NationStates Jolt Archive

Pardon my unusually blunt expression, but the first thought that came to my obviously ingenious mind after reading this proposal was:

What the hell?

Frankly, the arguments presented in the proposal weren't all that compelling. Personally, I would like to know why this nation feels it has the right to intrude into my nation, stopping me from important deforestation projects to mine uranium and other resources.

1. Enviromental Concerns
The destruction of the rainforest has a major destructive effect on the enviroment. Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation 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 rainforest is simply pointless destruction as thier is no way to make the forests 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.

Mindless destroying? Pointless destruction? Your opinions are valid, but you've presented NOTHING that provides solid evidence why I shouldn't be allowed to cut MY forests down.

2. Thoughts of the future
By destroying the forests today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through turism or logging. People don't recognise that, while forests make more money more quickly when felled on the mass scale, in the long run, monetarily the same amount of money could be produced by carefully felling a section of forest, then helping it regrow. This way, the woods produced would be more valuable on the international market due to the decreased availability of the timber. Over a longer amount of time, the money produced would, in fact, outstrip the money made by the wanton destruction. The forest would, with help, renew its self and go on making money. As and added bonus, turism would increase.

Why should it matter if people recognize whether or not they should cut down the forests quickly on the mass scale? Isn't it their choice? Isn't the amount of tourism they attract ultimately up to them? Though your economic advice could help some struggling nations, to FORCE it upon others is ridiculous!

Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

This is perhaps one of the most incoherent solutions I've read, apart from the fact that your opinons aren't valid in my country. They are valid in your country and those who agree with you.

As I said before, you have a right to state your opinion about economic affairs, but you have no right to force your ridiculous solutions on the rest of us.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

I strongly urge all nations to vote AGAINST this proposal.

I also find that this proposal goes against the right of each nation to cut trees as they wish. I voted against it, although I wouldn't mind that planting new trees after we cut them down would be compulsory. But I think it already is.

Caligatio where's your solid evidence that deforestation is a exellent choice for future generations or is your rejektion based on your right to do what ever you want? (B.t.w thats what i think....)

Trees decrease pollution and give off oxygen. They also provide homes for cute little furry animals and we don't need as much wood anymore for building materials. We can use materials such as metal and plastic.

Save the forests, save the animals, save the world.

Trees decrease pollution and give off oxygen. They also provide homes for cute little furry animals and we need as much wood anymore for building materials. We can use materials such as metal and plastic.

Save the forests, save the animals, save the world.

Yes, precisly. ALL nations need to pitch in and accept thier induvidual responsibility to sustaining the enviroment and keeping the world buetiful. One nation will have no overall effect on the enviroment, of the world, but the roughly 36k in the UN just might...

Oh yes. Let's build our homes out of metal. Why don't we just make them out of gold while we're at it? Uh huh. Plastic. Whoo... I'd LOVE living in a plastic house. "DAMN KIDS GET THOSE LIGHTERS AWAY".

Reeaaaaaal smart.

Further, this bill sucks. But I can't really do much about it. The UN is full of tree-hugging liberals who don't know a THING about consequences and votes for anything that their propaganda-influenced minds think is right.

Well, g'day. I expect my region's ub3r-liberal delegate will vote for it anyways. Take care!

If this law passes, I will disregard it and continue deforestization. We need places to park our cars ya know!!!! I personally will make it my lifes work to send all you tree hugging hippie freaks to hell!!!

Another ridiculous proposal for the UN to be debate. In fact the last few have been ridiculous. This isn't International in nature which the UN should be. What each nation does with its forests is upto their governments, not a load of greenpeace loving hippys who think they can use the UN to boss The Yid Army and other nations around.

There are pleanty of forest loving nations around to allow other countries to exploit the forest for all they are worth. In fact, my barren land has very little in the way of forests left so Ills end in the bulldozers before this becomes law.

Seriously tho, the UN will ulitmatly fail if it continues to allow proposals through the UN which are upto individual nation's to decide and not the international community.

I agree totaly with the rejection of this proposal. The main theme of this has been protecting the enviroment, but isn't it Darwinian law that states the ones most able to adapt thrive? Life will find a way no matter what we do to mess it up, even if that means knocking everything back to protoza.
Also, guess where the money that protects the eviroment comes from? Business! And by getting rid of that business, like so stated, there is no garanty that the forests will survive anyways. As they'll simply be lumbered illegally and slowly killed by our slow enchroach. Of course, if this happens will won't be in the posistion to do anything about it, because we won't have the money to carry through the novel ideas of Green Peace.

I'm very pessimistic, but it seems that this bill is already going to be approved. Whereas the AGAINST side has only gained a couple hundred, the FOR side has gained over a thousand.

It is common knowledge that most U.N. members don't bother entering the forums to debate the issues. They vote FOR or AGAINST resolutions, not understanding the impact it has or what it does to the international community.

What may be good for whomever submitted this proposal's economy is not necessarily good for my economy. Yet, they are trying to force their economic opinions on my country. It's ludicrous.

Caligatio has yet to decide whether or not resignation will be the consequence of this ridiculous proposal passing.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

The Consumerist Oligarchy of F2B has resigned from the UN to protect the F2Ber woodchipping industry from unreasonable reductions currently proposed in the UN.

Woodchipping is still a vital part of our primary production, producing valuable products for domestic use and export. An attack on this industry would seriously undermine F2B's economic recovery.

I read it and said "what the hell" and then came over here and found someone else shared my sentiments exactly.

First off, it is a debateably global issue. We don't know for sure. You can argue it is, you can argue it isn't. Therefore, it belongs nowhere in the UN.

Secondly, I AM a liberal, tree-hugger even, but I do not believe it is the job of the UN to impose one nation's values upon its fellow member nations. I believe the UN is for harmonious international relations, and its role ends there.

Thirdly, the typos... oh the typos... but I'll pretend those don't matter.

I'm still voting against this. I =would= support saving the rainforest within my own nation's border, but I will not support making it mandatory that all our fellow UN brethren do so as well.

Guaifenasin is voting against this proposal, and encourages other liberals to do so as well. It isn't about having everyone do what you think is right. It's about respecting your fellow UN members and giving them the right to regulate foresting activity within their own borders.

While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

We don't have to worry about this resolution. I've heard of a "wood chipping" industry, but I've never heard of a "would chipping" industry. Furthermore, "efects," "enviroment," and "realy" aren't words while "rampart destruction" means destroying a fortification. There are more problems with the wording of this declaration, but my head hurts too much from trying to decipher this incoherent resolution.

Don't forget about Resolution 245A Proper Grammar, which was implemented one year ago on Saturday, February 15, 2003.

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.

Therefore, the Grand Duchy of the Lords of the Isles should be banned from making further proposals. Implicitly, the mods should remove this proposal.

I will also submit a copy of this post to the mods.

The Rogue Nation of Nazoji agrees that this idiot should be kept from further proposals.. What the hell kind of suggestion is this? I haven't seen such atrocious spelling and grammar errors since grade school.. And worse yet, I've a right to deforest as I please. Although I can understand the intent of the proposal (to try and preserve some sense of environmental friendliness within the U.N. nations), I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do as I please.. I voted against this proposal and I sincerely hope that my regional delegate does as well.. Furthermore, I strongly urge all other U.N. nations to vote against it as well, as I hope that most nations' leaders read what they're voting for before they just choose an option. This is insane.

Despite knowing (apparently) much more about the consequences of deforestation than the person who proposed this silly bill, I am voting against it. (What the heck is it proposing anyway?)


I get the feeling the people voting for this are simple folk who simply wish to save their pretty views of trees and animals, without considering how deforestation would greatly increase surface erosion, destoying topsoil and arrible soils. Flooding... increased earth particles in rivers from that erosion...

Reguardless, the Dominion of Ranex sees no reason to change her policies to appease such obviously thoughtless proposals. Ranex will continue to develop herself while following her policy of re-forestation and selective logging (to a minor extent).

This topic isn't even worth debating. Vote against it, animals and trees are useless. Who cares about ecosystems? Anyone who wants to save the environment is a smelly hippie... and hippies aren't fit to run nations. Get out of the UN, you bunch of hippies.

I'm not a hippie, I just have compassion.

'Hippies

HIPPIES

they say they want to save the world, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad'

the illustrious eric cartman

i need those woodchips to sustain my economy, to give me money to develope ways to get off this planet and pollute another one, creating an endless cycle.

Anyone who wants to save the environment is a smelly hippie.
Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind, what with the author being a self-described pile of ...

I agree 100% with voting against this bill. Its not up to other nations to decide what we're gonna do. Secondly, cutting back on deforestation will NOT bring more money in the long run. Think of all the businesses you could have if some of the forests were cut down.

Most people supply good arguments in this forum. The only problem is that most of us who bothered to look at this forum are against the bill. I suggest that all of you telegram your regions and fellow nations to come and visit this forum. Maybe this can persuade those liberals to change their minds.

I agree that this is a pointless bill. Someone should go through with a proposal that limits the proposing of pointless bills like this that violate the soveriegnty and valid economic decisions of a specific nation. The UN's job is to solve specific INTERNATIONAL issues, not tell national leaders how to do their jobs!

Those arguing "what right do you have to tell me to stop cutting down MY nation's forests" forget one thing. The earth is all connected. The earth does not care whether one nation owns this land and another owns this. Cutting a million trees down on the other edge of the world affects a nation on the opposite edge. Trees produce oxygen, which is of course vital to life. Furthermore, trees take in carbon dioxides that eat away at the already damaged ozone layer. (It would seem I am the only one who has the brain capacity to realize these facts, or at least mention them)

*sigh*As for this resolution specifically, I fail to see a reason to pass it. It specifies nothing as to how we should cut back on the cutting of our trees, it simply states we should reduce the amount being cut. But by how much? Should the amount reduced be proportional to the nation's forest size, or should all nations reduce by a specific percentage. Nonetheless, I know the sheep that are the UN will not take the time to think this over, therefore Cheronton shall regretablly vote for this resolution.

I don't understand why you say Cheronton well vote for it. Is it simply because the sheep vote for it? If so, then don't! We who do not support this resolution need all the help we can get! The UN simply isn't working, so it's up to us to make sure it works as well as it can. Otherwise, you're simply becoming a sheep yourself.

It specifies nothing as to how we should cut back on the cutting of our trees, it simply states we should reduce the amount being cut. But by how much?

I agree wholeheartedly with Cheronton, but I do believe that we should pass this resolution, as the current forestation acts are a danger to our oxygen and our land. Unfortunately though, corporations and governments do not care so much about the beauty of the land anymore, only expansion. The Holy Empire of Rielam votes for the safe passage of this resolution.

I don't understand why you say Cheronton well vote for it. Is it simply because the sheep vote for it? If so, then don't! We who do not support this resolution need all the help we can get! The UN simply isn't working, so it's up to us to make sure it works as well as it can. Otherwise, you're simply becoming a sheep yourself.
I see your point. While Cheronton agrees with the main issue, the resolution itself has, once again, proven to be too vague. Though defeating it seems highly unlikely.

Anyone who wants to save the environment is a smelly hippie.
Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind, what with the author being a self-described pile of ...

I'm a self-described pile of YOU'RE A STINKING HIPPIE!

Though defeating it seems highly unlikely.
By voting your principles rather than choosing the 'winning' side, you should at least sleep better at night. At least I do.

I sleep better at night knowing that I've voted for my principles, but what still keeps me awake is the stupidity and ignorance that runs rampant in the United Nations.

Those arguing "what right do you have to tell me to stop cutting down MY nation's forests" forget one thing. The earth is all connected. The earth does not care whether one nation owns this land and another owns this. Cutting a million trees down on the other edge of the world affects a nation on the opposite edge. Trees produce oxygen, which is of course vital to life. Furthermore, trees take in carbon dioxides that eat away at the already damaged ozone layer. (It would seem I am the only one who has the brain capacity to realize these facts, or at least mention them)

The earth does not care? Of course it doesn't. It doesn't have feelings! It doesn't have a soul. And even if it did, I wouldn't give a damn about it. What am I supposed to do? Not cut down trees ever? Hardly. This bill is a blatant violation of my right to either improve or screw over my economy. Plain and simple.

The reason no one has mentioned these facts is because they aren't pertinent or useful to the discussion.

I'm glad you're personally against the bill. I wish more people were. I wish more people would use their heads, consider the consequences of their misguided actions, and vote accordingly.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

This bill is a blatant violation of my right to either improve or screw over my economy. Plain and simple.

I'm glad you're personally against the bill. I wish more people were. I wish more people would use their heads, consider the consequences of their misguided actions, and vote accordingly.

You know, the way you said that is as if you are saying that nobody has the right to vote for positive if they wish this bill to go into effect. We should vote as we wish, not as you wish.

You know, the way you said that is as if you are saying that nobody has the right to vote for positive if they wish this bill to go into effect. We should vote as we wish, not as you wish.

You should vote as you wish, indeed. However, the United Nations has no business in how I manage my economy and my forests. They should deal with strictly international affairs, not affairs of each sovereign nation. That much is evident.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

The simple fact of the matter is this is another example of unneccessary UN intervention. Due to the excessive number of environmentalist states, I fail to see why my country should be penalized for deforesting itself. In the end, the ecology of my country and perhaps my region will be disturbed... but the rest of the world should continue on in relative bliss with relation to my local environment.

And beyond that, who supported "The Lords of the Isles" proposing this grammatical train wreck in the first place? And which of you morons are voting for a proposal put forth by the leader of a college state who can't spell or even proof-read? I would vote 'no' simply as a stand for "I disapprove of retarded monkeys being allowed to put forth legislation."

Another reason to vote YES:
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.
Sorry for the poor grammer and spelling :oops: .

The Peoples of Yavanna are undecided on this matter.
It is our belief that we should protect all life, whenever possible. Our own nation is evironmentally immaculate. However, the specifics of this bill are unclear to us.
We understand the hesitation of other nations; that they should seek to further their own economies for whatever reason is understandible to us. They have to live with their own decisions, their people. We also understand those who voice the broader concern: Nations that destroy their own environments pose a hazard to the entire world, for we are one ecological economy.
Our knowledge of the hazards of deforestization is clear. However, we are loathe to subject our views on the matter on other nations as legislation. This, to us, seems more of a matter for international summits, and less of a matter for UN legislation.
We have time to view our options, debate, and decide. We will not be voting until we have weighed all considerations.

Sincerely,
Lady Nessa,
Emmisary for the Peoples of Yavanna

Yeah.

I'm voting for this resolution, but not for the somewhat poor reasons given in this resolution.

I'm voting for it to support my tourism industry and to offset global warming.

Global warming is a massive, massive issue. To give you some idea, the (real) UN endorsed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that to stabalise greenhouse gas emissions we need to reduce our emissions (globally) by at least 60%, some more recent estimates put this figure at 80% to 90% (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 couple of hundred years, the effects on ocean currents and the global climate will be considerable. This will have huge negative effects on agricultural industries and result in more extreme weather patterns and that's just for starters.

Trees produce oxygen, which is of course vital to life. Furthermore, trees take in carbon dioxides that eat away at the already damaged ozone layer. (It would seem I am the only one who has the brain capacity to realize these facts, or at least mention them)


This is incorrect. Trees do not produce oxygen, nor can any living organism be said to produce any pure compund (These are made in stars).
First trees release oxygen by day, and consume it by night. The net contribution of oxygen formation is therefore much smaller than one would assume, and the major source for oxygen "production" is algea in the sea.
Secondly, Carbon Dioxide has no effect on the Ozone layer at all. None. Other gases do, and they should of course be tightly regulated.

So without wanting to sound sarcastic, check your facts first.

I'm voting for this resolution, but not for the somewhat poor reasons given in this resolution.

I'm voting for it to support my tourism industry and to offset global warming.


The tourism industry might gain, but how, and in what manner will global warming be influenced by deforestation ? Global warming will be an enourmous problem, but there are as yet very many unknowns in how and why global warming occurs. The forests will most probably not be the carbon sinks that people imagine, and the major influincing factor will be how much the seas are able to absorb of the CO2 once the contents in the atmosphere rise. Also the amount af algea in the sea will play a major role. However theese are the factors that we understand the least, and that we may not influence (or at theleast it will be very difficult). So this argument is not as good as it looks either.

As for the resolution itself, it is non-logical, as it purports to harm the woodchipping industry, whereas in reality it will aid it, inasmuch as it will force the industry to manage its resources better. Sustainable forestry is not only possible, but also good for the forests, as someone will then be taking care of the forest. The major ravages in the rainforests have often been done by locals needing more land, and therefor burning down everything.

In conclusion we will be voting against this resolution, as it does not cover the important issues, and has misunderstood the impacts of what it proposes. We do believe that conservation is important, but until a resolution arrives that is able to scientifically and logically aid sustainable developement, we will need to vote against all such resolutions.

Gro

It is common knowledge that most U.N. members don't bother entering the forums to debate the issues. They vote FOR or AGAINST resolutions, not understanding the impact it has or what it does to the international community.

Yep
it seems that things go exactly as you said.
I was worried since I saw that a so simple decision had just a ratio 2 "for" 1 "against" and I came in this forum to see how was going the debat...

Now I see that "against" reasons are so poor that I'm not worried anymore.

Maybe this is something to think about before saying you are so pessimistic about forum "affluence"...

While cutting down on industry is a nice goal for those of you who have developed and fully modernized nations, countries like Patoxia are struggling to pull themselves up and join your ranks, but by telling us that we must not grow by the use of our countries resources is lunacy! Our industry is low and we must grow by exploiting our resources for other markets until we have some industrial growth. How would the North American nations have grown if they had so many regulations and limits on their natural resource use?

I mean I just ask you to think of the struggling nations who are trying to grow when you pass all these environmental legislations.

Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Foreign Minister

How would the North American nations have grown if they had so many regulations and limits on their natural resource use?

Maybe not wasting their natural resources in the name of the Dollar God?

Let me tell you what all the sheep's "yes" votes to this proposal really and truly mean:

The United Nations is an utter, dismal failure.

It cannot, and moreso WILL NOT, enforce even the resolutions that it passes to regulate the legislation debated by and among its member nations.

Would that I had had an opportunity to point out the problems with the proposal BEFORE it came to a vote -- but you cannot fault me that, as my nation was not granted U.N. membership until after the proposal went up for a vote. (I am a new player to this game, at that!)

If the U.N., by passage of this proposal, shows itself to so clearly be a the total failure that it is appearing to be, I will be forced to withdraw my nation's membership and seek the formation, alongside like-minded national leaders, of a WORKING international legislative body.

I feel sorry for all those farms I pass that are wasting time and money regrowing trees. Should I stop and tell them they are going to lose money and inform 'them' of their ignorance?

Trees as a renewable resource can be handled quite well. Why not instead of a blanket attack at the logging industry as a whole, encourage tree farming, and try to protect such things as old growth forests.

The only good thing about this is that it might actually be a bit less restrictive than the "Replanting Trees" resolution.

The representative from the Most Serene Republic of Lancamore would like to ask what the author of the SAVE THE FORESTS proposal was smoking at the time it was created.

This proposal has entire sections that cannot be read as coherant sentances, grammatical and spelling errors are rampant (spelled rampart in the resolution) and numerous other deficiencies that make it utterly confusing. The title is the only part that makes sence.

This resolution is so screwed up that we can only echo the words of others:

"WHAT THE HELL?!?!?"

Since this piece of crap is so incoherant and messed up, we will not be voting on it, and instead pretend it was weeded out as a bad proposal. It will be passed, unfortunately, but there is little we can do about it. Perhaps we will resign from the UN.

Best Wishes,

Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

This is an international affair. What happens to the forests effects the entire world!

The free peoples of East Hackney agree with the principle expressed by Mendevia, although our nation will not be voting for this badly worded and poorly thought-out proposal. The international stage is the only forum in which effective action can be taken to protect the environment. Concerns of national sovereignty and economic management must take second place to an issue affecting the future of humanity.

Comrade Dawkins
Delegate for Science

:x I can't believe that a bunch of typo making tree hugging liberals are trying to restrict my economy! And what is more important anyway? A few forests and animals or the jobs and companies of an entire industry? Nations should have the right to choose wether they want to over use theri resources. I'm new to the UN but if I keep seeing issues like this one I'm not going to be staying much longer. I also agree that the idiot who proposed this bill should be banned from subbmitting issues to the UN along with all his tree hugging friends.

My question is: What is this resolution? I see a statement and nothing else. This vote is really meaningless. If the UN votes for this resolution then we say that we agree with this statement and that is it there is nothing to enforce. Is it a partial ban or a total ban? I'm sorry but I cannot in good conscience vote for something so vague and meaningless!!!!!

We reiterate: the future of the entire world is considerably more important than the prospect of a few thousand job losses in a particular industry.
One of the basic principles of bodies such as the UN is that, where the actions of one member may have an effect on other members, those other members have the right to legislate to prevent such actions.
We suggest that, if The Scottish Nation does not appreciate this principle, it should not be in the UN. We further suggest that it refrains from hurling abuse at those countries whose views it disagrees with.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

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. :)

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. :)

Sorry, you're stuck with it. Once it's reached the floor, only Max can remove it ... and from what I've read, even that does damage to aspects of the game.

Short answer: this proposal is going to become law, unless voting changes rather dramatically. Nothing you, or anyone, can do about it now.

Valor Knights had just passed legislation allowing limited mining activities while preserving most of the countries rainforest. We understand the importance and significance of the forests and we do understand the need for a sprawling economy. It is for that reason that the Allied Nations of the Valor Knights opposes forced legislation to preserve the worlds forests. We actively replenish area's where we minned or chipped with new foliage. This area constitutes less than 10% of our RainForests while adding over 30% to our Gross Domestic Product.

Forced legislation will cripple our economy, plunge our citizens into unemployment.

If enacted, to replace lost revenue and to keep our citizens employeed, we will add extra incentives to recruit for the Nations armed forces. Offering free room and board to families, free medical to families, a lucrative pension plan upon retirement, and education packages for families with children.

Certainly we will recoup lost income from our mining and chipping industries while we accept blood money to protect other countries with our now modernized military.

It would be best to allow us to decide the best course for our forests and vote no to this resolution.

We reiterate: the future of the entire world is considerably more important than the prospect of a few thousand job losses in a particular industry.
One of the basic principles of bodies such as the UN is that, where the actions of one member may have an effect on other members, those other members have the right to legislate to prevent such actions.
We suggest that, if The Scottish Nation does not appreciate this principle, it should not be in the UN. We further suggest that it refrains from hurling abuse at those countries whose views it disagrees with.

Even if, by any remote chance, the bill didn't pass, you cannot assume that we will completely destroy our planet. Don't assume that our future is at stake, and that the life and death of it hangs on the balance with this bill.
If the subject was concerning material and resources that are completely fluid(things that can easily move from one region to another, like marine organisms and birds), we would understand the need for international effort. Yet this bill is about forests, which are stationary and contained within each and individual nation.
Each nation has the right to make their own park reserves, just as each nation has the right to create restricted logging areas specifically for that industry. The UN has no right to stick its nose into such matters.

We as a nation joined the UN to have new perspectives about national and international affairs, we did not expect such an international organization to be so meddling in matters that should be left to individual nations. If this continues, we will be forced to seriously reconsider our priorities, and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of UN.

And what kind of idiots are voting for it?

To begin with there is no actual proposal. Rather there is nothing more than some ill informed rambling about forests. There is no language included in the proposal that would constitute a directive, law, ordinance, or statute.

And how are we to take seriously a proposal that misspells "tourism" as "turism" , "effects" as "efects" and uses "would" when "wood" is clearly intended.

It makes unsupported assertions of fact and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what factual basis does exist for controlling logging.

It jumps back and forth between assertions about rain forests and forests generally.

I realize most people playing NationStates are young but this would be appalling crap even for a fourth grader.

The title is the only part that makes sence.



Or sense either.

The title is the only part that makes sence.



Or sense either.

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.

Then why not write the proposal such that the UN member nations agree to offer to their fellow UN member nations the propagation and continuum of a species should their deforestation activities place a plant or animal on the brink of extinction? This means each nation can still destroy as it sees fit, while ensuring the precious plants and animals do not become extinct.

Sounds more appropriate a UN proposal than this current one.

Final note on this ordeal: if one has something to say in his proposal (e.g. a grandiose purpose it wishes to accomplish) perhaps he should SAY what it is IN the proposal, instead of extrapolating additional implications in the UN forum ex post facto.

Thank you for your time,

Guaifenasin Representative cq

If the subject was concerning material and resources that are completely fluid (things that can easily move from one region to another, like marine organisms and birds), we would understand the need for international effort. Yet this bill is about forests, which are stationary and contained within each and individual nation.

We were speaking generally about the principles of the UN and not about this specific resolution, which we have opposed.
However, we disagree with Shadow Elves on this point. Forests, for instance, are the lungs of the world. The environmental impact of destroying East Hackney's forests would go far beyond our own borders and so it is entirely fitting that the international community should be able to prevent us from such a reckless act.

Comrade Dawkins
Delegate for Science

Unfortunatly it looks like we are going to be stuck with another piece of useless UN rubbish. As UN nations it has become clear to me that we cannot do anything about it - If anyone evr mentions that they are ignoring a UN resolution a moderator rams the game rules down your throat. As it appears that there is so much opposition to the way the UN is currently run shurly it is time for it to be re-worked.

Here is the rewrite of the s**t proposal currenty up, critque please (make it constructive):

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

Sorry for the trouble.

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. :)

Sorry, you're stuck with it. Once it's reached the floor, only Max can remove it ... and from what I've read, even that does damage to aspects of the game.

Short answer: this proposal is going to become law, unless voting changes rather dramatically. Nothing you, or anyone, can do about it now.

The notion that environmental affairs are a strictly internal issue is an outdated one at the least and has dangerous implications for the health of the entire global community.

The idea that the damage one state inflicts upon its environment has no effect on the rest of the world is false and has been refuted repeatedly through scientific research.

I recognize the inherent tension between development and environmental protection and have not yet come to grips with the correct balance. I do not believe that we should sacrifice one entirely at the expense of the other. States do have a right to develop, but already developed states also have an obligation to invest capital in such a way as to fund sustainable development programs and infrastructure.

The Queendom of Lib Dem Wenches is voting against this resolution because it is inherently flawed. It does not recognize the careful balance that must be attained between development and environment. And it is completely lacking in logic. Other than the factual flaws that have already been pointed out in this forum, no conclusion ever indicates what our states are being called upon to do.

We at Lib Dem Wenches believe strongly in the protection of the environment but cannot support the resolution.

However, we disagree with Shadow Elves on this point. Forests, for instance, are the lungs of the world. The environmental impact of destroying East Hackney's forests would go far beyond our own borders and so it is entirely fitting that the international community should be able to prevent us from such a reckless act.

You may blame us for taking things literally, but we see forests as one entity and oxygen as another, even to the point where we have considered putting oxygen into containers and be treated as a separate commodity. In this respect, it's the oxygen that is fluid, and which has an impact to the entire world, not the forests themselves.

Putting that point aside, we won't make assumptions about your nation, nor would we make assumptions about other nations except for this fact: Every decision made by each nation is made after considering the benefits and costs. If your nation decides to cut down all trees, that's because a particular organization apparently sees more profit in it than the costs. Then it's your nation that has to deal with the costs, not for the other nations to monitor and blow whistles. Individual nations already have the power and right to moderate and control their own logging and deforestation, no one needs an intermediary or an international organization in it.

Although it probably won't matter much:
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.
Once again, individual nations already have the power to set up national parks and reserves, many of which are already set up and successful without an international intervention. There's absolutely no need for UN to step in. If the forests of the world are such a valuable commodity, then obviously each nation has already weighed the costs and benefits of losing it and used rational reason to lead to the conclusion that they'd rather cut down (some) trees.
Rare and exotic creatures living in these areas are also another commodity, one that can involve the tourism industry, but again, the same logic applies.
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.
Think for a moment. "Cease all emissions" == "global temperatures would rise by about 3 degrees"? We'll leave that up to you.
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.
False, that assumption is made only because each organization and nation has so far seen the benefits higher than the costs of deforestation. Reforestation efforts will be done when costs of deforestation is greater than the benefits it brings.

As a disclaimer, we have not mentioned at all or implied in any way possible that we support destruction of the forests. We simply state that the benefits(of selling to the world market, construction of new residential areas, increased land area for development, etc) have been weighed against the costs(of pollution, damages to the ecosystem, negative effects to certain industries and to other nations, etc).
We would be making further points, if we didn't have other things to worry about... (Talk about taking Accounting/Economy classes...)

Lord of the Isles --

Your newest version of this proposal makes about as much sense as the last one. Naturally, those who do not support the current one will not support this one, as the arguments you have presented in it have already been addressed in this forum and refuted.

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.

You are going to use the U.N. to force me to set up tree farms? And for what purpose? The environment would be largely saved? Yes, it would. But at what cost? Destroying my mining and logging industry.

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.

Global warming is a huge issue? I fail to see the effects of global warming. In fact, global warming has actually been decreasing lately, but the myth of its constant increase continues on as a selling point for environmental wackos like you.

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.

Responsible logging and mining does kill animals, plants, birds, and insects, but not to the degree you have stated. That is why wildlife refuges are set up, so as to protect species close to extinction. Your resolution calls for destroying my mining and logging industry, whereas Caligatio already has the situation under control. We do not cut down every tree in sight. Portions of the forest are designated for such activity.

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.

Why should the U.N. take it into their hands to turn around this so-called destruction. There business is not in my personal economic ventures, but with my international affairs. They have no business in telling me that I cannot cut down my forests for an economic pursuit.

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.

You are right. The earth does not care. But that's because it cannot care. It doesn't have a soul, or a personality, or a mind capable of thinking, "Oh my God. Those stupid human bastards are destroying me." Cutting billions of trees does not affect another nation on the other side of the world. How is that logical at all? Instead of caring about the environment, all you want to do is challenge my country's way of life.

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.

You have yet to prove why my country shouldn't be allowed to cut down my forests. Again, you are forcing your economic policies on my country through the U.N. which is a blatant violation of my national sovereignty. Your misbegotten economic policies are not necessarily good for anyone else. So why try to force them on others when you have proven nothing except to yourself?

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.

As you are reiterating your above points, I have no comment on this.

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!

You mean all nations need to pitch in and accept your economic policies, right? Prevention of ozone depletion? Here's an unknown fact. Ozone is created by the sun! It will always be there, as long as the sun's there. And for some reason, you environmental activists seem to think we'll be able to destroy the earth through our irresponsible logging and mining.

The earth is over 4 billions years old. Man cannot even come close to creating the powerful forces of nature, yet these forces have been around for the same 4 billion years the earth has. And the earth is still here! Imagine that!

Please, keep your foolish economic policies and preposterous assertions to your own nation, for the benefit of us all.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Actually, it doesn't matter if this bill passes or not. It does nothing other than make the UN look bad. There is no language in this bill that mandates nations do anything different than the status quo. It doesn't actually prohibit cutting down of trees, or forests either.

I am deciding on wether ro submit the new ones depending on your response. I am actually THINKING THIS ONE THROUGH. Please, only offer creative critique and and stop treating me like bastard who doen't care what you all think. I am discussing it with you arn't I?

stop treating me like bastard who doesn't care what you all think. I am discussing it with you aren't I?

Yeah. What Lords of the Isles said.

We can't tear each other apart. That accomplishes nothing.

Please offer constructive criticism in honor of keeping harmony within the UN!

~ cq

You may blame us for taking things literally, but we see forests as one entity and oxygen as another, even to the point where we have considered putting oxygen into containers and be treated as a separate commodity. In this respect, it's the oxygen that is fluid, and which has an impact to the entire world, not the forests themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this point. How can you separate the substance from the object that produces it? Where will the oxygen come from if the trees are no longer there?

But thank you...your cost/benefit analysis has given me the terminology I was looking for. If Shadow Elves chop down their forests, only Shadow Elves get the benefits, but the whole world takes a hit from the costs. And everyone who has to suffer those costs should get a say in the decision - that's what the UN is for.

I thoroughly agree that the UN should not have the power to monitor and moderate economic activities beyond ensuring certain basic human rights, such as the right to form trade unions. But this is not about the economic side of the issue.

If the forests of the world are such a valuable commodity, then obviously each nation has already weighed the costs and benefits of losing it and used rational reason to lead to the conclusion that they'd rather cut down (some) trees.

This I think is a fundamentally flawed argument. The problem with such purely economic cost-benefit analyses is that the pressures of economic competition forces corporations and nations to take a short-term, profiteering view in order not to give ground to the competition. This is why a body like the UN is required - clearly action by all nations is required, but whichever nation takes action first will lose out. The only workable course is therefore to mandate action in all nations simultaneously.

False, that assumption is made only because each organization and nation has so far seen the benefits higher than the costs of deforestation. Reforestation efforts will be done when costs of deforestation is greater than the benefits it brings.

But, given that there is no incentive under unfettered capitalism to look beyond one's own immediate interests, the costs of deforestation will never outweigh the benefits until the forests are more or less gone for good. No purely economic cost-benefit analysis will take into consideration future generations or the continuing existence of the human species, since these are quite literally priceless.

Comrade Albert
Delegate for the Economy

The earth does not care? Of course it doesn't. It doesn't have feelings! It doesn't have a soul. And even if it did, I wouldn't give a damn about it. What am I supposed to do? Not cut down trees ever? Hardly. This bill is a blatant violation of my right to either improve or screw over my economy. Plain and simple.
When I stated "The earth does not care" I was using a literary technique known as personification, that is, giving a nonhuman thing human characteristics. Bluntly put, it means that it does not matter if your nation owns this grove of trees here and mine owns that grove over there, if you were to cut down your trees it would hurt my nation, as the earth's enviroment is not affected by who owns what. In the future I shall refrain from using such complicated word usage as to avoid causing confusion for those who are less educated. This bill is in no violation of your national sovereignty. If your nation were to cut down all of its trees it would affect my nation. The resolution does not state that you are to cease the cutting down of your trees, it simply says to reduce the amount cut. (But by how much remains a mystery, hence why I am against this resolution.)
This is incorrect. Trees do not produce oxygen, nor can any living organism be said to produce any pure compund (These are made in stars).
First trees release oxygen by day, and consume it by night. The net contribution of oxygen formation is therefore much smaller than one would assume, and the major source for oxygen "production" is algea in the sea.
Secondly, Carbon Dioxide has no effect on the Ozone layer at all. None. Other gases do, and they should of course be tightly regulated.

True, trees do not produce oxygen, but they do take in carbon dioxide and from that release oxygen. Also, while carbon dioxide has no direct affect on the ozone, they absorb heat given off by the sun. With the damaged ozone layer, more heat is already penetrating earth. The addition of carbon dioxides only makes matters worse.

The RNoA is whole heartily opposed to this measure for the following reasons:

1. There are no clear guidelines for determining who is in accordance and who is not. This open-ended resolution will be to open to interpretation and abuse in the future. Without clear guidance it will be up to each nation to determine if they are in accordance or not. This is no different then it already is, each nation is able to determine if they are cutting down too many trees. This resolution amounts to no more then a waste of all our nations time.

2. The RNoA views this as an encroachment of our sovereign rights. The use or misuse of our natural recourses is an issue that needs to be left to our own decisions. If this resolution is passed it will only open doors to future encroachments, we can not accept this.

3. The RNoA already has laws concerning deforestation. As we feel that forests are a valuable commodity that should not be wasted. These decisions were made on our own, as it should be. We don't feel that a bunch of bliss-ninny nations should be able to dictate how I care for my own land.

4. The terrible wording in this resolution is reason enough to decline it. How can we be sure what we are agreeing too when we are unable to read it? If you wish to be taken seriously I would recommend you hire a proof-reader before wasting the worlds time with this nonsense.

The issue of whether or not the RNoA will accept this encroachment of foreign powers will be made after the final numbers are tallied.

~ The Rogue Nation of Absolve.

The title is the only part that makes sence.



Or sense either.

Yes, love, and that's the whole problem. Besides the fact that most people don't debate issues on the forums, I suspect that few even bother to read beyond the title. I seriously believe that I could submit a proposal entitled "Save the Whales," with the text of the proposal consisting of the phrase "Die, motherf***er, die!" repeated fifty times, and the proposal would STILL pass based solely on its title.

God, I need another martini.

Toodles,
Helen a Handbasket
Senior Associate Vice Princess in Charge of Skimpy Lingerie
The Rogue Nation of Lillibit

For all the idiots saying that this bill should be passed:

Why should all of us listen to such a stupid bill? It doesn't make sense! There's already a replanting bill. Isn't that enough? Each time someone cuts a tree, they have to replant it. So you see, it doesn't hurt you. Not at all.

We already have a bill to protect trees, and I find one more useless, and hurtfull to many countries' industries. And the UN shouldn't be putting their noses in each country's business. That's not what the UN does, specially for a problem that already has a solution.

For all the idiots saying that this bill should be passed:

Why should all of us listen to such a stupid bill? It doesn't make sense! There's already a replanting bill. Isn't that enough? Each time someone cuts a tree, they have to replant it. So you see, it doesn't hurt you. Not at all.

We already have a bill to protect trees, and I find one more useless, and hurtfull to many countries' industries. And the UN shouldn't be putting their noses in each country's business. That's not what the UN does, specially for a problem that already has a solution.

As the delegate of the great Republic of Morgantia I must inform my fellow UN delegates that this proposal will only be heaping a new law where none is needed. Since there is already a replanting law in place then this nation doesn't see why the woodchipping industry should be punished when they are already replanting for every tree that is cut.

In conclusion the Republic of Morgantia will be voting against this resolution.

The resolution infinges a countries rights to build it's economy in a way that it can. It cause no danger to other nations, and the UN should stay out of how other countries improve their economies so long as they are not directly harming their people or the people of another nation.

The Holy Republic of Geletic currently has strick enviormental laws, however voted against this resolution because it infringes on the freedom of other nations.

Allied States of the Valor Knights re-started the countries Nuclear Arms program in expectation of losing the mining and chipping industries.

Anyone need any nukes?

Has anyone noticed that EVERY UN proposal passes....no joke, check the history of UN proposals, there has yet to be one that hasn't passed (most by a few thousand votes), no matter how ridiculous the proposal, it passes. The closest one in history was the legalization of euthanasia, it passed by just over 800 votes. This raises a dangerous question....is the UN too powerful?

Hmm after careful consideration I have withdrawn my support of this bill.
It is very vague and maybe a better bill will come up later. :?

The Consumerist Oligarchy of F2B has resigned from the UN to protect the F2Ber woodchipping industry from unreasonable reductions currently proposed in the UN.

Woodchipping is still a vital part of our primary production, producing valuable products for domestic use and export. An attack on this industry would seriously undermine F2B's economic recovery.

Thanks a lot, buddy. We could have used your vote, but noooo, you had to chicken out on us all and make it more likely that it would pass. Nice, buddy, real nice.

What I'm confused with here is exactly what this resolution sets out to prove. All this does is put forth ideologies that we can endlessly debate, but if put forward means absolutely nothing since there are no operative clauses.

The underlying issue also is that this resolution takes away from the leaders who put the goods of the people in front of the environment. This resolution takes the representative of the country's and forces them to take a stand in some cases that is completely opposite from their viewpoints.

So this resolution is not specific in the least without any operative clauses, takes away the leader's power to decide what's best for his/ her country and yet it's still going to pass.

Wizpig is confused,

The Right Honorable Trevin David
Ambassador for the Republic of Wizpig

Honored UN Delegates:

While I appreciate what the delegate from the Isles is attempting to do, and even applaude a respect for the environment, I fear that this body is on the verge of grossly overstepping its boundaries. After all, we're not talking about regulating international spaces...we're on the verge of dictating to sovereign nations of the world what they can and cannot do within their own territory. We cannot allow ourselves, however good our intentions, to make this leap.

Worriedly,

Steven J. Sprouse
President, Dunlend

Has anyone noticed that EVERY UN proposal passes....no joke, check the history of UN proposals
Actually, you just haven't been here long enough. Some fail, but they don't make the list of Past UN Resolutions. Only the winners make that list, so your premise is faulty.

The Republic of Wizpig would also like to pledge it's full support behind the honorable Head of Government from Caligatio, and hope that UN nations vote accordingly to defeat this resolution.

Has anyone noticed that EVERY UN proposal passes....no joke, check the history of UN proposals
Actually, you just haven't been here long enough. Some fail, but they don't make the list of Past UN Resolutions. Only the winners make that list, so your premise is faulty.

Perhaps, but the UN appears to have become a rubber stamp for ANY resolution lately. Of course I've only been here since January...

Has anyone noticed that EVERY UN proposal passes....no joke, check the history of UN proposals
Actually, you just haven't been here long enough. Some fail, but they don't make the list of Past UN Resolutions. Only the winners make that list, so your premise is faulty.

Perhaps, but the UN appears to have become a rubber stamp for ANY resolution lately. Of course I've only been here since January...

It's because a bunch of whiny conservatives were complaining about how a few proposals weren't in their best interests and, when they decided to leave in a sniveling fit, they thus removed the only check on the excesses of well-meaning but not always the most intelligent liberals. Now they complain about how the U.N. is filled with too many liberals. *shrugs* Their fault; they left.

We find this proposal fairly unclear, and in need of revision before being put to a vote- is it not possible to pull the proposal for discussion, or once its submitted for a vote there is no revision possible?

We don't have a big issue with many of the recent issues proposed, but having discussions on the issue prior to having a vote would be much preferred.

Foreign Minister
Kerflakistan.

We don't have a big issue with many of the recent issues proposed, but having discussions on the issue prior to having a vote would be much preferred.
Once it's on the floor, that's it. For that matter, once it's in queue (in the List Proposals view), it can't be edited. It either gets Approved or expires.

There are regular discussion of upcoming topics. They're here in the UN forums. All you have to do is show up and post. A lot of proposers start a topic on their proposal, but anyone can start a topic on any proposal. Couldn't be easier (when the server cooperates).

The next proposal coming for a vote is Rights and Duties of UN States, by yours truly. Read all about it here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123088), and feel free to make comments.

Dominicuba will be voting against this resolution. There is no good reason that the wrong thinking morals of the tree hugging hippies who proposed this awful resolution should be forced upon our soverign nation. The hippies should stick to getting shot at protests against the great corporations and stop trying to make our lives better by spreading unemployment through environmentalism.

Power to the Corporations.

Dominicuba will be voting against this resolution. There is no good reason that the wrong thinking morals of the tree hugging hippies who proposed this awful resolution should be forced upon our soverign nation. The hippies should stick to getting shot at protests against the great corporations and stop trying to make our lives better by spreading unemployment through environmentalism.

Power to the Corporations.

The nation of Caligatio finds it disturbing that this poorly devised proposal has received so much support, most of which from those who have yet to identify themselves in this U.N. forum.

This menace of a proposal must be stopped dead in its tracks before more harm is done to each nation's sovereignty. To care for the environment is one thing; to force your economic policies on another country through the U.N. is quite another. And that is exactly what is happening here.

In the time that I have been here, every resolution to pass I have been against. And it seems that this current bill will not stray from that path of ignorance. Now, I merely sit back and await the day that the Rights and Duties of the U.N. States comes to the general assembly. Knowing my luck, it will be voted down.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

A human is just another species of animal which should live with the earth instead of against it, which is ultimately futile, because in killing the earth you destroy your only home.

We don't have to worry about this resolution. I've heard of a "wood chipping" industry, but I've never heard of a "would chipping" industry. Furthermore, "efects," "enviroment," and "realy" aren't words while "rampart destruction" means destroying a fortification. There are more problems with the wording of this declaration, but my head hurts too much from trying to decipher this incoherent resolution.

Don't forget about Resolution 245A Proper Grammar, which was implemented one year ago on Saturday, February 15, 2003.

I completely agree. This resolution is invalid under Resolution 245A, and makes my head hurt as well.

The Minister of Information
Vernonium

I have written a rewrite earlier in this argument thread. eveyone read and we can argue about the new and better one. I admit my first was shit, but this ones better.

CALIGATIO: "Global warming is a huge issue? I fail to see the effects of global warming. In fact, global warming has actually been decreasing lately, but the myth of its constant increase continues on as a selling point for environmental wackos like you."

Ordinarily I'd jump at this opportunity to start a slanging match. However, I remember reading your generous and thoughtful contributions to the marriage thread, so I'm prepared to put this down to grumpiness (or frustratration, understandable given the quality of the proposal).

We are not wackos, any more than you are a wacko for holding the beliefs that you do. Global warming is not decreasing. The issue is whether or not our race is having a substantive, destabilising effect on the environment. This is very hard to prove either way. The people most likely to know are the scientists. Not politicians, environmental campaigners, economists, businessmen/women, captains of industry. Scientists. The majority of scientists working in the field of global climate research appear to believe that human-sourced climate change is a real problem. I am persuaded by their interpretation of the facts at their disposal.

Examples? The movement of the Gulf Stream, the accelerated changes in conditions in Alaska, the breaking up of the West Antarctic ice shelf, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures.

In the long term, it's the solar cycle which has the greatest impact on the Earth's environment. However, the atmosphere's dynamics are based on knife-edge negative feedback cycles - if we destabilise these enough, we have a positive feedback cycle. Then we're in trouble, regardless of what the sun's up to in the long term.

CALIGATIO: "Cutting billions of trees does not affect another nation on the other side of the world. How is that logical at all? Instead of caring about the environment, all you want to do is challenge my country's way of life."

The latter statement is a touch paranoid, I feel. As for cutting billions of trees (Jesus - billions...?) - of course this affects other nations. Cut pine trees and we'll arguably be better off. Cut rainforests and you directly impinge on my nation's welfare.

It is possible to maintain responsible logging operations, you know.

Anyway, that's enough for now. For what it's worth, I voted 'no' and I'm astonished by the irresponsible behaviour of the delegates that allowed this proposal to reach quorum. I'd be interested in your responses as I value your opinions.

Best wishes
Ann Clayborne & Sax Russell
Speakers for the Environment & Science

Yeah, what he said :D !

Please tell me things to change about my revised resulution.

(no "just don't do it" suggestions please.)

:wink:

Respectfully, CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE FREAKIN' PROPOSAL ACTUALLY IS???????????????????????????????????????????????????
MORE S**T BEING ALLOWED THROUGH WITH NO THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

ps

I can feel another case of genocide coming on as we get rid of all the humans inhabiting the places where trees ought to be allowed to live in peace!!

Oh, no...breaking news from the BBC: Joccia implements latest UN Mandate. Run for the hills!

way too many misspellings

Mirepoix has voted against this resolution. The arguments are previously stated in this thread, so there is no need to reiterate them now. Primarily, this res oversteps the UN's boundaries and attacks the right of member nations to manage their own resources.

It is difficult to imagine the UN's reputation becoming worse than it has lately, for exactly those reasons. We in Mirepoix are of course following the mandatory procedure of maintaining a Compliance Ministry to implement UN decisions. It is structured, however, to obfuscate and to bury them, not to put them into practice in the real world, and it does that very well. That is our countermeasure to this ridiculous blizzard of hare-brained, feel-good measures. The expense of keeping the ministry open is a waste, but at least at this time we prefer that to resigning from the UN, which is the alternative. Let us hope this collective insanity at the UN is a temporary phenomenon.

Oh, for the love of... PLEASE STOP TELLING ME ABOUT MY CURRENT ONE> I KNOW ITS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :!: :!: :!: . Please give creative critisms on the rewrite already displayed earlier in this thread.

Thank you :wink:

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME ABOUT MY CURRENT ONE> I KNOW ITS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We know that too. Trouble it, THAT'S the one we're going to have to live with. It's entirely appropriate to discuss that one and ignore your revisions.

Once it reached quorum, you ceased to be anything other than the Author. It now belongs to the UN.

Dear oh dear...could nations please stop trotting out the tired "national sovereignty" line as an excuse to avoid discussing the issue? As we have posted earlier in this thread, this is exactly the kind of issue that the UN should be addressing and exactly the kind of issue where the UN's authority takes precedence over national sovereignty.

We grant that there have been too many proposals lately which do infringe the rights of nations - the legalisation of prostitution being just one example. However, this is not one of them.

If the nations complaining about infringements on national sovereignty are not prepared to act collectively for the benefit of the entire world - which is, after all, the UN's entire point and purpose - possibly they should consider resigning from this august body and leaving it to those who understand the nature of international co-operation.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

This ambassador doesn't wish to embark on a long discourse regarding the wisdom of using resources wisely, or otherwise. Nor does he wish to discuss the benefits of using these resources in one way or another. Nor, least of all, does this ambassador wish to discuss outlandish concepts of ownership by the people, nor "stewardship".

What this ambassador does wish to extend, is an invitation to all treehuggers, to come out in the Forests of DubyaShrubland, and see firsthand how honest men make a living. We would be quite happy to cut a few thousand trees while tree huggers are hugging away.

Enough of this nonsense. There is money to be made for the Emporer, and this discussion wastes potential money making time.

*Comrade Chomsky rolls around on the floor laughing at the concept of an ambassador who doesn't think it's his job to talk*

.HA! Yeah, that is pretty funny. I plan to put up my revision for a proposal, as well, but this time, I am debating it first :D

While i agree that the industry needs to be slowed.. i do not agree with it being un law.... eash country should take their own steps in order to stop this from happening with the un providing if anything i slight reminder every once and awhile or for countrys that are abusing the wood cutting to be talked to and again be reminded of what will happen to the nation if they continue their ways. my nation is not in dire need for a stop to the woodcutting because in place are laws that limit the amount of wood cut. but that is my choice and so it should be an individual decision not a un decision. thanks
DJG
Chief Visionary on behalf of Visionary Beings

im sure us non UN members wont mind picking up the slack from those of you that have to "cut" back on deforestation, at a premium price of course

My question is what in the hell does this proposal actually, you know, propose?

Why are people letting these ignorant, poorly written rants into U.N. proposals?

:roll:

Being a religiously inspired, tree-hugging government based on extreme capitalistic greed, the Divinely Ordained Republic-Corporation of Eriel voted yes because the gods told us that we need more laws that are so badly worded they support any action we wish to take.

We welcome this trend in modern law-making to interfere wherever possible in the least effective way.

Hence, we support every US decision and most of those taken by the EU and China as well.

The Profitess,
(voted Chief Theological Officer and Head of State three times running!)

I have just recently joined the UN, and after looking at many of the bigger countries out there, I see many nations who have mantained beautiful rainforests. This bill smacks of alarmism, many nation's rainforests are protected by powerful police states that could shut down any possible smuggling operation.

While I intend to keep my rainforest in halfway decent shape, I believe the state of the world is such that this resolution would only harm economies of developing nations, and possibly alienate new members from joining the UN.

The US produces more timber than any other nation, yet over the past century has been able to increase the amount of land that is forested. This is through advanced tree-farming techniques, replanting, and redistribution of farming land to better use. If this resolution were to pass, other countries would not be able to follow the same steps the US has taken in their own tiumbe rindustries to find an equilibrium between planting and harvesting. It is illogical and frankly idiotic to beleive that the timber industry would support a plan of massive clear-cutting and a program that would lead to the mass deforestation of the world.

Therefore, this entire resolution is ridiculous. Any fuzzy environmental argument that we are "destroying the earth" can only be treated as a gross generalization and thus must be treated as incorrect. Plus, this resolution proposes no actual legislation or program, simply that logging be slowed down.

In short, its ridiculous.

But, given that there is no incentive under unfettered capitalism to look beyond one's own immediate interests, the costs of deforestation will never outweigh the benefits until the forests are more or less gone for good. No purely economic cost-benefit analysis will take into consideration future generations or the continuing existence of the human species, since these are quite literally priceless.

Here again for some more discussion:

Look, "immediate interests" has its own querks. If businesses wanted to make money, in particular the logging industry, they would hardly be tempted to eradicate ALL their source of money. Without any trees, the logging industry will die. They DO have their own agendas, mainly for money making, but also for lengthening their business life.

Like we've said so many times, people make decisions through research, not just out of the air, and certainly not just for short-term gains. As more and more trees disappear, the more and more costs(such as permits for logging, restrictions on logging, alternative materials for building, etc) rise as opposed to the potential benefits that can be made off the resources. The economy has its own equilibrium laws that keep it in check without need of an international governmental body telling it what to do.

We do not deny the affect of deforestation on the environment, but that's just only one part of a whole host of causes leading to global warming, including industrialization, emissions, oil usage, dumping, etc.

If national sovereignty were truly a paramount concern, a nation woudn't be in the UN.
This resolution is so stinking poor that it deserves to be trotted out into a field and shot.
For that matter, every resolution in the past two months has been poor.

Remind me again why the UN is important.

I strongly urge a negative vote on this piece of legistlation. This bill completely ignores the regional differences of different countries. Different counjtries have different economies and different amounts of trees, and hence the best balance between economic growth and environmental protection varies from country to country. In the name of common sence, I urge all sane nations to take a stand against this bill.

Okay, first of all, Why should other people decide what is best for my nation's economy? The decimation of the /wood/ chipping industry may be good for your economy, but not for mine.
Second of all, the spelling, grammar, and general disuse of the English language in the proposal was appalling. I have practically no idea what the hell The Lords of The Isles was trying to say, and, for all the above reasons, have decided to vote against this proposal.

- Srah, Rogue In Chief of The Rouge Nation of Srahists.

P.S: Any typos made are purely on purpose. Really. :oops:

I would like to know exactly what it is that he proposed. I just re-read the proposal and no where in the proposal does he state what we are to do to solve this problem of deforestation. If for no other reason than ambiguity this proposal needs to be voted down. He does not state whether we are to cease the wood chipping industry or whether we are going to place restrictions on it.

In addition, what is to say that these countries that are heavily involved with the wood chipping industry are not replanting the forest and rehabilitating the land after they have taken the resources from it. Wood is a renewable resource and should be treated as such. Not being able to use the resources that are given to a country is a grave injustice that no nation should be forced into because of legislation.

The economy has its own equilibrium laws that keep it in check without need of an international governmental body telling it what to do.

But this is exactly my point - that these equilibrium laws simply don't function in a situation like this. There's no pressing economic need for firms to look to their business future - or the future of the planet - a hundred years down the line when, if the share price drops 20% right now, heads will be rolling in the boardroom.

And there's no particular need either for a firm to safeguard the future of the industry it works in - it can always diversify or outsource once all the trees, oil or whatever is gone.

The logic of the market simply isn't equipped to make long-term decisions. The only time it will kick in is when there's a visible and immediate danger - like when the water's already lapping round our ankles or there's been so much deforestation that what used to be forest is now well on the way to becoming desert. And that's too late.

Whilst I agree with the representative from East Hackney on the basic idea that something does need to be done, I am still against this resolution.

Not on grounds of sovereignty or any nationalist stance, purely because the resolution states an aim, without thinking about how that aim is to be achieved.

Knee-jerk resolutions don't work, they are, if anything, counter-productive. A resolution that effectively halts deforestation is desired, One that actaully increases the amount of forest world-wide would be advantageous - UP TO A POINT!

If we are going to try to tinker with our environment through manipulation of nature, we have to understand that Global Cooling is as much of an option as Global Warming and just as destructive to our way of life.

Any legislation put forward, must consider all the possible effects and outcomes including economic effects.

We thank Joccia for their support on the principle behind this resolution. We would like to clarify that we have voted against the resolution and are merely arguing in favour of the principle that national economic issues take second place to international environmental issues.

The present situation regarding this resolution is unfortunate, as its author has acknowledged its flaws, requested its withdrawal and written a much-improved updated version. However, there is no way of halting voting on the current resolution and no obvious way of canvassing effectively against the stampede of 'yes' votes.

While I can see that this is a call to halt deforestation, which my nation is not necessarily against, I must say that we hesitate to vote for a proposal that is so badly worded.

While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

Would chipping? Decreasing it in the short term would do what, exactly?

The arguments against deforestation were a bit wishy-washy and not very well put, but I'm sure we've all heard them before anyway.

If the proposal clearly stated what member countries were actually expected to do, The Fourth Doctor would be voting for this; however, as it stands, there seems to be little point in doing so. It's not exactly an implementable piece of legislation.

Hails fellow nations,
the people of La Extora will do with their forests what they wish. Why should the UN be allowed to dictate to us on what we do? The trees of La Extora are there to be destroyed if that is what we so wish to do to them.
so speaks his High Lord,
El Destrocto

Hails fellow nations,
the people of La Extora will do with their forests what they wish. Why should the UN be allowed to dictate to us on what we do? The trees of La Extora are there to be destroyed if that is what we so wish to do to them.
so speaks his High Lord,
El Destrocto

As a government, if we receive a resume for a govt. position and there are numerous typos in it, we don't give it a second look. We will be voting against any legislation that exhibits these lackluster standards.

The Federation of Ixian Manufacturers deplores the impending adoption of this vague, semi-literate proposal that smacks of cultural imperialism and will, in many instances, amount to economic sabotage. The proposal does not specify anything, no targets, no sanctions, nothing and as such should never have made it to the floor. The Federation maintains modern sustainable practices and, as a result, our Woodchip industry is the mainstay of our economy currently. However, the adoption of this resolution in its current vague and non-specific form may spell disaster for this sector and our economy in general. We implore all sane nations to vote against this proposal and consign it to the trash heap where it belongs.

Ambassador Rhombur
Ixian Federation

For the love of Grammer, could some publicly-minded admin delete this half-arsed resolution and let the UN conduct some real business?

Ahem. Who is Grammer? ;)

This insignificant nation is pleased to see that many other nations have examined the proposal, and found it wanting. One wonders how any person can submit such an ill thought out, poorly worded, obviously uncrafted proposal.

Allowing for errors in translation, I can't see that the proposal would make sense in ANY language.

My regards to all nations who require intelligibility before giving thier support for a proposal.

Ahem. Who is Grammer? ;)
Star of Frasier, formerly of Cheers. Sometimes worshipped for his nigh-godlike radio diction and his love of things artistic.

We have a small (but reviled) sect in our capital city. They have their uses.

Ahem. Who is Grammer? ;)

The great God Grammer, who watches over us, and smites the uneducated :wink:

But this is exactly my point - that these equilibrium laws simply don't function in a situation like this. There's no pressing economic need for firms to look to their business future - or the future of the planet - a hundred years down the line when, if the share price drops 20% right now, heads will be rolling in the boardroom.

And there's no particular need either for a firm to safeguard the future of the industry it works in - it can always diversify or outsource once all the trees, oil or whatever is gone.

We hope you are not forgetting that when we say "costs", we mean the broad array of obstacles that get in the way of the logging industry? Just because that one particular industry doesn't see a pressing need within itself in near future to change its patterns hardly can mean that other industries have little influence on it. The economy isn't made up only of the logging industry, but of the pharmaceutical and travel industry, both of which have the means to prevent utter destruction of entire forests that would mean the end of their economic life. Not to forget many businesses that make hard-earned money from wood-based products and crafts, including furniture-making, home-improvement, and pencil-making businesses. (Yes, remember those wooden pencils?) You really expect all these related businesses to diversify/outsource?

Besides, options to use reseeding/reforesting methods are available to the logging industry and are used in increasing rates: forests are renewable, as others have mentioned. It is hardly logical or rational to assume that a single industry would eradicate all forests, let alone assume that that is the case in ALL nations, which you, the author of the resolution, and others in approval of it and the future proposal are implying.

We stand unchanged in our position to oppose all needless iron-bound vises on economic, political, and/or civil freedoms that are better left for individual nations to make their own domestic legislation, be it the current horrible proposal or the relatively unchanged proposal(in essence) in near future.

nice to see the Mechanoids have arrived through some Rifts.

this resolution is so poorly written that it can't be determined what it does other than restricts wood chipping industry.

and sadly, it's going to pass because people are stupid.

-

No, it's going to pass because people want poorly thought out , sentimental clap-trap that does not ask them to actually do anything. It gives them that warm, fuzzy inner glow with requiring them to get to move their corpulent asses away from the television.

I say we need more resolutions like this. They make the citizenry think that their wishes are being listened to and acted on while those in power tighten their chains of servitude.

At least, that's how it works in the real world.......

I neither agree nor disagree with this proposed resolution entirely. While we don't dare deplete this important resource, trees are there for our use and cutting back on the forestry industry could be very bad for some nations economies.
Instead of cutting back on the forestry industry, why doesn't somebody propose a resolution that requires a predetermined number of trees to be planted by their consumers yearly to insure that we never deplete this resource?

I really dont see how this resolution wil help the economy.
1. Ok wood products woudl cost more if there is a lower wood wuply which means the government and businesses with the government taxes will get more revenue
2. Deforestarino allows for farming and land for sale
3. The land produced can be sold adn then taxed by the government
as for tourism....yeah right ....... if every nation is full of great forest adn resorts who wants to go anywehre else....

What I always love is when a bunch of high-school wannabe Communists come on and explain to everyone how Capitalism works, that businesses don't have long-term goals, and would rather have immediate profits than an actual job 20 years down the road.

Frankly, our nation is disgusted at the intellectual level of this "august" body, and would request that delegates refrain from speaking outside of their range of knowledge, such as how to run a corporation.

The Allied states of both Pooky and Pengonia request that this resolution be shot down and shot down good.

I'm not sure I understand how putting restraints on the wood chipping industry is going to accomplish the proposal's goal, that is to compel nations to cut down on clear-cut logging. I always thought wood chipping was the industry that made, well wood chips. Couldn't nations continue the same level of logging but make furniture instead? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. If so, please forgive me. I am not terribly familiar with the logging industry.

Personally, I'm equally as tired of people complaining about my right to national sovereignty.

I joined the U.N. to be a part of the international scene. In no way was that to give up my right to rule my country as I please and instead, give it up to the left-leaning nations of the U.N. Cooperation in the international scene is necessary for improvements, but this issue improves nothing. It allegedly maintains the forest, but my country is already doing that. At the same time, we are mining and logging certain parts for the sake of the economy. It provides necessary jobs. To decrease such deforestation is to put thousands upon thousands of workers out of a job, destroying my economy, for the sake of another country. I don't see that as cooperation.

Unfortunately, as the usual U.N. voter turnout is around 20,000, and the FOR side has 10,000 with the against at approximately 5,000, it would seem that this resolution is already passed, unless the extraordinary happens and the rest of the votes go to the AGAINST side, which I would strongly reccomend.

Caligatio has decided to not resign should this bill pass as to offset the pure joy that many left-leaning nations would experience upon its leaving. Instead, we will remain in the international scene and "fight the good fight."

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Eco-tourism doesn't work too well when every country is mandated to have the same environmental protections. :roll:

This proposal is unintelligent, beyond the scope of the UN, and NEEDS TO BE RUN THROUGH SPELL CHECK. It should be deleted and it's proposer should be laughed at.

I agree totaly with the rejection of this proposal. The main theme of this has been protecting the enviroment, but isn't it Darwinian law that states the ones most able to adapt thrive? Life will find a way no matter what we do to mess it up, even if that means knocking everything back to protoza.

Your nation has medicine I suppose? What about charity?

Why is it that about half the messages in this topic are along the lines of "The UN can't put restrictions on our wood chipping economy!". Uh, well I hate to break it to you guys, but they CAN. Okay, sure the presentation is awful, but that really doesn't affect the underlying idea, that being to decrease wood chipping in order to save forests. A few points that should be made:

-If one or two nations did it, it would have practically 0 effect. Therefore making it a UN resolution, and therefore taking it to a vast number of nations, is necessary.

-The UN can decide whatever the hell they like about your country, that's what it's for.

-The destruction of forests is a huge environmental issue, and shouldn't just be written off by calling people "hippies". It doesn't help.

-New trees planted when older ones are cut down don't begin to give anywhere near the same amount of oxygen (or use up the same amount of carbon dioxide) untill hundreds of years after they're planted. Thus this solution is useless in the short term, and so it is necessary to restrict wood chipping, and not just rely on the new trees which have been planted.

-The existance of various different habitats, notably woodland, in a range of climates is vital for the growth and discovery of organisms which may be of great use in medicine. It is a well known fact, in medicine, that strains of bacteria can become immune to certain antibiotics, and so new antibiotics need to be used. This means that new ones need to be discovered, and the source tends to be organisms, often fungii, found in places like woodland. Therefore, the more forests the better, and woodchipping should be cut down, even if it is not a direct threat to the existance of forests, or to the environment at this time.

-It's really not going to affect your economy that much.

-It's really not going to affect your economy that much.

Erm, wood chipping is the main part of may economies and this bill will devestate them. ISnt there already a reolustion that for every tree cut down you have tp replant another one? Maybe Im wrong but if there is this resolution it makes this bill look even more ridiculous than before.

Luckily there is only one or two more UN bills currently waiting in the queue so we may be spared more UN rubbish for a while.

Ridley Scatt.
Yid Army UN delegate.

What I always love is when a bunch of high-school wannabe Communists come on and explain to everyone how Capitalism works, that businesses don't have long-term goals, and would rather have immediate profits than an actual job 20 years down the road.

Personally, what I always love is when a bunch of primary-school fundamentalist free-marketeers with no apparent experience of the real world come on and explain to everyone, in complete defiance of all observed fact, how we should all relax and put our trust in markets because they never make a wrong decision. But maybe that's just me.

The United States of Major Corporations would like to express it's intent to support this resolution.

We feel that in order to ensure a future for foresting industries, we must ensure that sustainable exploitation is imployed. We would like to clarify that Major Corporations has no intention of becoming an eco-centric society and this vote is based entirely on the economic consequences of the resolution.

Sincerely,

The President Of Major Corporations

The United States of Major Corporations would like to express it's intent to support this resolution.

We feel that in order to ensure a future for foresting industries, we must ensure that sustainable exploitation is imployed. We would like to clarify that Major Corporations has no intention of becoming an eco-centric society and this vote is based entirely on the economic consequences of the resolution.

Sincerely,

The President Of Major Corporations

Please - Read the resolution first - IF YOU CAN READ, THAT IS. There is NO resolution - just a vague conservationist concept. Even the guy who wrote it has asked the Mods to delete it!!!!!!! :evil: You are one of the purile and gullible countries who vote for anything that sounds cool.!!!

Either read the resolutions or resign from the UN and stop being a t**t.

I bet you voted to legalize Euthanasia too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Please - Read the resolution first - IF YOU CAN READ, THAT IS. There is NO resolution - just a vague conservationist concept. Even the guy who wrote it has asked the Mods to delete it!!!!!!! :evil: You are one of the purile and gullible countries who vote for anything that sounds cool.!!!

Either read the resolutions or resign from the UN and stop being a t**t.

I bet you voted to legalize Euthanasia too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

It's amusing you say that considering this "concept" is being supported by UN voters with a strength of almost 2:1. I vote for resolutions I believe are in the best interest of member nations of the United Nations. I suggest you do the same instead of resorting to petty insults as you have.

Sincerely,

The President Of Major Corporations.

P.s. I would consider voting for the legalisation of Euthanasia provided the issue was well discussed and the resoultion was in the best interest of the people it affected (i.e. those with an incurable condition and little quality of life).

Please - Read the resolution first - IF YOU CAN READ, THAT IS. There is NO resolution - just a vague conservationist concept. Even the guy who wrote it has asked the Mods to delete it!!!!!!! :evil: You are one of the purile and gullible countries who vote for anything that sounds cool.!!!

Either read the resolutions or resign from the UN and stop being a t**t.

I bet you voted to legalize Euthanasia too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

It's amusing you say that considering this "concept" is being supported by UN voters with a strength of almost 2:1. I vote for resolutions I believe are in the best interest of member nations of the United Nations. I suggest you do the same instead of resorting to petty insults as you have.

Sincerely,

The President Of Major Corporations.

P.s. I would consider voting for the legalisation of Euthanasia provided the issue was well discussed and the resoultion was in the best interest of the people it affected (i.e. those with an incurable condition and little quality of life).

I am sorry, I spoke out of turn. I should have made allowance for your limited mental ability!

There is no resolution - there is a title and nothing else! Are you really telling me that you are one of those, who don't care enough to actally look at the resolutions, you just vote for what sounds "cool"?

For your information the Legalisation of Euthanasia was passed by the UN about a month ago. So BAD was the wording that the legislation became a law allowing GENOCIDE! Read some of the threads... Millions have died.

The UN isn't a club for cool people, it's supposed to be a meeting place for governments to actually improve the world.

Under the present non-existant wording of the proposal, it would be quite legal for countries to fell all of their trees and put them into warehouses for safe keeping. It would be legal for countries to fell all of their trees to produce planking, it would be legal for countries to completely deforest for any reason other than "would chipping" which has to be limited - TO WHAT?????

Please use common sense... We are aware from previous votes that the majority of delegates never read the resolutions they vote for, let alone view the arguments for and against in the Forums!

A number of Nations are involved in trying to solve the problem of poorly written and poorly thought-out proposals making it through the system because they've got catchy titles.

If you read this thread you will see that most of us agree that there should be legislation to defend the world's forests, but that legislation MUST be thought out - and watertight!

The United States of Major Corporations would like to express it's intent to support this resolution.

We feel that in order to ensure a future for foresting industries, we must ensure that sustainable exploitation is imployed. We would like to clarify that Major Corporations has no intention of becoming an eco-centric society and this vote is based entirely on the economic consequences of the resolution.

Sincerely,

The President Of Major Corporations

Please - Read the resolution first - IF YOU CAN READ, THAT IS. There is NO resolution - just a vague conservationist concept. Even the guy who wrote it has asked the Mods to delete it!!!!!!! :evil: You are one of the purile and gullible countries who vote for anything that sounds cool.!!!

Either read the resolutions or resign from the UN and stop being a t**t.

I bet you voted to legalize Euthanasia too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

I would like to point out the rewrite, once more. How long should it be until I resubmit it?

Major Corporations: The number statistics voting FOR the so-called resolution has no grounds in this debate, unless there are some method of measuring brain-activity of all the UN members involved :P
Just because people are voting 2 to 1 FOR something doesn't mean they are entirely correct, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are entirely intelligent. (Take a good example: Bush is President. Point made.)

Anyways, putting that aside:
East Hackney, you'd make a very interesting person for our delegates to have a meeting with. Discussions about economy and whether it works for evil or good might be enlightening for both of us. :)

We've been in the UN for only a few weeks so forgive our ignorance, but if it is true that there already was a resolution passed which requires a tree replanted for every tree logged, we see no reason to pass further restrictive measures on the logging industry. The problem here is more of enforcing that bill instead of introducing more and more poorly thought-out resolutions. We will be doing some reading for a while before we say more on this matter.

Lord of the Isles:
We'd like to point out that this current resolution will be passed whether you like it or not except by a miracle, rendering future related resolutions redundant and needless. And, frankly, we'd like to see different and new resolutions instead of repetitive ones.

Shadow Elves: we would be most interested in dispatching a delegation of economics experts to your nation for mutually beneficial discussions. As we hope we have made clear elsewhere on the forum, we are not militantly opposed to capitalism but see a well-run and carefully regulated capitalist economy as being the second-best way of creating wealth and happiness for one's people.
Can your nation suggest a suitable venue for such talks? The UN Strangers' Bar would possibly be ideal, although it does have a tendency to degenerate into alcohol-fuelled lunacy (for which, regrettably, our nation must shoulder some of the blame).

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

As the UN Delegate of the Grand Circle, Forque has voted against the "Save the Forests" proposal for reasons of vagueness, incoherency and atrocious spelling and grammar.

If Forque will be forced to end deforestation for important mining projects, it damned well better be for a GOOD reason other than some nation's opinion.

Please vote AGAINST "Save the Forests".

If someone wants to present compelling reasons to end deforestation, as well as describe adequate steps to do so without ruining other economies, the Grand Circle is willing to take them into consideration.

-It's really not going to affect your economy that much.

Erm, wood chipping is the main part of may economies and this bill will devestate them. ISnt there already a reolustion that for every tree cut down you have tp replant another one? Maybe Im wrong but if there is this resolution it makes this bill look even more ridiculous than before.

Luckily there is only one or two more UN bills currently waiting in the queue so we may be spared more UN rubbish for a while.

Ridley Scatt.
Yid Army UN delegate.

Any country which is involved in so much wood-chipping that it is the main part of their economy is doing too much aleady, for reasons I have already stated. It's their own fault, and it's not as if they can't leave the UN.

To all the non-believers out there :shock:

guess what? THIS RESOLUTION WILL PASS!! :twisted: :twisted:

You can whine and complain... but that's pretty lame.

ALl you can do is resign.

Yes, for crying out loud, let's ignore 'proposals' that are written in half-backed English (if that's what it is?). English is not my first language either but this is appalling. I don't even know exactly what the resolution is asking for?! I'll draft a proposal for compulsory language teaching instead!

While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

We don't have to worry about this resolution. I've heard of a "wood chipping" industry, but I've never heard of a "would chipping" industry. Furthermore, "efects," "enviroment," and "realy" aren't words while "rampart destruction" means destroying a fortification. There are more problems with the wording of this declaration, but my head hurts too much from trying to decipher this incoherent resolution.

Don't forget about Resolution 245A Proper Grammar, which was implemented one year ago on Saturday, February 15, 2003.

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.

Therefore, the Grand Duchy of the Lords of the Isles should be banned from making further proposals. Implicitly, the mods should remove this proposal.

I will also submit a copy of this post to the mods.

As a pose to the destruction of forests, tree farms are to be set up in every nation.My nation is covered in forests (except for the two(?) deserts, some plains that I need for food, the higher elevations in the mountains, and the cities). The people would starve if I created more.
they will supply the essential materials needed from the forests (i.e. woods)We don't need wood. We have steel and concrete for structures, cork and bamboo for flooring, and cotton for paper.
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.Hmmm...
4. To those who argue that The UN has no write to decide their environmental policies, I argue:That should be "no right".
The earth does not care whether one nation owns this land and another owns this."Earth"
We need to all pitch in and reduce the world emissions by that 60%!My nation already has closed-cycle steel production, biodiesel engines, and a bunch of other yay-for-the-environment stuff. There's not much room left to reduce emissions.

ALl you can do is resign.

Or we could get good and ferschnookered on dry martinis and insult your mother. Didn't think about that possibility, did you?

God, I feel like we're back in bloody preschool. Someone ought to propose a resolution banning this kind of "ninny-ninny boo-boo" post on the forums. Now there's a resolution I could support.

Toodles,
Hell's Bells

That should be "no right".

I absolutely cannot believe that I made that mistake.

That should be "no right".

I absolutely cannot believe that I made that mistake.

Quit correcting everyone on the slightest mistake they make. Nitpicking doesn't solve anything. I could understand if it was a series of major mistakes but something such as "no write" and "no right" is nothing to make a post about.

Quit correcting everyone on the slightest mistake they make.I only even mention spelling and grammar (not correct, but even make a mention of the existence of such things) once every few months...:?
Nitpicking doesn't solve anything.No, but he DID ask for us to critique.
something such as "no write" and "no right" is nothing to make a post about.That was less than a sixth of my post. ;)

To all the non-believers out there :shock:

guess what? THIS RESOLUTION WILL PASS!! :twisted: :twisted:

You can whine and complain... but that's pretty lame.

ALl you can do is resign.

Uh, who ever said that they don't believe the resolution will pass(aside from you)? No one.
"This resolution will pass!" Correction, it HAS passed. Big news, we've been expecting it anyway with so many people voting without looking at the discussion and people not bothering to discuss/submit to the forums for discussion PRIOR to submitting it to the queue system.

Resign won't help in preventing the continually deteriorating sitation of the UN.

Let's try to be civilized and not call people "lame," shall we?

hey

listen i know that no one here likes me but we should not get rid of our forests.

i have cuased much trouble in the past but could the UN please forgive me

Comrade Chomsky:

For the record, the United Nations is not a world government. As such, "tired" concepts like national sovereignty continue to have merit and will continue to be argued. There are entirely too many nations who seek to use this body as a bludgeon to enact policy that they could not enact on their own, which is certainly not in keeping with the original mandate of the REAL United Nations--which, also for the record, does take national sovereignty very seriously.

Should the UN take up issues that affect the world? Of course. Should it take up such issues with a reckless disregard for the wellbeing of the very members that give it its authority? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Steven J. Sprouse
President, Dunlend

As such, "tired" concepts like national sovereignty continue to have merit and will continue to be argued.

Apologies for a badly phrased posting which may have misled Dunlend as to our meaning. Rest assured that the bureaucrats responsible will be put up against a wall and pelted with custard pies until they are Very Sorry Indeed.

To clarify: we were not arguing that national sovereignty should not exist. We are not in favour of the UN becoming a world government and fully support the forthcoming resolution on the rights and duties of UN members, which seeks to define the powers of the UN.
Rather, we were arguing against some UN members who seem to believe that national sovereignty is absolute and that the UN has no right whatsoever to dictate any policy.
This has, we believe, increasingly become a catch-all excuse for opposing any proposal that a nation does not like but is unable to argue against rationally. Moreover, it is being used in cases where UN power clearly does take priority over national sovereignty. It is this that we consider "tired", and not the concept of national sovereignty itself.
We hope that this clarifies our position.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs