NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, delegates, your vote is requested in this matter, in the hopes that we may pass this proposal that would keep our children and our children's children safe. The Greenhouse effect is becoming increasinly more of a threat to the global environment and to the human population's lifestyle of living on land. Should we ignore this issue, much of the world could become like Atlantis, lost to the sea for all of time. Please vote on this proposal and prevent our own extinction!

His Excellency, the Grand Magistrate Spaz of Spazzlopia
A member of the Coalition Affiliated Nations region

Please vote on this proposal delegates! Any nations with agricultural dependency will be vastly affected by the rise in seas! Overcrowding is imminent, leading to a rise in crime! Beach condos will be swallowed whole! This is a global effect that will harm all nations on this planet and must be stopped early, much the way that a cancer must be stopped in its early stages. Please, lend your support to the Proposal to Prevent the Greenhouse Effect!

His Excellency Grand Magistrate Spaz of Spazzlopia.

We would like to address a problem with wording. It is impossible to 'stop' or 'prevent' the greenhouse effect - it has always been around, and without it we would freeze. What we presume your proposal to be addressing is the speeding up of the greenhouse effect.

We DO need to do more about the Greenhouse affect. As soon as I win this election as delegate I'll vote for the proposal!

Yes, by all means, we need to stop this horrible Greenhouse effect.

I have warehouses of cold weather clothing just going to waste down here in sunny, warm Palinu. Only a complete stop to the Greenhouse effect, even the helpful aspects of it, will help the economy of my bemuda-shorts nation.

Please, delegates, your vote is requested in this matter, in the hopes that we may pass this proposal that would keep our children and our children's children safe. The Greenhouse effect is becoming increasinly more of a threat to the global environment and to the human population's lifestyle of living on land. Should we ignore this issue, much of the world could become like Atlantis, lost to the sea for all of time. Please vote on this proposal and prevent our own extinction!

His Excellency, the Grand Magistrate Spaz of Spazzlopia
A member of the Coalition Affiliated Nations region

My nation Mikitivity is in no danger due to sea level rise. It is landlocked, sitting upon on of the North Pacific's higher mountain ranges.

That said, I do have some opinions about climate change, because all nations will still be impacted by it. The first of which, I'd rather see a proposal addressing climate change, not just the greenhouse effect. Second, before endorsing any environmental or humanitarian proposal, would it be possible to post a draft and allow this forum to create a proposal collectively?

The reason I ask this, is before becoming Mikitivity's UN Ambassador, I was our Minister of Environment. I've watched many poorly (and often incorrect) environmental resolutions be placed in front of this body. And since we each come from different backgrounds, I've seen many respected and welling meaning UN Ambassadors vote in favor of something that didn't always solve the problem they thought it did.

Could you post your proposal here?

Thanks,
10kMichael

I think there is some confusion here. The greenhouse effect is part of nature, to keep the planet warm. Without it, the planet would not trap heat and freeze. What it sounds like you're talking about is global warming, causing the ice caps to slowly melt until the point where all is flooded. Did I get that abou right?

I think there is some confusion here. The greenhouse effect is part of nature, to keep the planet warm. Without it, the planet would not trap heat and freeze. What it sounds like you're talking about is global warming, causing the ice caps to slowly melt until the point where all is flooded. Did I get that abou right?

You are quite right, but I'm assuming that the author of the proposal hasn't been able to check into the forum for the past day (which is completely understandible). With that in mind, I'll repost his / her proposal:


Pollutants filling the air, coupled with a weakened ozone layer have not only made the air more deadly to humans and solar radiation increasingly dangerous, but the planet is being turned into a greenhouse. Heat levels are increasing worldwide, and areas nearest to polar regions are beginning to experience strange weather phenomena yearly. We are speeding our way to glacial melting, causing a rising of the seas. As the seas rise, more land will be covered, providing less room for countries populace. As people move inward from the advancing seas, grazing areas will be cut down and over-run with building projects for a population that has shown no signs of decline. Within the next hundred years, the human race could face irreversible issues of land for population, loss of grazing and farming land for agricultural areas, and overcrowding of metropolitan areas. It is imperative that this issue be addressed immediately, to take preventative steps after proper research to insure a thriving planet.

In this proposal, there will be more stringent laws against emissions, a reduction in the amount of fossil fuel dependency, and a gradual increase in wind, solar, and hydro-electric power sources.


Now that you have a chance to look at it, feel free to point out some of the problems with the proposal. If you don't, I will. Though I will say that I personally don't like the format of the proposal at all and find its action "more stringent laws" to be irresponsibly vague.

I will also add that while hydro-power seems great, that it has other important environmental side-effects. In the North Pacific, hydro electric facilities were built by many nations including my own in the past one hundred years. Since that time, the populations of anadromous fish have been virtually wiped out, downstream esturaries have experience huge salinity intrusions which has killed most of the brackish plant and animal life that were unique to North Pacifc deltas, and many North Pacific nations are experiencing a significant erosion control problem both along inland value rivers and the coasts.

That said, I've never met an environmentalist who knew what he or she was doing who seriously advocated the construction of dams in the past 50 years. Not a single one.

Solar cells? Well, they have their own problems.

Anyway, all that said, environmental solutions don't work if you ignore the root cause: consumption. There are economic strategies that can reduce electric demand. There are other technological fixes that can improve energy use efficiency thus reducing demand. And we've not even talked about population control policies.

If you want to reduce the global rate of increase in greenhouse gas production, then you should do more than just say, "Greenhouse gases will be reduced." Nobody expects somebody to produce light by just saying, "Let there be light" and yet time and again, I've witnessed people think they can clean the environment by saying "Let there be clean air."

I don't know about you, but I don't feel like a god! That said, I actually do have ideas on how to make a start to address the problem, which is very real. And that is to move from a very general approach and at least suggest a few specific optional measures and then over time evaluate their effectiveness.

10kMichael

Very well put! I have to agree with you, it is awfully vague. And although we can reduce more excessive amounts of "greenhouse gases" like CFC's, there is no fool proof way to produce energy without drawbacks. Solar and wind power is good, but can we really rely on that to power the world? However, I would very much like to reduce the output of pollutants.

Very well put! I have to agree with you, it is awfully vague. And although we can reduce more excessive amounts of "greenhouse gases" like CFC's, there is no fool proof way to produce energy without drawbacks. Solar and wind power is good, but can we really rely on that to power the world? However, I would very much like to reduce the output of pollutants.

I think your last point reminded me of something, even if solar power or nuclear power produce hazardous waste, the question of the inability to control the burning of fossil fuels even at their source combined with the fact that one country's production of CO2 (one of the principal greenhouse gases), without a doubt impacts on all other countries.

In other words, even if you kill off your own salmon, at least you aren't killing your neighbors in order to meet your energy demands.

I guess I'm just trying to say that my nation encourages the idea of reducing global CO2 levels, and I think that the above proposal can be used as a starting point for building a really great series of environmental resolutions that address climate change (just how I'd love to see the ballast water proposal get enough endorsements to become a resolution ... because the minute it becomes a resolution I'm positive that it will enjoy over 10,000 votes in favor while setting the standard for future environmental proposals).

That said, the author of the proposal did at least understand that population pressures were a large problem. I'd like to see this proposal rewritten in a way that ideas like that aren't lost. Again, I'd point to the current UN resolution on Banning Child Soldiers as a useful starting point. It is OK to have a resolution that is about 90% justification and just a simple call for action. Immediate action? No, I think it is to soon to come up with a coordinated international response. But an agreement that there is a problem? Oh, we are certainly ready for that!

I'd love to hear how other people feel on the subject of climate change in general.

10kMichael