NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal to help reduce the introduction of marine pest species, could delegates please support this proposal.

search for: Ballast Water

Ballast water is a major vector for invasive marine species.
By mandatory cycling of ballast water upon entering any member nations waters we will reduce the introduction and spead of weedy invasive species such as zebra mussel and northern pacific sea star.
This proposal will significantly reduce the introduction of marine pests at minimal cost to industry.

hey jamalya what the freak is ballast water

hey jamalya what the freak is ballast water

I actually like the idea of this proposal, but like 90% of the proposals that are posted, I wish it would have been as a DRAFT first.

Please look at the stickied thread about how to write good resolutions. I think the delegate from Jamalya could easily resubmit this same proposal using that standard ... in fact, I may suggest a rewrite.

Ballast water is the water carried between the hulls of ships, used to help keep the ships afloat and stable. Ballast just means heavy material, usually rock, though in shipping water is ideal because not only is it heavy, but it can be removed when the ship needs to rise as it approaches a port. Ballast is also used as the material to line railroad tracks, though in that case it literally is sand and rock. It is basically an engineering word.

[OOC: Please visit: http://www.providence.edu/polisci/projects/megaport/ballast.htm#B1 for more info. (BTW I just pulled up the site using google, and highly recommend that if you don't know something, try a key word search.)

Anyway, if you read further down this link, you'll see there are some recommendations that could be incorporated into this proposal if folks want a more detailed resolution. /OOC]

I have submitted a proposal to help reduce the introduction of marine pest species, could delegates please support this proposal.

search for: Ballast Water Cycling

:D

First, I would like to recommend the endorsement of this proposal. I believe that the delegate from Jamalya has brought fourth and started a debate on an environmental issue that truely is worthy of this assembly!

In fact, this is only the second proposal I've seen in my short tenure in the United Nations that I've actually liked! (The other is the Rights and Duties proposal.)

I would like to extend the thanks of my government to Jamalya for this.

With that said, here is a more detailed version of the same exact idea that my government fleshed out. If possible, I'd like to offer this proposal for Jamalya to comment on and perhaps sponsor, as I feel that my rewrite of this excellent Jamalyian proposal may make more sense to business minded and environmental minded nations alike.


The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING that it is common practice for international cargo ships to release ballast water upon arriving at their destination ports or in waters near these ports,

REALIZING that it is necessary for these ships to use ballast material during long voyages across international waters, and that ballast material is extremely useful in allowing ships to remain level while loading and unloading cargo while in port,

AWARE that ballast water is a primary source of the introduction of nonindigenous or alien species into fragile aquatic ecosystems,

CONCERNED that nonindigenous species frequently have no natural predators in the new ecosystems they are introduced into,

NOTING that often these species compete with or threaten and prey upon native species, including many endangered species,

NOTING FURTHER that protecting biodiversity is of interest to both local and international interests, in that losses in biodiversity have resulted in damages and losses in the stock of commercial fisheries,

1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 2,000 meters in depth;
2. CALLS UPON nations to adopt similar standards for domestic cargo ships that travel through international waters;
3. SUGGESTS that the uptake of ballast water should be minimized when propellers may stir up sediments and bottom dwelling organisms, or in periods of darkness, when the quality of the ballast water can not be easily accessed;
4. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that cargo ships, when possible, develop and put into practice routine schedules to clean out the ballast tanks either mid-ocean or in dry docks, in order to minimize the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms; and
5. REQUESTS governments work with the shipping industries based in their countries to assess additional methods of minimizing the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms.


Please, what do people think of this rewrite?

I think your right this is a more formally and probably more acceptable proposal and has my full support :)

I will resubmit this new proposal basically word for word

The nation of Sophista sees no problem with the rewrite of the proposal on a technical level, although the implied solution of "cycling" isn't as effective as you'd imagine. Even if the ballast water is cycled in deep water, you still run the risk of organisms being transferred into the shelf regions by currents and ocean debris. We would instead recommend that nations approve the mandatory implementation of deoxification devices in ballast water holds to meet the aforementioned goals.

Deoxification works by bubbling nitrogen gas up through the ballast water tanks, causing a chemical reaction by which free oxygen molocules are removed from the water. Without oxygen to survive, the microbes that exist in ballast water are destroyed. This has an added benefit in that deoxified water presents significantly smaller chances for rust and corrosion. Currently, that problem is solved with expensive paints and metal treatments. Deoxification hardware not only solves the microbe problem, but also is cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I think your right this is a more formally and probably more acceptable proposal and has my full support :)

I will resubmit this new proposal basically word for word

I offered it up as a draft. So if you find anything you want to change, feel free to! And I'm not suggesting that your previous proposal needs to not be submitted.

Mods, what is the policy if an author wants to change / edit a proposal in the queue?

Because I'm under the impression that a nation can only submit a few proposals per week, and I don't want you to feel rushed in any way. But the honest truth is that the idea to protect aquatic bioversity is yours ... I'm just somebody representing a people that completely agree with you! :D

10kMichael

We would instead recommend that nations approve the mandatory implementation of deoxification devices in ballast water holds to meet the aforementioned goals.

Deoxification works by bubbling nitrogen gas up through the ballast water tanks, causing a chemical reaction by which free oxygen molocules are removed from the water. Without oxygen to survive, the microbes that exist in ballast water are destroyed. This has an added benefit in that deoxified water presents significantly smaller chances for rust and corrosion. Currently, that problem is solved with expensive paints and metal treatments. Deoxification hardware not only solves the microbe problem, but also is cheaper and more environmentally friendly.


This is a great idea. Would you recommend this instead of cycling or as a prefered alternative? And how would you rewrite the proposal(s) to include this? I'd like to see your language.

10kMichael

Amending the proposal is as simple as adding another operative clause. We feel the best solution is to implement both ideas, sterilizing the ballast water via deoxification, then exchanging the neutral water in open seas. That way, we take every available precaution short of irradiation.

To that end, the operative section would look a little something like this:

1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 2,000 meters in depth;
2. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that independent nations pass legislation to mandate the installation of nitrogen deoxification equipment on all international cargo ships;
3. CALLS UPON nations to adopt similar standards for domestic cargo ships that travel through international waters;
4. SUGGESTS that the uptake of ballast water should be minimized when propellers may stir up sediments and bottom dwelling organisms, or in periods of darkness, when the quality of the ballast water can not be easily accessed;
5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that cargo ships, when possible, develop and put into practice routine schedules to clean out the ballast tanks either mid-ocean or in dry docks, in order to minimize the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms; and
6. REQUESTS governments work with the shipping industries based in their countries to assess additional methods of minimizing the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms.

We have now endorsed this proposal.

Amending the proposal is as simple as adding another operative clause. We feel the best solution is to implement both ideas, sterilizing the ballast water via deoxification, then exchanging the neutral water in open seas. That way, we take every available precaution short of irradiation.

To that end, the operative section would look a little something like this:

1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 2,000 meters in depth;
2. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that independent nations pass legislation to mandate the installation of nitrogen deoxification equipment on all international cargo ships;
3. CALLS UPON nations to adopt similar standards for domestic cargo ships that travel through international waters;
4. SUGGESTS that the uptake of ballast water should be minimized when propellers may stir up sediments and bottom dwelling organisms, or in periods of darkness, when the quality of the ballast water can not be easily accessed;
5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that cargo ships, when possible, develop and put into practice routine schedules to clean out the ballast tanks either mid-ocean or in dry docks, in order to minimize the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms; and
6. REQUESTS governments work with the shipping industries based in their countries to assess additional methods of minimizing the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms.
We will endorse the proposal in this form.
Futhermore the German and French governments does not allow any ship to dump its ballast in our water without deoxification, in order to prevent the trasfer of organisms.

If the representative from Mikitivity would like to claim authorship when this proposal makes it to the submission phase, please feel free to do so. The nation of Sophista will continue to support this legislation in an ancillary role, but would prefer not to be the one directly responsible for fielding all the questions that arise.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

If the representative from Mikitivity would like to claim authorship when this proposal makes it to the submission phase, please feel free to do so. The nation of Sophista will continue to support this legislation in an ancillary role, but would prefer not to be the one directly responsible for fielding all the questions that arise.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Rest assured that my nation will lobby heavy for any of these proposals, but the original idea comes from Jamalya, and I believe that the Jamalyian representative should receive the credit for having the foresight to raise this issue before us!

Besides, it would be ironic for a land locked nation such as my Confederation to be the primary proponent of an international maritime proposal, would it not? :wink:

But please do not make the mistake that my nation does not have standing in this important issue. Clearly North Pacifc water fowl travel through my Confederation, many of which spend part of their lives in the aquatic environments this proposal seeks to protect.

10kMichael

My apologies, then, to the representative from Jamalaya. I was under the impression that authorship moved on at the point the proposal was posted in proper UN format. Thank you for clarifying.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mods can an author edit or remove a proposal?

doh, I resubmitted the proposal before I saw the stuff on de-oxification.

also there are now 2 proposals with the same name!
both called Ballast Water Cycling

Mods can an author edit or remove a proposal?

doh, I resubmitted the proposal before I saw the stuff on de-oxification.

also there are now 2 proposals with the same name!
both called Ballast Water Cycling

Keep in mind that in a week you can always resubmit the latest edit that this forum suggested.

Though you do raise an interesting question, can an author remove a proposal, especially in situations when they want to resubmit (naturally at the bottom of the queue and having to redo the endorsement process) the proposal?

I wish you luck, as I really hope to see the latest versions make it through the process and can be debated.

This proposal has our endorsement as well. Best of luck in getting it edited to include the deoxifying part.

I think the weekend really interfered with this proposal.
I will resubmit the most recent edition on Monday morning with several days to raise the issue and no weekend causing disruption.

I think the weekend really interfered with this proposal.
I will resubmit the most recent edition on Monday morning with several days to raise the issue and no weekend causing disruption.

I happen to like Sophista's recommended change as well.

However, I'd recommend waiting until the current proposal leaves the queue before resubmitting any Ballast Water proposal. If the current proposal should get enough endorsements without the Sophistan amendment, then the three of us can discuss the creation of a new proposal that is just an amendment.

I think the important thing is the second version is long enough that a careful reader can now figure out what ballast water is.

10kMichael

I only see 1 problem with this proposal. You require cycling to take place only in water that is 2000 meters deep. I'm not going to get into mathematics (much), but that is 2 KILOMETERS. Translated into units that us Yanks can understand, that's like, uhhh, deep man. More than a mile. (about 6,600 feet, a mile is 5280)

Come on guy, do you have any idea how LITTLE of the ocean is that deep? The Mariannas Trench, for sure. Bits and pieces here and there. I don't believe that ANY of the Mediteranean is that deep. It is, after all, a shallow sea.

This one needs a little more research, don't ya think?

Sterilizing makes sense, but a little research on THAT idea, you'll find that it's rather EXPENSIVE. Meaning that it will have more than minimal impact on the industry. Workable, but expensive.

I only see 1 problem with this proposal. You require cycling to take place only in water that is 2000 meters deep. I'm not going to get into mathematics (much), but that is 2 KILOMETERS. Translated into units that us Yanks can understand, that's like, uhhh, deep man. More than a mile. (about 6,600 feet, a mile is 5280)

Come on guy, do you have any idea how LITTLE of the ocean is that deep? The Mariannas Trench, for sure. Bits and pieces here and there. I don't believe that ANY of the Mediteranean is that deep. It is, after all, a shallow sea.

This one needs a little more research, don't ya think?

Sterilizing makes sense, but a little research on THAT idea, you'll find that it's rather EXPENSIVE. Meaning that it will have more than minimal impact on the industry. Workable, but expensive.

Maybe you are right, but did you bother to do any of this research you are demanding others do?

If so you would have seen the following on your first google hit:
http://mbgnet.mobot.org/salt/oceans/data.htm

I'll repost the data for you:

Ocean :: Ave. Depth
Pacific :: 4,188 m
Atlantic :: 3,872 m
Indian :: 3,872 m
Arctic :: 1,038 m

But keep in mind that there is likely not that much international shipping traveling through the Arctic, and that which does travel through the Arctic is likely to enter the Pacific or Atlantic. Furthermore, these are averages, which means that the depth is actually significantly lower in places and naturally 0 m (much higher) at the shorelines.

The point of the depth of 2,000 m is to prevent invasive species from one location to survive and destroy the biodiversity in another region. The Sophista amendment was an excellent suggestion though, because it provided an alternative for international shipping that can't take advantage of cycling. The Med. is only 1,400 m deep on average, but I assure you that its deepest point exceeds 2,000 m.

And the point of your question isn't "what is the average ocean depth?" but instead what you are asking, rather rudely BTW, is "what is the percentage of ocean that is greater than 2,000 m?".

Please visit:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10p.html

I call your attention to figures 10p-1 and 10p-2. The green areas are called the contential rise. By definition they are all greater than 2,000 m in depth. The blue areas are the raw ocean floor. By definition they are all greater than 4,000 m.

Now I don't know about you, but I'd have to be a horrible navigator to not cross a green or blue patch in the Indian, Pacific, or Atlantic oceans. Even the middle of the Med. is far deeper than that Sea's 1,400 m average depth and thus ballast cycling would be allowed in many places in the Med.

I appreciated your interest and your questions. They were actually good.

10kMichael
p.s. if you are going to tell people to do research, please follow your own advice first, 'cause you will be less likely to have somebody quickly throw numbers right back at you?

[OOC: if you search for international maritime and ballast water I think you'll find out that this idea is not new ... if anything you'll see that the idea has been adapted from real international legislation]

Couple points, first, before I even attempt to address the proposal itself.

A: I have made no proposals regarding anything, to date. Therefore, I see no reason why I should have researched the consequences of a proposal.


B: To quote, "And the point of your question isn't "what is the average ocean depth?" but instead what you are asking, rather rudely BTW, is "what is the percentage of ocean that is greater than 2,000 m?". "

Any rudeness you percieve was unintentional, but it will go unapologized. The onus of doing research should primarily be on the ones doing the proposing. That is to say, if you have an idea important enough to present to the nations of the UN, you should be prepared to show research regarding your proposal. When did you google the average depths of those oceans? AFTER I questioned you on it?

As to the proposal itself. You seem to presume that all shipping passes over deep water, that is, water in excess of 2000 meters. In fact, without doing any research, lol, I would have to say that a considerable amount of shipping never sees deep water. There are innumerable shipments originating and destined for points on the same continent, or points within an island chain, etc. I presume research has been done to determine the impact this proposal would have on these "coasters", or coastal trading vessels.

While you have provided the average depths of the world's largest oceans, have you taken into account that considerable shipping never crosses an ocean, but is confined to to crossing relatively shallow seas? Do we then require a ship leaving one point on the Aegean sea, destined for another point on the Aegean sea, to make way to the deeper parts of the Med, just to cycle sea water? Not likely.

Research. I say the burden is upon the author(s) of the proposal to have done this research before submitting the proposal for consideration. Then you will be ready to shoot down my silly arguments without resorting to google AFTER I have made my silly argument.

Thank you now. LMAO




:D

if you have an idea important enough to present to the nations of the UN, you should be prepared to show research regarding your proposal. When did you google the average depths of those oceans?

The peoples of East Hackney cannot find the oceans referred to on any map. What is this so-called "Atlantic"?

- first off, it's advisable for proposals not to refer to real-world places or people, since those don't exist here and have no bearing on our arguments. Therefore any reference to real-world oceans etc would be inappropriate.

Second, this is a game, not an academic conference. I doubt many delegates want to see pages and pages of detailed research attached to every proposal. I think Mikitivity is going about this the right way - the forums are the place to debate and defend details like the 2000m figure, not the proposal itself, which should be limited to the essential details.



Then you will be ready to shoot down my silly arguments without resorting to google AFTER I have made my silly argument

We are deeply impressed with DubyaShrubland's apparent ability to read Mikitivity's mind. However, we feel that there may have been flaws in his telepathic scan, since Mikitivity's proposal shows every sign to us of having been thoroughly researched before submission.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Now, that was good for a laugh, East Hackney. First, you state that research is invalid, as this is a game. Then, you defend Mikitivity for having done that invald research before he made his proposal.

So, which way do you want it? LMAO :D

Now, that was good for a laugh, East Hackney. First, you state that research is invalid, as this is a game. Then, you defend Mikitivity for having done that invald research before he made his proposal.

[OOC]*sigh* Go back and read the post again.

You seemed to be demanding that Mikitivity put all his research - including details of real-world shipping routes, ocean depths etc - into the body of his proposal. I was pointing out that this forum, not proposals submitted to the UN, is the place to use real-world facts to support NS arguments.

Couple points, first, before I even attempt to address the proposal itself.

A: I have made no proposals regarding anything, to date. Therefore, I see no reason why I should have researched the consequences of a proposal.


Simple, you have already once implied a fact related to the debate (that the oceans aren't close to being over 2,000 m deep in most places -- a fact that I've shown is clearly wrong) and pretended to be informed on this issue. The minute you advocate a position and demand that others research their positions, you open yourself up to the same attack.

It is no different than when a jerk cries about how somebody has a spelling error or poor grammar that in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite they really should make sure to check their own grammar and spelling. It is called having a leg to stand on.

I've done and shared my research. I'm very aware of who has considered the matter carefully and who has not. Would you now like to share the research to back your position? Furthermore, would you like my nation to demand that you provide research to justify every one of your positions? It certainly is within my rights. It would be rude and petty, but it is the game you are now playing. Please consider that.

EXAMPLE:
Please prove to this body that a significant porition of the world's shipping will not be able to cycle ballast water. Surely you've researched this "fact" and will share your research with us. Or do you have something to hide?

[OOC: Have you bothered to read the links I posted? I've already hinted that I stole parts of this proposal from the IMO. I'm going to assume that anybody advocating a position on this issue at least knows what the IMO stands for. For the rest of you, it is the International Maritime Organization.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing poorly thought out environmental, gun control, voting rights, sex control proposals. So instead of just declaring "Let's save the oceans!" I did take the time to read US, UN, and some Canadian policies on ballast water. Also knowing how some creative delegates love to find loopholes in resolutions, when I saw some of the US - Canadian policies, I adopted their standards. Yeah, I know, we should make our own laws, but at the same time it is now clear to me that there are people who don't even realize how deep the world's oceans are.

If people want to claim that NationStates earth is subjected to different physics than our planet. Fine, lets have that debate. I've already stated that my own country uses SandWorms to travel around. That part of roleplaying is fun and encouraged. But lets not shut a discussion by first telling people that they've not researched the matter, for the simple reason that we might be wrong. They might have already done so.]

10kMichael

Now, that was good for a laugh, East Hackney. First, you state that research is invalid, as this is a game. Then, you defend Mikitivity for having done that invald research before he made his proposal.

So, which way do you want it? LMAO :D

By the Goddess!

Do you even read posts? The representative from East Hackney never said research is invalid. In fact, you've yet to provide any here.

East Hackney did point out that NationStates proposals shouldn't be expected to include lengthy pages of references and also stated that they are of the opinion that my nation has done the research that you are claiming we've not done.

Now of course, my nation has shared its research for its position on the matter. To date, your nation hasn't shown proof of having done any research and yet you advocate a position.

So let me ask you again, do you just make up your nation's positions at random or does your nation actually read proposals and then research them before making up and advocating a position.

Based on the fact that you clearly didn't read the East Hackney position, I'm inclined to think that perhaps your research comes from a Magic Eight Ball, but I would be happy to reconsider this assumption if you could shut up and start putting out the same things you are demanding from the rest of us.

10kMichael

okay Ive put the latest version of the ballast water proposal (with a slightly shallower depth measurement) to the UN, as it now includes steralising procedures I have called the proposal:
Ballast Water

Were I a delegate I would endorse this proposal, but since fate has yet to offer up a region of like-minded people who would install me as their representative, I'll have to be happy with sending a telegram to my own. I sincerely hope this proposal makes it in queue.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Were I a delegate I would endorse this proposal, but since fate has yet to offer up a region of like-minded people who would install me as their representative, I'll have to be happy with sending a telegram to my own. I sincerely hope this proposal makes it in queue.


It looks like it may fall some 20 votes shy, but there is a very good chance it may pass as well. Let us hope!

10kMichael

It looks like it may fall some 20 votes shy, but there is a very good chance it may pass as well. Let us hope!


Well, as only time can tell, the proposal failed to get those 20 votes in the last few hours.

With that in mind, as somebody interested in addressing both the economic and environmental concerns that protection such as the ballast water resolution provided, I'd appreciate feedback from the UN Delegates that did not endorse this proposal.

What would we have to address or change to change your lack of interest in better managing and perserving our coastal and estuary habitats into a future endorsement? I think I can speak on behalf of most of the proponents and say that if you can give us a bit of feedback that we will work to bring about an acceptable proposal.

Thank you,
10kMichael