NationStates Jolt Archive

As our government offices' tech department finally returns us access to the Internet, we proporse this resolution. Rather late, yes, but... well, we'll re-submit it next round. Meanwhile, any comments or criticism very welcome.

~~~

Progressive Industrialisation

The United Nations,

Aware, of the need to protect the environment for the future,

Concerned, that poor economic conditions prevalent in some member states lead to a low quality of life and a poor life expectancy for said nations' citizens,

1) Lauds, moderate and feasible environmental protection plans;

2) Decides, that no environmental protection plan should be implemented in a member state if it is likely to result in economic damage to the state sufficient to harm the quality of life of the state's citizens;

3) Declares, that the well-being of the citizens of member states should always be prioritized over the protection of the environment.

~~~

Yep.

Sincerely,

Office of the Prime Minister

2) Decides, that no environmental protection plan should be implemented in a member state if it is likely to result in economic damage to the state sufficient to harm the quality of life of the state's citizens;

3) Declares, that the well-being of the citizens of member states should always be prioritized over the protection of the environment.

We find this a little vaguely worded. What if a state considers that a 1% rise in prices of a particular good as a result of environmental measures causes harm to its citizens' quality of life? There are some nations on this forum who consider any environmental measures at all to be a diabolical infringement on their right to destroy the planet for the sake of a quick buck. We fear that this would give them leeway to continue their reckless and short-sighted policies.

Comrade Albert
Delegate for the Economy

That's... crazy talk... no-one would use this resolution's vague wording to unfairly benefit industry at the environment's expense... <shifty eyes> We know our government wouldn't... <very shifty eyes>... Besides, are you saying that the lives of trees in old-growth forests are more important than our children growing up with a roof over their heads? What kind of inhumane anti-human-rights government are you?! <eyes shifting around in a manner so suspicious that it should not really be medically possible> Terrorism! Ow! Our pupils... anyway, yes, this will be re-submitted tomorrow, when it will, hopefully, gain some much-needed endorsementage. To ensure that humanity's priorities are set straight.

Office of the Prime Minister

without a sustainable environment economic development is like marching backwards with your eyes closed.

what are needed are plans and policies that motivate and encourage harmonious and sustainable intigration of tecnological infrastructure into a natural landscape whose cycles of renewal upon which all life is utterly dependent are conscentiously revered, not for some arbitrary aesthetic but as a simple basic understanding of reality.

=^^=
.../\...

Environmental protection takes alot of money to enforce, money which in developing nations is needed for everyting from upfdating water/elctrical infrastructure, to the military.
All wealthy nations go through a period of environmental destruction before they advance far enough to have the wealth to institute an environmental protection plan.
To many nations this would seem like the rich nations of the world making demands on the poorer nations with no real gain for the poor.

Rehochipe, as a developing nation with firmly-held environmental principles, holds that this 'inevitable progression' model of economic development is a fallacious and historicist argument. Considerable development has gone into affordable environmentally-friendly technologies, many much more appropriate to small economies than heavy industrial varieties; for instance, the use of small-scale biomass converters and localised solar plants is not only more environmentally friendly, but more appropriate to the power needs of developing nations.

And how does economic harm constitute a loss to quality of life when pollution isn't judged to? This document is a mandate for exploitation.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry for Being Nice

We agree with the statements given by Carlemnaria and The Bloodied Saber. Environmental enforcement is an enormous burden on a governments personel resources and assets. Corporations that are short-sighted enought not to see that a sustained environment is equivalent to a sustained source of natural resources is doomed to failure. Market forces alone will dictate that corporations interested in their long-term profitability will preserve the environment in such a way that their businesses can continue. Government intervention into the influences of these market pressures are what result injudicious companies continuing to survive. When the government steps in to protect some resource from a short-sighted company, they prevent that company from going under by preventing company from making a mistake that would greviously harm the company's overhead and supply costs.

So, wait - we should let short-sighted companies screw up the environment, because that'd kill off the short-sighted companies together with the rest of us?
I've heard of fuzzy logic, but this is ridiculous.

We've submitted the proposal -- as a Significant Free Trade proposal, for lack of a better category. Surely, it will recieve many endorsements... yes... but at any rate, to the debate.

Our government's position is that there is no intrinsic value to nature. We believe in animal rights, but only for those animals that exhibit intelligence -- say, dolphins, and certain other cetaceans, and some higher apes, and... that's pretty much it. As to environmental protection, we see it as wasteful and unneeded. The natural environment is not necessary to human life.

Truly, why do we need a sustainable biosphere, from a human perspective? Why does it matter if certain species become extinct? As humans, we can rely on a limited number of the planet's vast collection of animal and plant types for our survival. For example, we need to eat. We eat a relatively small number of creatures (when you consider the total number of species in existence) -- say, cows, and fish, and a few others. So let's put these species on farms, where they can be harvested efficiently and in large numbers, thus ensuring our survival. Let us ensure that species that these edible creatures directly rely on -- say, the plants eaten by cows -- are also protected. Once this is done, our food supply is secure. And at this point, why should we worry about protecting a natural environment which we do not need, as it can be effectively replaced, for our purposes, with farms?

As to the effects of pollution on our health, that is a different matter altogether. It is a concern which should be handled by national health departments, or other United Nations resolutions. This proposal deals only with the environment. If a factory dumps poison chemicals into a river that is used as a supply of water, the owners of the factory are commiting a crime not because they are destroying a river, but because they are harming humans who drink water from the river. A different issue altogether, and one, once again, beyond the scope of this proposal. The same goes for air pollution. We suggest building factories further away from residential zones, for one thing.

What this proposal would do: It would, for example, ensure that a developing country can access natural resources which can give its economy a source of much-needed capital without having to waste funds on protecting forests from excessive logging or mining. Or, if a region that constitutes a natural habitat needs to be made available to an expanding population for construction of residence and commerce zones, that need would be protected by this proposed resolution as well (remember how quickly this planet's already-vast population is growing).

As to global warming, which will be another major point of debate here, we are certain: this is still a controversial topic, regardless of what you may have heard on your favorite political radio shows. Our planet undergoes a natural climate change cycle. There have been ice ages in the past, and there have been times when areas which are now temperate were covered with tropical jungles. There have been times when sea levels were far higher and far lower than they are today. We may well be contributing to this climate pattern in some way, but the extent to which we are is very open to questioning. It is quite possible that our species' very very brief history of industrialisation just happened to coincide with a natural warm-up period. Until more is known, it would be premature and foolish to let our industry go down the drain -- it is preciesly that industry that will support the technological and scientific advancements we will need to understand climate change in the future.

At any rate, we will need to deal with global climate change sooner or later, regardless of whether our industries continue to produce CO2 gas or not. If humanity survives for long enough (and we certainly PLAN to survive,) we will have to deal with ice ages and rising sea levels in the future no matter what we do, because we know from fossil records and other evidence of the past that this planet's climate can and does change -- and change drastically -- for natural reasons. We will have to deal with climate change sooner or later, and, given our technological development, we are as ready to deal with it now as we've ever been. Thus, just because it's POSSIBLE that this planet's natural climate change cycle is in some way INFLUENCED by our industrial development, it does not follow that we must close down factories and grind industrialisation in poorer nations to a halt just to be, so to speak, 'on the safe side.' This is a big decision, not to be made lightly, without further information.

So, in conclusion of our long rant, industry = important, environment = less important.

Sincerely,

Office of the Prime Minister

There have been times when sea levels were far higher and far lower than they are today. We may well be contributing to this climate pattern in some way, but the extent to which we are is very open to questioning. It is quite possible that our species' very very brief history of industrialisation just happened to coincide with a natural warm-up period. Until more is known, it would be premature and foolish to let our industry go down the drain

So many holes in this argument we don't know where to begin, but we may as well start here. Humankind's contribution to climate change is not under serious question by anyone except US presidents and their polluting buddies. Even if it were under question, it would be foolish to do anything other than to take the safest possible course for the continuing existence of humankind - that is, to dramatically scale back pollution.

The idea that climate change is some larger, natural process that we can't have any major influence on is a myth. The earth's climate is a delicate balance, and our CO2 emissions could easily tip that balance dramatically.

The argument that environmental protection necessarily destroys industry is another myth. Yes, it increases production costs. That only hits industry in one country if industries in other countries are left free to pollute - which is why international action by the UN is the appropriate way of protecting the environment. It will not cause industry to "go down the drain", merely scale back the current glut of global overproduction to a level which we can actually sustain without destroying ourselves.

We second Rehochipe's argument that developing countries need not follow the path of developed ones, making the same mistakes along the way. Most developed nations built the bulk of their industry in the 19th century, before any serious work had been done on climate change and pollution. Now that we know a great deal about those two fields, it would be downright criminal to allow further development on the same lines. As Rehochipe points out, there are new and better ways of going about industrialisation, starting with spurning oil and coal in favour of cleaner energy.

As for the argument that market forces will always make corporations act in the best interests of the environment...utterly laughable. Find one real-world example where that's happened.

Comrade Albert
Delegate for the Economy

Bah. Increasing costs of production will make markets in manufacturing more difficult to enter, because they would require a greater initial investment of capital. In the modern world market, we need MORE competition, not less. Further, these same higher costs will drive prices up, and will make goods less accessible to consumers. People would buy fewer goods, which means companies would have less money to spend on wages, which means wages would fall, which means people would buy fewer goods still because they have less money to spend, and so on, in a vicious cycle of not-good-buying and falling wages, leading to economic collapse.

And, at present, drastically limiting pollution would require radically changing certain components of economy, such as power generation or the primary fuels used. This would have a huge cost, one that may severely limit development. Further, no equally efficient, cost-effective alternatives presently exist for currently used forms of energy generation. Any development of a clean power system would be disastrous to a developing economy because of its extremely high cost and low efficiency.

Furthemore, you can't just dismiss arguments that climate change is a natural process by calling them "myths." We, for example, hold that your entire post is just one big myth. And not the good kind, with cool battles between gods and scary monsters, either. Just a boring, foolish, and simplistic kind. But we would think twice about using that as our primary debate strategy.

There is no such thing as a delicately balanced system in nature. Things in nature evolve to last, because otherwise they dissapear, and delicate, balanced things that are easily upset tend to no longer exist on any major scale. The climate of nature is remarkably flexible and sturdy nowadays. The climate of this planet is not a delicately balanced system, but a kind of self-adjusting mechanism that slowly swings from one extreme to another as it responds to changing factors -- changing factors starting with human industry and ending with the number of sunspots on our star -- as such natural mechanisms tend to do. If the climate WERE a delicate system, well... then you'd have a hard time explaining the last Ice Age, which was not, we assure you, caused by humanity under-producing CO2 gas while replanting too many forests. The simple truth is that there is a billion factors influencing climate. Our industrial activity is neither the only nor the most significant of these. Different parts of our planet's climate system influence each other, the random flow of air currents influences climate, the activity of the sun influences climate, slowly shifting ocean currents influence climate a whole lot, the amount of cloud cover over a given part of the planet over a given period of time can influence climate in the long run. Thus, to believe that humanity's activities are of primary importance in climate change is arrogant and, well, wrong.

And, like we've said before, we'll need to deal with climate change sooner or later, whether we pollute or not, because we do not, and likely never will, control the climate any more than we control the day-to-day weather. There may not be much of a point to staying 'on the safe side' and slowing our industrial -- and, by extension, technological -- development. In fact, it may be detrimental. If we advance quickly industrially, we will be more prepared to respond to climate change in the future than if we slowly chug along, ever-careful not to step on any flowers along the way.

Yes. So endorsey endorsey!

Sincerely,

Office of the Prime Minister

Bump for correct human priorities.

It's probably immoral for us to bump our proposal twice in a row, but we're a government, which makes doing immoral things OK.

I'm a little hesitant to post here because it brings what I regard to be a very damaging proposal to the top of the forum. However, I'm in the mood for arguing.

The main problem with the arguments made by The Planetian Empire are that his/her science is only superficially sound. Yes, humans have a very small effect on global climate. Yes, we have had and will have glacial and interglacial ages that are not caused by human activity. Yes, the sun's effect is on a much larger scale. However, the majority of scientist studying this issue maintain that we are having a dangerously adverse effect on the environment that has the potential for disaster on a massive scale. Why?

Now, I accept that scientists on both sides of the argument are subject to vested interests and/or dogmatic behaviour (many governments, academic institutions, journals and corporations stifle research that is contrary to their views). This is a tragedy for science in itself. Nonetheless, I trust that enough scientists are genuine and neutral to pay serious attention to their findings.

The underlying assumption in the 'superficial science' line of thinking is that humanity's comparatively small contribution to climate change is insignificant. However, the world's climate is based on negative feedback systems. In other words, systems that effectively have 'dampeners' in place to ensure that they are stable. We are destabilising these systems.

Small changes can have large effects. Effectively, we're unintentionally exploiting a conveniently placed lever or fulcrum. This kind of action leads to the generation of positive feedback cycles. These are bad for the planet as they are out of control and escalate rapidly (if you'll forgive a brief step into the real world, please take a look at some of the theories behind Venus' current atmosphere).

I admit to also having a woollier justification for opposing this proposal and make no apology for it. It's based on ethics; woolly, moral facets to our personalities that we all have to varying degrees. I believe that there is intrinsic value in the universe around us beyond that which is qualitatively useful for humanity. In other words, Ecopoeia's position is that there is intrinsic value in nature, including in the non-living. One consequence of this view is that we have a very conservative view of what constitutes responsible terraformation of other planetary bodies.

We therefore oppose this proposal on the grounds of science and ethics.

Ann Clayborne
Speaker for the Environment
The Community of Ecopoeia

So, wait - we should let short-sighted companies screw up the environment, because that'd kill off the short-sighted companies together with the rest of us?
I've heard of fuzzy logic, but this is ridiculous.

This is a rather knee-jerk response to our position. The reason that our environment has suffered in the manner that it has is that the correct demonstration of the corporate concequences has never been allowed to happen. Leaders of companies that participate in activities that harm the environment have never been allowed to feel the consequences of their actions because various governments step in wrongly feeling that "surely all of humanity and life on earth will cease." Governments have been just as short-sighted as most corporations have been. Once it is shown that environmental damage and depletion of resources used as raw materials for industry directly affect a company's bottom line, they will voluntarily act in more "environmentally friendly" fashion. Take for example a fishing industry. If a particular fishing area were completely depleted of game, the fishing industry in the region would fold. Yes, it would be an enormous hardship for the people at the time, and rougher still on the environment, but both would bounce back given time and encouragement, and the lesson would be learned. Future companies would fish in more responsible ways that would preserve the environment and with it their livelyhood.

The argument that environmental protection necessarily destroys industry is another myth. Yes, it increases production costs. That only hits industry in one country if industries in other countries are left free to pollute - which is why international action by the UN is the appropriate way of protecting the environment.

We second Rehochipe's argument that developing countries need not follow the path of developed ones, making the same mistakes along the way. Most developed nations built the bulk of their industry in the 19th century, before any serious work had been done on climate change and pollution. Now that we know a great deal about those two fields, it would be downright criminal to allow further development on the same lines. As Rehochipe points out, there are new and better ways of going about industrialisation, starting with spurning oil and coal in favour of cleaner energy.


My government will stand beside New Hackney and Rehochipe on this issue. Environmental Protection does not come as the expensive of quality of life nor at the expensive of economic growth. But it does require careful domestic and international management for the exact reason that my esteemed colleague from New Hackney has pointed else, lest precious non-renewable resources will be inefficently used.

The clause of the proposal that states that environmental protection should never come at the expensive of industrial growth is completely misleading. Sustainable development is type of economic management that stresses long-term management of resources in order to sustain a higher standard of living. Sustainable development is a doctrine that is promoted by all sound environmental management practices.

If you will take the time to look at the old proposal on ballast water management, I think you will see a working example of how careful management of an industrial process will eventually lead to protection of biological diversity while reaffirming the important of international shipping to our economies. The people who live in the coastal communities already protected by ballast water management protocols already enjoy immediate benefits of not having to waste resources in costly mitigation measures. In short, there often is a long-term savings in prevention management when compared to the costs of management by crisis policies.

With that in mind, I urge you to reconsider this proposal, as I can assure you my nation will actively LOBBY against this proposal or anything of the sort.

10kMichael

Yes, humans have a very small effect on global climate.
While I agree with the rest of your statement, many leading Miervatian and Nikto scientists actually are of the professional based opinion that human impact on the global climate is significant.

That said, the UN Ballast Water Management proposal will be resubmitted in a few days. Nations that believe that it is possible to protect the environment while also sustaining an ecomony should look at this proposal as just an example to see first hand what sustainable development is all about.


10kMichael

Development need not be massive in scale to succeed. Microenterprises employ hundreds of thousands gloabally with little negative impact; their full potential has yet to be realized.

QUOTE:

Ecopoeia wrote:
Yes, humans have a very small effect on global climate.

Mikitivity: While I agree with the rest of your statement, many leading Miervatian and Nikto scientists actually are of the professional based opinion that human impact on the global climate is significant.

To clarify, human output of greenhouse gases etc is relatively small. However, this does not make it insignificant. Butterflies and storms, again. So, I think (hope) we are in agreement on this as well?

Kind regards
Ann Clayborne
Speaker for the Environment

Take for example a fishing industry. If a particular fishing area were completely depleted of game, the fishing industry in the region would fold. Yes, it would be an enormous hardship for the people at the time, and rougher still on the environment, but both would bounce back given time and encouragement, and the lesson would be learned. Future companies would fish in more responsible ways that would preserve the environment and with it their livelyhood.

The state of North Sea fishing stocks is a direct contradiction of this example. Having depleted cod stocks to levels where the fishing industries of all nations are suffering dreadfully, the prevalent approach of the fishing industry is still to poach fish from each other's waters, to move on to new species that decades ago would have been regarded as no good for anything but catfood, and to catch younger and younger cod.

More generally, the first thing industries tend to damage is not their own interests. Some of the most irresponsible types of industry - slash-and-burn agriculture, for instance, or strip mining - work on an explicit principle of taking what they can and moving on. These are not companies with a horizon extending beyond the next handful of fiscal years. At what point are the pollutants and erosion caused by strip-mining going to adversely affect the mining industry? At what point is the problem of waste management going to affect the wrap-everything-in-five-layers-of-plastic retail industry? And even industries that get directly affected by their own misdeeds often respond by redoubling their efforts. Has the scarcity of tigers made the market for tiger-bone products sit up and think? No - it's merely made tiger bone a more expensive commodity, and hence given the hunters even more incentive. Now the bones of other big cats are being passed off as tiger, museum specimens are being looted, and so on. Short story: market forces are stupid. Generally, their only negative feedback mechanism is their own complete exhaustion.