16-02-2004, 18:45
MODERATORS. Please delete my resulution which is currently being voted on. It is quite frankly s**t. Here is a rewright that I intend to submit in a coupl of weeks, please delete MY Saving the Forests of the World res. I think I have the right to get it deleted. The rewright:
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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=54&src=zon">people</a> realize the following:
Trees are a renewable resource can be handled quite well, and go on producing for hundreds of years. <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=People&v=54&src=zon">People</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=Law&v=54&src=zon">Law</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=money&v=54&src=zon">money</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=homes&v=54&src=zon">homes</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=weather&v=54&src=zon">weather</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=beauty&v=54&src=zon">beauty</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=money&v=54&src=zon">money</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=recovery&v=54&src=zon">recovery</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=management&v=54&src=zon">management</a>, 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. To get my current s**t one deleted.
Thanks :D
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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=54&src=zon">people</a> realize the following:
Trees are a renewable resource can be handled quite well, and go on producing for hundreds of years. <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=People&v=54&src=zon">People</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=Law&v=54&src=zon">Law</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=money&v=54&src=zon">money</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=homes&v=54&src=zon">homes</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=weather&v=54&src=zon">weather</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=beauty&v=54&src=zon">beauty</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=money&v=54&src=zon">money</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=recovery&v=54&src=zon">recovery</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=management&v=54&src=zon">management</a>, 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. To get my current s**t one deleted.
Thanks :D