NationStates Jolt Archive

I've posted this proposal on the proposals list. Read it. I think that it is worth to make this a resolution:



___________________________________________________________


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


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Wainbaul
Description: Among all the factorys in the world, few are the ones that implant measures to reduce the toxic residues thrown to the nature, in a way to prevent poluted rivers, acid rains, poluted air,etc

In the present situation of the world, this decisions should be implanted all over the world, but they are not!!


1.the nations that belong to the UN must create hard laws in their State, to prevent this situation. It is mandatory that every manager obey to this laws, and start to implant measures in all their factorys.

2. It will be created a permanent international Inspectors Team, that will check in the next years if the enterprises are obeying to this laws. If there is found any mistake in their factorys, they will have to pay hard fines, acording to the dimension of the problem.



We cant abolish Industry in the current world, but we can, at least, reduce their damage to the environment.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Feb 21 2004


________________________________________________________


What you think about it?











PS( i hate this smiles)

Sophista stands heartily opposed to this resolution, which is unfortunate because I've really been feeling a need to support something lately. Looks like I'll be waiting until the next one, eh? Anyway, here's the dice on why the nation of Sophista disagrees.

First and foremost, we oppose this proposal on the grounds of vagueness. Please note that there are absolutely no specific concepts elucidated to in the entire proposal. What toxins are we supposed to prevent? How much of a decrease is considered enough to pass muster? How much is a "hard fine"? Who collects this hard fine, and for what purpose? None of these questions are answered, in fact, the language of the proposal seems to directly avoid these questions. With such immense ground for loopholes and circumvention of the legislation, this proposal stands no chance of making significant headway into environmental recovery.

Second, the proposal stands in direct contravention of Resolution 245A Proper Grammar. I would like to call the attention of my fellow representatives to the author's blatent disregard for the rules of the English language. Punctuation is ignored in several locations, there are three seperate instances of an incorrect plural, and the tortured syntax in the operative clauses is enough to make your toes curl. To endorse this proposal is to snub previous United Nations legislation, a move which you are all explicitly barred from making.

Third, look to the section of the resolution devoted to the "Inspectors Team." The obvious grammatical error aside, ask yourself if this plan stands a chance of actually enforcing its policy. How many inspectors will be necessary to check every factory in the thousands of UN member states, all within one year? Where are they going to come from? Who is going to pay for them? Will they travel as official UN envoys and thus be subject to diplomatic law? The author obviously has an optimisitic mindset to assume that this will actually work in terms of solving his problem.

By the time you examine all the holes in this proposal you'll likely be able to see the Sophistan delegation standing on the other side. To vote for this proposal is to cast into uncertanty the fate of your nation's industry. Be rational, be safe.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs