this resolution believes that our national resources are those of Shirresh and the United Nations has no say over internal economic or natural resource issues. This is not a matter for international relations and is a infringement on our sovereignty that we can not accept.

In fairness, it does become an international issue if your waters lead to those of other nations. Geography has an annoying habit of not respecting national borders.

In fairness, it does become an international issue if your waters lead to those of other nations. Geography has an annoying habit of not respecting national borders.

Every drop of water eventually makes its way back to the ocean. To begin internationalizing this issue on that basis is ridiculous. Lakes and seas not wholly within the borders of a single nation become international bodies of water under the management and concern of those nations involved. Rivers and other waterways which cross international borders are governed segment by segment by the nation in which that segment lies.

We feel the only truly international bodies of water with which the U.N. should be concerned are those areas of ocean or larger seas which fall outside the recognized limits of territorial waters.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

GREENSPOINT: "Lakes and seas not wholly within the borders of a single nation become international bodies of water under the management and concern of those nations involved."

If those nations are unable to agree on how to manage them, or even go to war over them, then surely we need a global body like the UN that is able to step in and arbitrate or provide appropriate legislation?

GREENSPOINT: "Rivers and other waterways which cross international borders are governed segment by segment by the nation in which that segment lies."

Again, for the reasons outlined above this is often not possible. Pollutants don't stop at the border. A dam in one country's section of river affects the rest of the river, irrespective of national boundaries.

I appreciate that this is a thorny issue and I understand your concerns but I'm afraid I disagree that this is an issue exempt from UN attention.

Best wishes

to the original author:

I suggest you submit this as an issue, not a UN proposal.

It still needs editing, though, so if you want help, send me a telegram.

Ecopoeia, while your points are well made, we would disagree with you still on the need for U.N. intervention in the two cases you cited from my original post.

However, this proposal would mandate rules governing our management and use of our national natural resources, and we view this as an issue with which the U.N. should not be involving itself.

To say that the management of Lake Conroe or Lake Houston or the water flowing down Greens Bayou into the San Jacinto River into Galveston Bay is an international concern because the ultimate flow carries the water into international oceans is absurd.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Burcemia believes you have placed forward a well thought out plan which deserved recognition. There are some interesting points which will make people (hopefully) stop and think before acting in the 'now'. We agree with your proposal and approve it entierly. Although we also belive some may find the decision to place Lakes before industry absurd. Goodluck with your proposal.

Matthew Blaze - U.N. delegate
and minister for foreign affairs.

I would have to agree with the spokesperson from Shirresh--while your intentions are laudable, the use of the national resources within Ixtli's boundaries are Ixtli's concern.

If there is a problem between neighboring (or non-neighboring) nations regarding the spread of pollutants, etc., that issue should be taken up between those nations. It need not concern the UN at all unless those nations are unable to reach a conclusion by themselves and request the intervention of the UN.

--Carmen Coatl, Minister of Foreign Affairs

The nation of Sophista finds itself in a rather precarious position with this resolution. As an island nation, we can agree that regulation of international bodies of water is important. However, our commitment to the right of national sovereignty and the limitation of United Nations trespass against said right causes us to raise objection to the proposal in its current form.

If the wording of the proposal were to be changed so only bodies of water that, as Greenspoint said, "not wholly within the borders of a single nation" were affected by UN regulation we would then offer our support. Until then, we would kindly ask the UN to keep its little blue boats out of the natural resources of independent nations.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs