NationStates Jolt Archive

I voted against the forestry UN proposal.

Any ways, they want to stop cutting down the rain forest. Its not big corporations though, its poor people. If we sent humanitarian aid there they wouldn't have to cut it down. Or, if we taught them how to replant and not destroy it to a desert as they cut through, it would restore itsself.

Once again, radical activist dont get that forestry is one of the world most sustainable resources and we will never run out as long as we know forest management practices.

Stopping poor people from cutting down the rain forest is like killing millions. Im sure some of you want to, but "if you think the world is over populated, why dont you kill yourself first?"

Planting trees laws in this games hurts all businesses when really should help them. PLanting trees means more trees in the near future to cut down. Which means more money.

Theres many more reason as you why cutting of trees is good, and the people have a right to cut the rain forest but not destroy it.
I hope you all vote AGAINST this issue until changes in proposal are made. :!: :) :!:

My proposition actually agrees with most of the points that you have just made. I am NOT a radical activist,I do not belive we shouldstop all industry. I simply belive that, if the foresters pay to replant all trees felled, forests would go on producing money, albeit in leser quantities, for hundreds of years longer. It makes sense to conserve the trees at the expense of woodchipping so that they can keep on producing money, not just be used up and cease to exist. In time, of many years, forests will make back the money the lose today, without any of the damage. It is saving for the future and will, in the long run, help every UN nation, a fact some people have been blinded to...

Vote Yes for Saving The Forests of the World :!:

:wink:

Nice of you, Maximuscrates, to bring your criticism of this proposal after it is brought to a floor vote. The proper time to criticize a proposal is before it is approved by delegates, not after. No changes can be made to this proposal now, and in all likelihood, the sheep will vote it through now anyway.

The way this should work is,

1- endorsed UN member gets idea for proposal
2- UN member drafts proposal
3- UN member presents draft to forum for critique
4- Forum offers criticism
5- UN member integrates whatever revisions are needed
7- UN member submits proposal
8- UN delegate review proposal on its form, validity, and value
9- UN delegates approve proposal
10- UN Sheep pass proposal

The Sheep are going to vote “yes” no matter what, so the least we can do is ensure that they we get the best proposals to them.

I too have criticisms for this proposal, but I will save them. I too waited too long, and so this proposal, whatever its faults, is going to be passed by the assembly without any revisions inspired by my comments.

[Edit: damn smilies]

Fuck that! I'm sorry but deforestation is just a part of life! You bloody UNers and your "save the [insert blank]" proposals are really started to become redundant! Do you ever vote on anything that's important?? That doesn't pose undue restriction on the completely internal coporate and judicial affairs of a nation?? What hapened to voting on issues of important international concern??

I simply belive that, if the foresters pay to replant all trees felled, forests would go on producing money, albeit in leser quantities, for hundreds of years longer.

There has already been a UN resolution passed mandating the replanting of trees. What does your resolution do?

Looking back on the past decisions I think it's about time we started thinking about the environment rather than if we can fill our pockets. I voted yes, but I would like to, after this vote is carried, propose a condition that would allow the replanting of trees. And remember, if the above vote is carried, it won't be permanent, just long enough so that the trees can be regrown.

I don't see a proposal there. I see what the proposal's about, but not the proposal itself.

I had to wade through a poorly-written document to try to make sense of it. (i.e.: "there" means "not here" and "their" means "belonging to them")

I voted against it.

Why?

Not because of what I listed above, but because it would hurt industry. I second the motion that the proposal be shot down. Instead, let us see a proposal that would require replanting in areas that are subject to lumbering, so as to replenish the natural resouces that have been used. This would benefit the industrial sector. The "proposal" as it stands will only serve to damage industry on a world-wide scale.

Instead, let us see a proposal that would require replanting in areas that are subject to lumbering, so as to replenish the natural resouces that have been used.

:!: Such a resolution is already on the books :!:

The Serpent Mound is dismayed at the number of UN Member Nations which are not aware of international laws they are supposed to be enforcing.

It ignores a previous United Nations resolution and should therefore be removed and disallowed to receive any votes, automatically failing to pass. Below is the exact wording, for reference.

I move that this proposal be removed, in its entirety, from consideration.

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Scrotalia

Description: Too long have UN Proposals been filled with improper grammar. One can scarcely move between two pages of proposals without seeing some sort of grammar or spelling error. People need to realize that "your" and "you're" are NOT the same word. People also need to realize that "to" and "too" are also not the same word, and that the "Vaticant" does not exist. Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.

Votes For: 8597
Votes Against: 6885
Implemented: Sat Feb 15 2003

As a new member of the UN, I am still researching and learning the things that must be enforced in my nation. (As is amply shown by my reference to a previous resolution in what I just posted.)

If such a resolution exists, Serpent Mound, then you should also wish to deny this proposition. It is completely superfluous.

Mechanoids has a good point LOL


By the way, I wish I'd joined the UN earlier, to comment a bit on this proposal, but while I support it broadly, if fails to make several critical distinctions:

The rainforest is a very small (albeit critical) portion of the "forests" that need saving in the world. Indeed, it follows a completely different set of rules. This proposal only addresses rainforest deforestation, and does so incorrectly.

Here's why: you cannot cut down the rainforest and then, effectively, replant it. There are two reasons: 1) Rainforests require, at the minimum, 300 years to mature into full ecosystems. The recovery rate is very, very slow, so even if you replant native trees, you're not going to benefit economically for a small eternity. 2) Rainforest nutrients (unlike temperate forests, prairies, or boreal forests, for example) are almost exclusively held IN THE FLORA. In other words, when you cut down a portion of the rainforest, all the nutrients are gone from the soil. That's why slash-and-burn agriculture happens: because you only get one good crop out of the soil, and then it's depleted forever. As a result, you can't cut down the rainforest and replant native species, because the soil can no longer provide nutrients at that point.

Essentially, there's no "good way" to cut down rainforests. Forestry management, and partial cutting is, however, a very effective compromise between the environment and business in temperate or boreal forests, which grow back (somewhat) faster if restored properly, and which do not immediately deplete and wash away...

There's a bit of environmental science for the debate.

It ignores a previous United Nations resolution and should therefore be removed and disallowed to receive any votes, automatically failing to pass. Below is the exact wording, for reference.

I move that this proposal be removed, in its entirety, from consideration.

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar


I agree. Further more, improper spelling should also invalidate this proposal. To quote:

"By destroying the forests today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through turism or logging."


"While decreasing the would chipping industry"

Etc.

Did anyone actually read the mod's sticky note (before you make a proposal...)?

This new proposal is riddled with inaccuracies.

The first of such is teh fact that the entire bill is simply a description of the way things are going right now.
Next, there are terrible spelling problems throughout the proposition. When the writer can't even agree on how to spell environment (uses several different spellings throughout the proposition), can't spell "wood" correctly, and doesn't know when to use "affect" as opposed to "effect" (which he/she also didn't spell correctly). Every single one of tehse mistakes are present in the last sentence.This doesn't seem like much, but it can confuse some people.
Next, the last two lines are completely self-contradictory. The short term is over hundreds of years? SINCE WHEN???

And lastly, the big kicker, NEVER IN THE ENTIRE PROPOSITION DOES THE LORD OF THE ISLES SAY THAT THIS BILL CHANGES ANYTHING!!! THE WHOLE THING IS A BUNCH OF "would's" AND "IF's"!!!

Aelonia is not a member of the UN but it keeps abreast of UN proposals in order to advise its regional delegate.

The newest proposal is a poorly written, poorly supported, poorly thought-out piece of tripe in violation of prior UN resolutions. Aelonia will advise its UN Delegate to move for the immediate dismissal of this resolution and the imposition of the full penalty of Resolution 245A upon The Lords of the Isles.

I plan to write much better resulutions in the future, this was just a first attemp from, I admit, a self named n00b to the world of resulutions :oops: . I hope my future resulutions will be properly grammatised, spell checked, and reaserched. I apologise for the contravasy, but the simple fact is: it got through. There is no point in stating why it shouldn't have, as it is to late. I hope that my future resulutions will be all round better. Vote for, or vote against, its to late to bitch about it now, just argue on the princables, it is usless to point out my spelling mistakes now, as it is to late. I plan to follow the above skeleton for proposal writing in future amd put it up for debate for hand. I apologise for the imperfections. I do not think spelling should be a reason to vote against a res it should be the PRINCEABLE that is voted upon, not the grammer. :cry:

I rest my case for the uselessness of these arguements.

Sorry, but vote YES to the princables of this resulution.

Some very good points are made. Lord of Isles does not seem to understand, it's COMPLETELY FAIR that it be removed, since the Proper Grammar resolution passed. That resolution was ACCEPTED by the UN. Lord of Isles has clearly violated that resolution. Principles are not enough.
If it is not removed, that shows that moderators really have no power, and you can expect a "Should Zombies be held responsible for crimes committed while alive?" proposal to pass. :shock:

*Warning: The following post contains a horrible pun that will sicken and desturb many to the core, resulting in an extremely heavy sigh. If you do not like puns, then you should probably just ignore this post.

That resolution could easily be construed as beating a dead horse.

you liberal pussies dont know shit about the forests

go back to peta you fairies

Of all the posts that I have seen so far, none have addressed the most important part of the new resolution. If you read the actual discription of it you will find that it concerns not just rainforests, but ALL FORESTS! This bill makes no distinction of any kind at all to what kinds of forests should not be cut. While of you do bother to read further down into this poorly concived article (replanting will solve all problems if done correctly) it does alternate between just regular forests and rainforests. However, the part of the bill, the part that you are supposed to pay attention to does not. More so, the use of just the word forest applies to and I quote from a dictionary "A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area." This would be a lot of the rural areas of America. I'm sorry, but some squirrls in Arkansa can be relieved of thier home so as to increase my, and everyone else's comfort in the country. This would also mean that Finland and numerous other countries would have a severe economic loss because of this stupid policy. I hope you vote against this proposal, it will end up helping the people of your country. That is unless you enjoy telling them that you're not allowed to build any more homes because it would involve clearing some land for it.
-Sublime Necrosis, signing off.

I plan to write much better resulutions in the future, this was just a first attemp from, I admit, a self named n00b to the world of resulutions :oops: . I hope my future resulutions will be properly grammatised, spell checked, and reaserched. I apologise for the contravasy, but the simple fact is: it got through. There is no point in stating why it shouldn't have, as it is to late. I hope that my future resulutions will be all round better. Vote for, or vote against, its to late to bitch about it now, just argue on the princables, it is usless to point out my spelling mistakes now, as it is to late. I plan to follow the above skeleton for proposal writing in future amd put it up for debate for hand. I apologise for the imperfections. I do not think spelling should be a reason to vote against a res it should be the PRINCEABLE that is voted upon, not the grammer. :cry:

I rest my case for the uselessness of these arguements.

Sorry, but vote YES to the princables of this resulution.

We of the Grand Atoll admire the principle behind your proposal. We will decline to support it in its present form, but we sincerely and deeply wish for you to revise and resubmit it. You have made a good faith effort, and now we ask you in good faith to revise this effort with what you now know.

What we say to you we say to all of our sister nations of this august body: the declination of this proposal is not a blow against Mother Earth, but rather it is the necessary means whereby we may make a _better_ proposal which will better serve the Earth and all her children.

I plan to write much better resulutions in the future, this was just a first attemp from, I admit, a self named n00b to the world of resulutions :oops: . I hope my future resulutions will be properly grammatised, spell checked, and reaserched. I apologise for the contravasy, but the simple fact is: it got through. There is no point in stating why it shouldn't have, as it is to late. I hope that my future resulutions will be all round better. Vote for, or vote against, its to late to bitch about it now, just argue on the princables, it is usless to point out my spelling mistakes now, as it is to late. I plan to follow the above skeleton for proposal writing in future amd put it up for debate for hand. I apologise for the imperfections. I do not think spelling should be a reason to vote against a res it should be the PRINCEABLE that is voted upon, not the grammer. :cry:

I rest my case for the uselessness of these arguements.

Sorry, but vote YES to the princables of this resulution.

We of the Grand Atoll admire the principle behind your proposal. We will decline to support it in its present form, but we sincerely and deeply wish for you to revise and resubmit it. You have made a good faith effort, and now we ask you in good faith to revise this effort with what you now know.

What we say to you we say to all of our sister nations of this august body: the declination of this proposal is not a blow against Mother Earth, but rather it is the necessary means whereby we may make a _better_ proposal which will better serve the Earth and all her children.

(duplicate post)

I plan to write much better resulutions in the future, this was just a first attemp from, I admit, a self named n00b to the world of resulutions :oops: . I hope my future resulutions will be properly grammatised, spell checked, and reaserched. I apologise for the contravasy, but the simple fact is: it got through. There is no point in stating why it shouldn't have, as it is to late. I hope that my future resulutions will be all round better. Vote for, or vote against, its to late to bitch about it now, just argue on the princables, it is usless to point out my spelling mistakes now, as it is to late. I plan to follow the above skeleton for proposal writing in future amd put it up for debate for hand. I apologise for the imperfections. I do not think spelling should be a reason to vote against a res it should be the PRINCEABLE that is voted upon, not the grammer. :cry:

I rest my case for the uselessness of these arguements.

Sorry, but vote YES to the princables of this resulution.

We of the Grand Atoll admire the principle behind your proposal. We will decline to support it in its present form, but we sincerely and deeply wish for you to revise and resubmit it. You have made a good faith effort, and now we ask you in good faith to revise this effort with what you now know.

What we say to you we say to all of our sister nations of this august body: the declination of this proposal is not a blow against Mother Earth, but rather it is the necessary means whereby we may make a _better_ proposal which will better serve the Earth and all her children.

I intend to wrewrite it if it fails, and write a better one if it passes. Another reason to vote for the PRINCABLE:
Another major reason for wanting to save the rainforests is that the rainforests are home to millions of species of plantfamilies that do not exist anywhere else and these unknown plants that are being needlessly cut down for profit have been time and time again proven to hold the cures to some of the most prominent illnesses in our history not to mention the insects that live in the plants that hold keys to to the cures of many diseases that weill become extinct if they continue to needlessly destroy their habitats.

I intend to wrewrite it if it fails, and write a better one if it passes. Another reason to vote for the PRINCABLE:
Another major reason for wanting to save the rainforests is that the rainforests are home to millions of species of plantfamilies that do not exist anywhere else and these unknown plants that are being needlessly cut down for profit have been time and time again proven to hold the cures to some of the most prominent illnesses in our history not to mention the insects that live in the plants that hold keys to to the cures of many diseases that weill become extinct if they continue to needlessly destroy their habitats.

Very well, in view of the _principle_ behind your effort, that some immediate action is needed to protect our woodlands from the greed of capitalists and the blunders of other thoughtless groups, and given your promise to craft a _better_ proposal after the passage of this one, we of the Grand Atoll will support your proposal. You have done a good thing for Mother Earth, and this is to be commended.

Thank you. This one doesn't matter. In a few weeks I am goin to write a half-way good one. I realise the bad points of this one, and will improve.

Since the free peoples of East Hackney support the principle behind this proposal and would welcome further contributions from its author, may we respectfully suggest that The Lords of the Isles - as suggested earlier in the thread - submit any further proposals to the UN forum for discussion and amendment before they go to a vote?
The Lords of the Isles will receive many useful suggestions for inclusion, and they may also find that helpful individuals will correct any errors of spelling and grammar that may creep in.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Thank you. This one doesn't matter. In a few weeks I am goin to write a half-way good one. I realise the bad points of this one, and will improve.
I appreciate the thought and the effort, TLotI, but this one's going to be enacted. If you want to do it as an intellectual exercise, that's fine, but we really don't need another hit to the wood-chipping industry.

Please don't submit a new proposal on this, no matter your intentions.

Some one please tell me where to contact the mods. and ask them to delete my proposal. I am working on a GOOD proposal to replace my current piece of garbage. :)

I have taken all your advises and rewriten my proposal. Here it is, critique please:

I have taken all your advises and wrewriten my proposal. Here it is, crtique please:

This is a rewrite of the poorly written Saving the Forests of the World resolution. Unlike its predecessor, it is spell-checked and proofread, and it actually has a point. The material used has been thought up by numerous peoples, and is a composite of the best material this nation could find in debate.

This resolution attempts to make people realize the following:
Trees are a renewable resource can be handled quite well, and go on producing for hundreds of years. People should try to protect such things as old growth forests and the rainforests.

The following resolution applies to ALL forests, not just rainforests, all though there will be differences in the rules applied these rules will be specified later in this document.

The Law that would be passed in all nations with membership in the United Nations:

As a pose to the destruction of forests, tree farms are to be set up in every nation. These will not produce as much money as simply cutting down the forests, but they will supply the essential materials needed from the forests (i.e. woods) These trees would be fast growing, so as to ensure that their isn’t to long a wait between harvests, and would not be homes to any creatures naturally, raising no ecological issues. The industry, wood chipping in particular, of the nations involved would be damaged, as farmers would be independent of industries, but the environment would be largely saved from wanton destruction.
The forests of the world are a valuable commodity, and one that is being needlessly wasted. The following are reasons for passing the resolution that I am proposing.

1. Global warming reduction.
Global warming is a huge issue. The real UN endorsed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states that, to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions we need to reduce our emissions, globally, by at least 60%, some recent estimates put this figure at 80% and eve higher (Kyoto Protocol will reduce emissions by about 5%). If we were to cease all emissions right now, global temperatures would rise by about 3 degrees and sea levels will continue to rise for the next several hundred years, the effects on ocean currents and the global climate will be considerable and terrible. Global warming would result huge negative effects on agricultural industries and result in more extreme weather patterns. Wind would be stronger, the environment would be generally wetter, and the sea levels would rise enormously.

2. It is our belief that we should protect all life, whenever possible, as every living being has the right to exist, and the felling of forests would kill hundreds of thousands of species of plant, bird, insect and animal, extinction would be a result for many of them.
3. Corporations and governments do not care so much about the beauty of the land anymore, only expansion. This means that the United Nations have to take it into our hands to turn around the destruction.

4. To those who argue that The UN has no write to decide their environmental policies, I argue:
The earth does not care whether one nation owns this land and another owns this. Cutting billions trees in one nation affects a nation on the other side of the world. Furthermore, trees take in gasses that eat away at the already damaged ozone layer, and reduce the greenhouse affect that leads to global warming.

5. The cutting of rain forests leads to the infertility of the soil, as, in the rainforests, the soil is almost completely useless. The forest sustains itself by consuming the litter (dead matter) that falls from its canopies. Remove the trees and it takes almost four centuries for them to re-grow, making this a pointless waste of land and trees, as it is no good to anyone, tying to grow trees, crops, or whatever else in the dead soil-dust. The forests might as well remain the beautiful panicles of natural ecosystems that they are. The replanting trees resolution that is in effect is useless here, as it would take far TOO MUCH money to do the proposed. Therefore, the rainforests must be left alone. Here's why: you cannot cut down the rainforest and then, effectively, replant it. There are two reasons: Rainforests require, at the minimum, 300 years to mature into full ecosystems. The recovery rate is very, very slow, so even if you replant native trees, you're not going to benefit economically for a small eternity. Rainforest nutrients unlike temperate forests, prairies, or boreal forests, for example are almost exclusively held IN THE FLORA. In other words, when you cut down a portion of the rainforest, all the nutrients are gone from the soil. That's why slash-and-burn agriculture happens: because you only get one good crop out of the soil, and then it's depleted forever. As a result, you can't cut down the rainforest and replant native species, because the soil can no longer provide nutrients at that point.

Essentially, there's no "good way" to cut down rainforests. Forestry management, and tree farming, however, are very effective counterparts fpr the forestry of the rain forests.
The rainforest cutting industries must, there fore, be replaced by tree farms.

Other types of forest (e.g. temperate forests, prairies, or boreal forests) can be effectively replanted, and so need to be replaced with forest farms on such a grand scale.

In conclusion, ALL nations need to pitch in and accept their individual responsibility to sustaining the environment, prevention of the greenhouse effect and global warming, prevention of ozone depletion, and keeping the world beautiful. One nation will have no overall effect on the environment, of the world, but the roughly 36000 in the UN just might...
We need to all pitch in and reduce the world emissions by that 60%! So vote yes and help save the forests and the environment!

Please help me make it better and tell me how to contact the Mods. to get my current s**t one deleted.

Please tell me how to contact the Mods. to get the current one deleted.

Please tell me how to contact the Mods. to get the current one deleted.
For the third and final time, it's too late to get your current proposal removed. It's going to get voted in. Please don't resubmit your revised proposal.

Contact the Mods by posting in the Moderation forum if you like. Their answer will be the same.

Please tell me how to contact the Mods. to get the current one deleted.
For the third and final time, it's too late to get your current proposal removed. It's going to get voted in. Please don't resubmit your revised proposal.

Contact the Mods by posting in the Moderation forum if you like. Their answer will be the same.

From the UN Resolution Archive:

Definition of 'Fair Trial'
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is. Thus, it shall be amended that...


Votes For: 12556

Votes Against: 6283

Implemented: Sat Feb 14 2004


A resolution passed day before yesterday, which attempted to clarify and improve a prior resolution. Regardless of the merits of the above resolution, that it was able to be proposed and then voted in shows that after the current stopgap measure - which is our view of the hastily thrown together effort in question - a better proposal can be written, to clarify and improve this one.

We agree with Frisbeeteria that enough people of this august body will vote for the environment that this resolution will pass, and we anticipate the proposal of TLoTI's fine rewrite. In itself it could use a little revision, but it is clear, well reasoned, and should also pass, and probably by a higher margin.

(yet another double post. I would be very grateful if anyone could please fix this)

Thanks for the advice and support. :wink:

What is my nation supposed to do about Uranium now? If this bill passes, I will lose my source for Uranium. If it passes I will either leave the UN, or I will flat out ignore the proposal.

How on earth can such a poorly spelt document be winning in a vote? The conclusions paragraph doesnt even make any sense! People are just voting for this because it is vaugly pro-environment without actually reading the fact that its not worth the RAM its loaded in.

Normally i couldnt give a fcuk about grammar or spelling as long as the objective meaning is transferred in a substantial form.

THIS PROPOSAL MAKES NO SENSE!

Thats why I have written a rewrite, displayed earlier in this thread. please read it and tell me what you think.