NationStates Jolt Archive

Ballast Water
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Jamalya
Description: Ballast water is a major vector for invasive marine species. By mandatory cycling of ballast water member nations waters we will reduce the introduction and spead of weedy invasive species such as zebra mussel and northern pacific sea star with minimum disruption to industry.


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 1,600 meters in depth;
2. FURTHER RECOMENDS that independant nations pass legislation to mandate the installation of nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------
THIS PROPOSAL IS RIDICULOUS! The methods proposed for ballast are not only utterly useless in preventing aquatic environmental hazards, but show complete lack of understanding of ballasts. Obviously if a ship needs to empty its ballasts, it cannot go and find a place that exceeds 1600 meters in depth. Also, installing nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships would be unbelievably expensive. The fact is, this proposal will do nearly nothing to help the ocean environment, yet it will be at great cost and inconvenience to shippers, governments, and transport in general. I urge everyone to veto this proposal before it ruins the shipping industry.

Also, installing nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships would be unbelievably expensive. The fact is, this proposal will do nearly nothing to help the ocean environment, yet it will be at great cost and inconvenience to shippers, governments, and transport in general. I urge everyone to veto this proposal before it ruins the shipping industry.

Installation on domestic ships that happen to venture into international waters as well.

It is yet another intrusive UN proposal. Boiled down, it probably increases environment a little, while reducing industry a little, but it infringes upon national sovereignty. It also could have stood to had a debate while in draft form and spellchecked. Perhaps requiring a higher percent of UN regional delegates to endorse a proposal would weed out more of these.

-----------------------------------------------------------
THIS PROPOSAL IS RIDICULOUS! The methods proposed for ballast are not only utterly useless in preventing aquatic environmental hazards, but show complete lack of understanding of ballasts. Obviously if a ship needs to empty its ballasts, it cannot go and find a place that exceeds 1600 meters in depth. Also, installing nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships would be unbelievably expensive. The fact is, this proposal will do nearly nothing to help the ocean environment, yet it will be at great cost and inconvenience to shippers, governments, and transport in general. I urge everyone to veto this proposal before it ruins the shipping industry.

OOC:
Actually, if you'll do a google search of existing Canadian and California Ballast Water regulations and then existing UN International Maritime Organization regulations, you'll see that this proposal just borrowed existing clauses. I understand you are roleplaying the part of a trouble maker, but frankly I seriously doubt you understand that most international shipping OUTSIDE of the NationStates world already follow these standards.
I'll argue an in character case for this proposal, but frankly it is perhaps one of the most sound proposals to be brought forward.
Michael

It is yet another intrusive UN proposal. Boiled down, it probably increases environment a little, while reducing industry a little, but it infringes upon national sovereignty. It also could have stood to had a debate while in draft form and spellchecked. Perhaps requiring a higher percent of UN regional delegates to endorse a proposal would weed out more of these.

You are making statements about something you know little about. It was debated for WEEKS in draft form. Just search the archives.

But please show us, what is misspelled? Or is this your standard statement in response to a resolution?
10KMichael

This proposal doesn't do anything except suggest, recommend, call upon, and request. I will be voting 'no' regardless of its merits, because it's not a law, it's a list of shoulds, coulds, and oughtas. Not worth my time.

:heart high school policy debate: =)

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

In fact de-oxygenation is a much better system than the ballast water exchange. And it is cheaper over the long run.

Ballast Water Exchange(BWE) is extraordinarily expensive and ineffeicient. It has been used for years in the US and has not cut down on the 137 Billion dollars wasted on it each year. In fact invasive species, over the past 100 years (according to the Environmental Protection Agency) have been the cause of 70% of aqautic extinctions. So obvisouly it is a problem, but it is being addressed the wrong way. In fact, the use of a de-oxygenation system is much more efficient, and cost effective...Here's why.


De-oxygenation systems, not nitrogen replacement, but true de-oxygenation sysyems, cut invasive specie precence in the tank by 95-99%. Furthermore, the average system costs about 1 million dollars over the lifetime of a ship. Yet, each shipowner, over the lifetime of a ship (estimated 25 years) spends about 10 million in rust corrosion costs. An added benefit to ridding the waters of a huge financial and ecological burden, is that the system cuts corrosion costs by 90%. Therefore, you save, per ship owner, 8 million dollars. (10million*.9-1million= 8 ). So, in fact, the propossed resolution would do nothing to solve the problem. Plus the passage on de-oxygenation systems in said resolution is a lie at best. Therefore I urge all members to rebuke this proposition.

:heart high school policy debate: =)

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

That is where all my information is coming from. Don't know this much about most stuff...lol.

This proposal doesn't do anything except suggest, recommend, call upon, and request. I will be voting 'no' regardless of its merits, because it's not a law, it's a list of shoulds, coulds, and oughtas. Not worth my time.

Consider this:

On Feb. 24, 2004 the following resolution was passed by this body: Rights and Duties of UN States A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

I'll quote three sections of that resolution that basically encourage resolutions to recommend, call upon, and request:


Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.


A summary of the above is to say, that the NationStates UN can agree to deal with international problems, but that it should respect sovereignty while doing so.

[OOC: It is against game mechanics to actually enforce actions. We can't kick people out of the UN if they want to roleplay and say they aren't following a UN resolution. Trust me, I tried to nail a certain nation that would committing genocide. So if you aren't going to vote in favor of resolutions because they can't enforce anything, then what is the point of staying in the UN? It can't EVER enforce anything!]

With this in mind, a few seasoned UN members started a thread which is stickied above on how to write UN resolutions:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124639

You'll see that this resolution is based on that guide.

10kMichael

In fact de-oxygenation is a much better system than the ballast water exchange. And it is cheaper over the long run.

Ballast Water Exchange(BWE) is extraordinarily expensive and ineffeicient. It has been used for years in the US and has not cut down on the 137 Billion dollars wasted on it each year.

While I agree that there is some merit to de-oxygenation, in that it also protects the ship's inner hull and sea chests (and with that in mind it is also worth pursuing), I don't see where your $137 Billion price tag came from.

Can you reference that cost? I'd be curious to read more about this source, but it still doesn't sound right to me. I will however keep an open mind, and if there is a better way to protect the environment, my nation will support it!

[OOC: Keep in mind that the State of California already has a Ballast Water Cycling standard as does Canada. Other US state level environmental protection departments are moving this direction, as well as the UN's International Maritime Organization. I would find it hard to imagine that your cost is anywhere accurate given the number of governments that are considering this an important program. I'd say this in character, but I hate to just cite existing laws ... but when people bring up references to US$ amounts, you kinda have to respond in kind. If you'd like, I'll find the California legislation in addition to US Coast Guard standards and post the links. But obviously I think half the fun is actually in using google to educate ourselves.] :D

What is wrong with speeding up the evolution? The survival of the fittest? If one marine organism survives better in an environment is not a problem of humans. It will interfer with the natural evoulution of survival of the fittest. The more fit organism will adopt in that very climate sooner or later anyway. A vote for this is a vote agains evolution.

The law will only have the affect that it will increase transportation cost between countries. It will create larger unemployment and social problem in poor countries as they will have more difficulties in reaching a global market with thier products. A vote for this is a vote for larger unequalities between rich and poor.

And what about the humans, why not limit their transportation? That would create less hazards for the environment. How much polution doesn't come from the transportation of humans. It is better to limit human transportation that transportation of marine organisms, that will have a better effect on the environment.

Vote. NO

What is wrong with speeding up the evolution? The survival of the fittest?

There are hidden dangers, but very real ones to human populations as well.

In Arnold Schwartzenegers fictional book, "California: A Different World", he talked about this creature called a Chinese Mitten Crab. The species was an invasive species that traveled in ballast water to one of his fictional California's ports called San Francisco. There the crabs, which are a delicacy in another fictional place he called China, came off the ship and managed to spread across the estuary.

Now Schwarzeneger's California is a huge land. So huge that it has a massive government water project, which he calls the SWP, that moves water from its precipitation rich northern mountains across 1,000s of kilometers to a huge urban center called Los Angeles (again fictional ... nobody knows where this place California or the United States is suppose to be in NationStates). The water is necessary because Los Angeles is in a desert. It gets little rainfall every year, and yet it has one of the largest urban populations in the world ... according to Arnold.

Anyway, in a few years time, the Chinese Mitten Crabs managed to swim to some massive state pumps that move water through the San Francisco Bay Estuary down to Los Angeles. Unfortunately these crabs have armored bodies, kinda like most crabs do, and they managed to destroy fish screens and several of the state intake pumps, which cost the state millions of dollars in repairs.

By the time the state decided to hire biologists to hunt the crabs, which you might think are superior, their numbers had grown to the point to where the effort was futile. Arnold wrote about how the state ran into other problems with electricity and just bad management, so it had lost its credit rating.

So while you would say invasive species are smart for going into a new habitat, Arnold's Mitten Crabs are probably right now talking about how dumb human beings are for not killing them when they had the chance. In fact, I'm sure if a Chinese Mitten Crab were a real creature that it would say, "Resistence is Futile! You will be assimilated!"

Just goes to show that not everything is so black and white ... that is if you actually believe in Arnold's fictional place called California. But hey, next I'm sure somebody will insist that there is a United States of America and a Sweden as well!

You bring up fiction figures like an Arnold to defend a proposal that will have severe consequences for the poor people in the world? It is scary what some countries do to suppress other countries.

The poor peolpe in my poor country could better use the funds that might be used for implementation of this resolution as aid. If introduced we would have to redirect fundings from other more important programs to implement this resolution, which, honestly, probably might not be possible. That means that we would suffer worse from this so called problem and get even further behind the rich countries.

At the risk of sounding coarse, the Holy Empire of Gethamane suggests that Probus hire the legions of poor people from their country (in addition to trained professionals) as manual laborers in this project, which will almost certainly be a government funded project. Granted, it doesn't make money materialize; you have to find it somewhere, and may have to pull from some other programs. However, Gethamane feels that the initial costs will be the most deterimental, and by following this suggestion, the money is indirectly given to the poor and Probus is brought up to compliance.

Naturally, that solution is imperfect... but if your country is poor (as Gethamane very much is), certain sacrifices must be made. We ourselves are considering that solution should this resolution pass, which we hope it does.

Of course, other suggestions to alleviate the financial burden are always appreciated. But let us not sell our maritime environments out.

We know that you are notable for strong anti-business politics, this is just another step in that direction. Anti free-trade with hidden costs for export that is what you are talking about. If the rich countries are concerned about the environment that they say they are, there are several ways to go about to achive this. The best would be to increase the import from poor countries, increase international trade and transport, not to decrease it with UN resolutions.

We are a proud people that believe in hard work, not in resolutions that only favours the rich countries. Who do you think have the know-how to build the nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers that will be required. It is just another political manouver from the rich countries to keep the rest of the world poor.

We would be embarassed of mankind and the United Nation if this resolution would pass. It would just be a proof that the world is owned by the rich nations.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane would be glad to entertain this subject from a nation that is actually affected in the ways you speak of. To our shame, Gethamane is one of the poor countries, and yet we have implored our regional delegate (successfully) to endorse and vote for this proposal, and have ourselves voted for it.

On another note, the Holy Empire of Gethamane fails to understand how increasing maritime transport without addressing environmental concerns (namely the ones addressed by this proposal) would be of greater benefit to the environment. If the Representative from Probus was, in fact, suggesting as such, Gethamane would appreciate an explanation.

Finally, due to the fact that the Nation of Probus lacks any social welfare, and the fact that their corporations are running rampant over their populace, the Holy Empire of Gethamane believes Probus is engaging in little more than filibustering, and implores all Nations to vote in FAVOR of this fine proposal.

that means my millitery fleet has to do that 2 right i voted yes

-----------------------------------------------------------
THIS PROPOSAL IS RIDICULOUS! The methods proposed for ballast are not only utterly useless in preventing aquatic environmental hazards, but show complete lack of understanding of ballasts. Obviously if a ship needs to empty its ballasts, it cannot go and find a place that exceeds 1600 meters in depth. Also, installing nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships would be unbelievably expensive. The fact is, this proposal will do nearly nothing to help the ocean environment, yet it will be at great cost and inconvenience to shippers, governments, and transport in general. I urge everyone to veto this proposal before it ruins the shipping industry.

In response to your concerns, I urge you to read more carefully. It says to CYCLE the ballast water at a depth of 1600 meters, not empty it. Thus, by cycling the water in open ocean, they remove the foreign organisms and replace it with ocean dwelling organisms, which are found worldwide rather than locally. When the ship then empties its ballasts when it needs to, it is emptying ocean water rather than foreign materials. (I'm not positive on the factual truth of this argument, but it seems logical to me.)

Yes, it would be unbelievably expensive. The author knew this and openly stated that the proposal was "at the expense of industry."

Also, it is intended to help port ecosystems, NOT the ocean. This would negate your complaint of it not helping the ocean environment. If you still believe that nonocean waters are not helped by this proposal, you should do more research. Have you even heard of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)? They are a European mollusk that somehow ended up in the Great Lakes, and have since spread throughout much of North America, decimating local ecosystems. Nonindigenous species are notoriously bad for the environment. Allow me to quote this website: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/zebra.mussel/docs/sp_account.html
Method of Introduction: It is highly likely that the presence of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes was a result of a ballast water introduction. Its rapid dispersal throughout the Great Lakes and major river systems was due to its ability to attach to boats navigating these lakes and rivers.
Impacts: Zebra mussels are notorious for their biofouling capabilities by colonizing water supply pipes of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, public water supply plants, and industrial facilities. They colonize pipes constricting flow, therefore reducing the intake in heat exchangers, condensers, fire fighting equipment, and air conditioning and cooling systems.
Most of the biological impacts of zebra mussels in North America are not yet known. However, information from Europe tells us that zebra mussels have the potential to severely impact unionids (native mussels) by interfering with their feeding, growth, locomotion, respiration, and reproduction.

This is just one example of an alien species corrupting an environment because it was brought in by ballast water. There are countless more.

[1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 1,600 meters in depth;


This would actually make ecological contamination worse. You'd be exchanging ballast water more and in more places and so even with the best filters and at depth you'd be causing the introduction of foreign species into more habitats than before

But please show us, what is misspelled? Or is this your standard statement in response to a resolution?

Did they spend weeks putting in the spelling errors? Did you read it or is this your standard response to critics?

...introduction and spead of weedy invasive species...
...independant nations pass legislation to mandate the installation of nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers...

This is all over-regulation....

Both the evolutionists and the God-given-rightists should agree that any voyagers in ballast tanks have the right to reproduce and spread in their destinations.

Not to sound cheap, but as a small, developing nation, how much money would this take away from the government? Taxes are already high enough, sacrificing industrial power for something that should be voluntary seems rather tainted towards nations with bodies of water adjacent to them. If you have no water to purify, but, still need to fund the UN for such, shouldnt this be a matter of a daily issue and not a UN resolution?

shouldnt this be a matter of a daily issue and not a UN resolution?

This would have been a better issue. It would have also been edited.

Of course The Holy Empire of Gethamane is glad to eat what fall from the powerful countries table, it is just a weak nation that do what the rich countries want it to do. It can't see beyond the resolution proposed, the politics and power play behind. It has no ambitions to change the world and distribute the wealth beyond the very few rich countries in the world and the very few rich people in it's own country. It is a shame that such countries are allowed to join the UN.

Does the Holy Empire of Gethamane think that the Chinese Mitten Crab is a dangerous animal? It is just a tiny crab used by rich countries to put restrictions on poor independent countries. Wake up! See the world as it is. Increased maritime transport, if a results from increased trade from us poor countries, will give us poor countries more funding to address vital issues. It will not be earmarked aid from rich countries that is given in pure political interest. How much of the funding received by Holy Empire of Gethamane has restrictions, declaring the recipient government incompetent by the so called donor country? As Nixon wrote "but as a small, developing nation, how much money would this take away from the government? Taxes are already high enough, sacrificing industrial power for something that should be voluntary seems rather tainted towards nations with bodies of water adjacent to them"

The Holy Empire of Gethamane tries to divert from the resolution proposed by attacking our government with false accusations. Our internal politics is not of any business of either the Holy Empire of Gethamane or the UN. We are a democratic country with free and open elections. The current government received 96.5% of the votes in the last election, up from 96.4 compared from the previous election. Our people stand firmly behind our country and the is very few countries that can say that.

Finally I must say that Sephrioth brought up another important aspect. By forcing military ships adhere to this issue the rich powerful countries are secretly trying to force poor independent countries to reduce it's military force, open them up to attacks and ousting independent countries that sees through their conspiracy.

But please show us, what is misspelled? Or is this your standard statement in response to a resolution?

Did they spend weeks putting in the spelling errors? Did you read it or is this your standard response to critics?

Yes, it is my standard response to critics who don't feel as if they need to show their point. Too many times people have no reason to justify a position against something so they just throw out standard responses.

Those are typos, because they weren't in the earlier drafts. But don't have a cow, they are typos and they aren't that many ... unless of course you were only highlighting but a fraction.

My original point that this proposal was around weeks ago and had only one negative comment, namely that 2,000 m was too deep, really goes to show how little most nations care about these things. Sometimes I wonder why they even are in the UN.

Personally, I'd love to see the people that attack proposals but never offer anything positive up see what happens should they write a proposal.

10kMichael

[1. RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 1,600 meters in depth;


This would actually make ecological contamination worse. You'd be exchanging ballast water more and in more places and so even with the best filters and at depth you'd be causing the introduction of foreign species into more habitats than before

How?

Creatures that are taken from ports that ... ballpark figure ... are only about 10 to 40 m deep can't survive in the deep oceans. Why? Simple, most of them need warm water with sufficient light.
When I first read about ballast cycling, I honestly thought the same thing. Then I did research (I used google) and saw that this process is not that expensive and it certainly wasn't putting the oceans at any greater risk.

But by your logical, we should just ban cycling of water all together, in order to prevent any ecological exchanges. Can you imagine what the costs of developing a system to maintain "draft" on cargo ships both in transit and in port would be? Whoa! Now that is a heafty price tag there!

10kMichael

-----------------------------------------------------------
THIS PROPOSAL IS RIDICULOUS! The methods proposed for ballast are not only utterly useless in preventing aquatic environmental hazards, but show complete lack of understanding of ballasts. Obviously if a ship needs to empty its ballasts, it cannot go and find a place that exceeds 1600 meters in depth. Also, installing nitrogen deoxification equiptment or UV steralizers on all international cargo ships would be unbelievably expensive. The fact is, this proposal will do nearly nothing to help the ocean environment, yet it will be at great cost and inconvenience to shippers, governments, and transport in general. I urge everyone to veto this proposal before it ruins the shipping industry.

OOC:
Actually, if you'll do a google search of existing Canadian and California Ballast Water regulations and then existing UN International Maritime Organization regulations, you'll see that this proposal just borrowed existing clauses. I understand you are roleplaying the part of a trouble maker, but frankly I seriously doubt you understand that most international shipping OUTSIDE of the NationStates world already follow these standards.
I'll argue an in character case for this proposal, but frankly it is perhaps one of the most sound proposals to be brought forward.
Michael

I agree whole heartedly! I supported it!

Of course The Holy Empire of Gethamane is glad to eat what fall from the powerful countries table, it is just a weak nation that do what the rich countries want it to do.

To clarify what is obviously a gross misunderstanding of Gethamane's foreign policy, as well as a blatant attack on said policy, Gethamane came to the conclusion to support this proposal on its own.

It can't see beyond the resolution proposed, the politics and power play behind. It has no ambitions to change the world and distribute the wealth beyond the very few rich countries in the world and the very few rich people in it's own country. It is a shame that such countries are allowed to join the UN.

Your arrogance is outshone only by your ignorance. Firstly, the Holy Empire of Gethamane has no ambitions to distribute the wealth equally for two reasons: A) Distributed wealth is a political ideal that we do not believe in, and B) Fair is not equal. Gethamane feels that it's a shame that countries who cannot bear to open their minds to other political ideals are allowed to join the UN.

Does the Holy Empire of Gethamane think that the Chinese Mitten Crab is a dangerous animal? It is just a tiny crab used by rich countries to put restrictions on poor independent countries. Wake up! See the world as it is.

Whether or not the Chinese Mitten Crab is dangerous or not, it was used to illustrate what could potentially happen. The situation presented is realistic.

Increased maritime transport, if a results from increased trade from us poor countries, will give us poor countries more funding to address vital issues. It will not be earmarked aid from rich countries that is given in pure political interest. How much of the funding received by Holy Empire of Gethamane has restrictions, declaring the recipient government incompetent by the so called donor country?

If you feel international aid is such a Power Game, then you have the choice to not engage in it.
Secondly, in the aforementioned "Chinese Mitten Crab" scenario, your costs would in fact go up if you failed to implement environmental protections.

As Nixon wrote "but as a small, developing nation, how much money would this take away from the government? Taxes are already high enough, sacrificing industrial power for something that should be voluntary seems rather tainted towards nations with bodies of water adjacent to them"

In the end, it is voluntary. But you should also consider that, regardless of how important your environment is to you, if your trade ships dock in another nation's waters, you're endangering their environment. Which is why this is an international concern in the first place.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane tries to divert from the resolution proposed by attacking our government with false accusations. Our internal politics is not of any business of either the Holy Empire of Gethamane or the UN. We are a democratic country with free and open elections. The current government received 96.5% of the votes in the last election, up from 96.4 compared from the previous election. Our people stand firmly behind our country and the is very few countries that can say that.

The people of my nation "vote" on their national leaders, too... But that's neither here nor there. However, be careful when attempting to speak on behalf of some undefined population (such as poor nations) because you never know when one may actually hear what you have to say.

Finally I must say that Sephrioth brought up another important aspect. By forcing military ships adhere to this issue the rich powerful countries are secretly trying to force poor independent countries to reduce it's military force, open them up to attacks and ousting independent countries that sees through their conspiracy.

Also note that Sephrioth also voted in favor of this proposal. I'll kindly chalk this last statement up to paranoia.

Finally, the Holy Empire of Gethamane plans to formally cease all trade with countries who refuse to make an effort to protect their environments. As environmental concerns are very important to Gethamane, as well as our unstable economic infrastructure, we cannot risk a contamination of foreign marine organisms.

It has no ambitions to change the world and distribute the wealth beyond the very few rich countries in the world and the very few rich people in it's own country. It is a shame that such countries are allowed to join the UN.

Finally I must say that Sephrioth brought up another important aspect. By forcing military ships adhere to this issue the rich powerful countries are secretly trying to force poor independent countries to reduce it's military force, open them up to attacks and ousting independent countries that sees through their conspiracy.

Two points:

1. Who is Rich?

Probus's economy is currently classified as Thriving. My own nation only ranks as Good, and that is during tourist season!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to view with mistrust statements coming from rich nations claiming to be poor!

2. Military Vessels

Most of our nations only allow military vessels into our home ports when we have military alliances with other nations. Besides, I seriously doubt an aggressor state is gonna give a hill of beans about any UN resolutions.

If people think this resolution is a secret attempt to limit the navies of rich nations that want to convince everybody they are poor ... uh yeah ... I think the Star Trek convention is in the bulletin boards just over there. *pointing really far away*

10kMichael

I openly laugh at the poor attempt of Gethamane to try to move the discussion from the topic of ballast water to an attack on our sovereign country. The only part where he stays on-topic he reveal his own ignorance.

As Nixon wrote "but as a small, developing nation, how much money would this take away from the government? Taxes are already high enough, sacrificing industrial power for something that should be voluntary seems rather tainted towards nations with bodies of water adjacent to them"

In the end, it is voluntary. But you should also consider that, regardless of how important your environment is to you, if your trade ships dock in another nation's waters, you're endangering their environment. Which is why this is an international concern in the first place.

This is what it is all about. If countries adopt this resolution, countires like ours can't take part in the international trade on a fair-trade basis. Our ships would be banned from their ports and our goods can not be sold in their countries.

Finally, the Holy Empire of Gethamane plans to formally cease all trade with countries who refuse to make an effort to protect their environments. As environmental concerns are very important to Gethamane, as well as our unstable economic infrastructure, we cannot risk a contamination of foreign marine organisms.

This is the only part where I admire Gethamane, where he openly shows whos interest he is serving, the rich and powerful countries.

It has no ambitions to change the world and distribute the wealth beyond the very few rich countries in the world and the very few rich people in it's own country. It is a shame that such countries are allowed to join the UN.

Finally I must say that Sephrioth brought up another important aspect. By forcing military ships adhere to this issue the rich powerful countries are secretly trying to force poor independent countries to reduce it's military force, open them up to attacks and ousting independent countries that sees through their conspiracy.

Two points:

1. Who is Rich?

Probus's economy is currently classified as Thriving. My own nation only ranks as Good, and that is during tourist season!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to view with mistrust statements coming from rich nations claiming to be poor!

2. Military Vessels

Most of our nations only allow military vessels into our home ports when we have military alliances with other nations. Besides, I seriously doubt an aggressor state is gonna give a hill of beans about any UN resolutions.

If people think this resolution is a secret attempt to limit the navies of rich nations that want to convince everybody they are poor ... uh yeah ... I think the Star Trek convention is in the bulletin boards just over there. *pointing really far away*

10kMichael

Maybe Mikitivity should find out the reasons why we are classified as a thriving economy. It happens that there are some very few lucky people that have had success in life and earned a some money. I am talking about the lion part of the population that are still poor.

Also, what use is there of a UN resolution if it is not obeyed by all countries at all time? If you agree on a resolution just to disregard it when you feel so I think you are on really deep water (more than 1,600 meter :wink: ). See the reality in the situation, this is not just a game where you can restart when you fail, we are decidind on the future of bilions of people here.

Take reason, Vote NO

I openly laugh at the poor attempt of Gethamane to try to move the discussion from the topic of ballast water to an attack on our sovereign country. The only part where he stays on-topic he reveal his own ignorance.

The pot once again hurls accusations at the kettle...

This is what it is all about. If countries adopt this resolution, countires like ours can't take part in the international trade on a fair-trade basis. Our ships would be banned from their ports and our goods can not be sold in their countries.

That's very true. I, however, support those other nations regardless of their economy. This is because allowing potential contaminants into their ports would be inviting a financial and environmental disaster. Two examples have already been presented as to the damage that a foreign organism can cause. You keep talking about "fair trade," but need I remind you that "fair" is not "equal."

Finally, the Holy Empire of Gethamane plans to formally cease all trade with countries who refuse to make an effort to protect their environments. As environmental concerns are very important to Gethamane, as well as our unstable economic infrastructure, we cannot risk a contamination of foreign marine organisms.

This is the only part where I admire Gethamane, where he openly shows whos interest he is serving, the rich and powerful countries.

I don't even know where to begin, here. First, you decry me for attacking your nation's credibility, then you attack mine? Not to mention that the conclusion you drew offends reason. However, so there will be no more misunderstanding me:

The Holy Empire of Gethamane is formally ceasing trade with aforementioned nations because Gethamane cannot afford to have an organism from a foreign biosphere contaminating our ports and potentially causing damage to our equipment or health problems for our populace.

Finally, it has come to my attention that by participating in this "discussion," I am assisting in Probus' filibustering of the proposal. As Gethamane's position on the proposal should be clear by now, I will not waste any more time refuting baseless accusations.

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane is formally ceasing trade with aforementioned nations because Gethamane cannot afford to have an organism from a foreign biosphere contaminating our ports and potentially causing damage to our equipment or health problems for our populace.

Finally, it has come to my attention that by participating in this "discussion," I am assisting in Probus' filibustering of the proposal. As Gethamane's position on the proposal should be clear by now, I will not waste any more time refuting baseless accusations.

I take this that Gethamane admit that they are wrong in this issue, but seek protection among other powerful allies that they think are their friends. They are afraid of an open debate in the UN because they know it will reveal un unbalanced power-game, where if pressed they will openly show their true allegiance.

Gethamane should however know that they should not be afraid of openly oppose those they know are wrong. There are friends who can protect them either way.

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.
Check out this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566
It explains many things. We wouldn't have felt qualified to vote before we read the thread.

In response to The Nixon, the simple answer is: it doesn't affect you and costs nothing. If you have are land-locked nation, this proposal is of no direct consequence to you.

Probus - your position is bewildering. You pointedly ignore Gethamane's very clear statements that explain their support for the proposal and then wantonly slander them. You may have some very good points to make but I can't make them out through all the rhetoric and posturing.

Sax Russell
Speaker for Science

sorry about the spelling errors,

thankyou Mikitivity for some very informative rebutals.

as a ship moves off a continental plate the depth of the ocean rapidly declines to about 2000m so this proposal was designed to stop ballast water from carrying animals across this natural boundary.
When animals are spread by people across these kinds of natural barriers they can escape what naturally keeps them in check (eg. parasites & predators) they can often outcompete native species, not because they are 'better' but because they are out of place and it will take nature time to catch up with this disturbance.

sorry about the spelling errors,

When animals are spread by people across these kinds of natural barriers they can escape what naturally keeps them in check (eg. parasites & predators) they can often outcompete native species, not because they are 'better' but because they are out of place and it will take nature time to catch up with this disturbance.

Actually, I think the international community owes your nation thanks for bringing this debate to the table.

The spelling errors were typos ... an honest mistake, and something we all are guilty of.

You do bring a point up that bears more discussion: parasites. I've provided an example (though from a fictional place called California) about a Chinese Mitten Crab. But I think another example speices or two (which the Zebra Muscles have been mentioned already as well) would help to underscore the importance of timely action.

10kMichael

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.
Check out this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566
It explains many things. We wouldn't have felt qualified to vote before we read the thread.

that works...personally I just hit google and spend an hour wading through the results :)

But then Genaia would probably forget that everyone here has access to the internet...after all it's not like we are on it right now debating this is it? :roll:

The honourable delegate from Probus clearly has no substantial informed position to debate from, and instead is content to try to insult and demean Member States which have benefitted from being informed. How very disappointing for this debate to be tainted by such idiocy.

The DSH proudly supports this proposal and endorses it as being in the best interests of our planets conservation.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

Call me ignorant if you like, but, what are ballasts? I could research it myself, but this seems easier.

Call me ignorant if you like, but, what are ballasts? I could research it myself, but this seems easier.

**The DSH deputy ambassador hands the representive from Buttmunchsylvania a piece of paper. Written upon it is:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566**

Much better that people ask than simply try and argue about it without knowing anything about it after all :)

After careful consultation with the heads of industry, Sarnangel will be voting against the resolution. The heated debate here at the UN shows that there are other alternatives that could cost less, be more effective in the long run, and not place an unreasonable burden on our businesses.

Sarnangel is keenly aware of the threat that this water represents, but will not threaten our economy for a solution that, while looking good on paper, does not accomplish enough to be worth the price. We have consulted with a number of reasonable experts on the topic, and they have issued a statement in support of our position.

In keeping with the suggestions of our cabinet, Sarnangel will be offering tax incentives to businesses that voluntarily upgrade their vessels with equipment to reduce this problem. We feel this is the best solution since it allows those companies that manufacture this equipment to continue to sell it to those who want it, but does not demand it of smaller businesses that cannot afford it.

We urge our fellow nations to vote against this measure and take a stand for national sovereignty and the rights of domestic businesses to operate without interference from other nations.

My only beef with this whole proposition is the fact that it's an industry thing, not a specific world thing. If there's certain environmental industry standards that should be in place, it's up to the people responsible for mointoring that industry to make sure they're enforced, not necessarily the UN. Granted it's in everyone's best interest to keep the environment healthy and all that, but I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with it at this level.

We at Soddslaw will be voting for the proposal and would like take oppotunity to deliver our reasoning on the subject. It would seem to us that pollution real or potential is a global issue and therefore legitimate for the UN.
Fears have been expressed about an unfair burden on poorer nations but is it not a fact that the use of such water is a feature of bulk cargo oil tankers and are not such leviathans usully operated by the richest nations? efficient shipping of dry goods would presume that any ballast carried would be a return cargo and as such would yield income.
This in itself would stimulate trade if it could be applied to seagoing tankers. Only by setting challenges such as this proposal will do
if passed will industry rise and find solutions to problems. Indeed if, as we suspect, the oil producing regions are in the more arid areas of the globe then could not the ballast itself be a commodity? The use of fresh water for this purpose and suitable treatment plants at the point of discharge could lead to a whole new branch of industry.
finally for the reasons already mentioned talk of naval vessels is a red herring.

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.
Check out this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566
It explains many things. We wouldn't have felt qualified to vote before we read the thread.

that works...personally I just hit google and spend an hour wading through the results :)

But then Genaia would probably forget that everyone here has access to the internet...after all it's not like we are on it right now debating this is it? :roll:

The honourable delegate from Probus clearly has no substantial informed position to debate from, and instead is content to try to insult and demean Member States which have benefitted from being informed. How very disappointing for this debate to be tainted by such idiocy.

The DSH proudly supports this proposal and endorses it as being in the best interests of our planets conservation.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)


I don't doubt that some people have spent a great deal of time doing thorough research on water ballasts and the like, but the idea that the thousands of people who voted on the resolution all immediately thought "gosh I really ought to find out more about water ballasts" is quite ludicrous. Given the considerable lack of response in the UN forum this seems fairly self-evident. I'm not opposed to the resolution as such I'm just saying that every procedure seems to get rubber-stamped without anyone giving it a second thought. What's the ratio of successful proposals to ones that are voted down I wonder? The whole thing just seems rather pointless to me.
Thank God the democracy we have is representative and not direct.

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.
Check out this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566
It explains many things. We wouldn't have felt qualified to vote before we read the thread.

that works...personally I just hit google and spend an hour wading through the results :)

But then Genaia would probably forget that everyone here has access to the internet...after all it's not like we are on it right now debating this is it? :roll:

The honourable delegate from Probus clearly has no substantial informed position to debate from, and instead is content to try to insult and demean Member States which have benefitted from being informed. How very disappointing for this debate to be tainted by such idiocy.

The DSH proudly supports this proposal and endorses it as being in the best interests of our planets conservation.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)


I don't doubt that some people have spent a great deal of time doing thorough research on water ballasts and the like, but the idea that the thousands of people who voted on the resolution all immediately thought "gosh I really ought to find out more about water ballasts" is quite ludicrous. Given the considerable lack of response in the UN forum this seems fairly self-evident. I'm not opposed to the resolution as such I'm just saying that every procedure seems to get rubber-stamped without anyone giving it a second thought. What's the ratio of successful proposals to ones that are voted down I wonder? The whole thing just seems rather pointless to me.
Thank God the democracy we have is representative and not direct.

I've got to say that I'm amazed that not only over 7,000 people actually know what water ballasts are, but actually know enough about them to decide whether or not the resolution is a good one. There was me thinking our educational system was failing and once again I'm proved wrong by this extraordinary display of scientific intellect.
Check out this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130566
It explains many things. We wouldn't have felt qualified to vote before we read the thread.

that works...personally I just hit google and spend an hour wading through the results :)

But then Genaia would probably forget that everyone here has access to the internet...after all it's not like we are on it right now debating this is it? :roll:

The honourable delegate from Probus clearly has no substantial informed position to debate from, and instead is content to try to insult and demean Member States which have benefitted from being informed. How very disappointing for this debate to be tainted by such idiocy.

The DSH proudly supports this proposal and endorses it as being in the best interests of our planets conservation.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)


I don't doubt that some people have spent a great deal of time doing thorough research on water ballasts and the like, but the idea that the thousands of people who voted on the resolution all immediately thought "gosh I really ought to find out more about water ballasts" is quite ludicrous. Given the considerable lack of response in the UN forum this seems fairly self-evident. I'm not opposed to the resolution as such I'm just saying that every procedure seems to get rubber-stamped without anyone giving it a second thought. What's the ratio of successful proposals to ones that are voted down I wonder? The whole thing just seems rather pointless to me.
Thank God the democracy we have is representative and not direct.

In response to The Nixon, the simple answer is: it doesn't affect you and costs nothing. If you have are land-locked nation, this proposal is of no direct consequence to you.

This is not true. Even for a nation with no access to international water, it would still reduce their industry. This is in effect a UN tax.

This is not true. Even for a nation with no access to international water, it would still reduce their industry. This is in effect a UN tax.

By that logic, any decision that ever effects industry ever is a tax. This is unfortunate, because no decision can ever be made that won't effect economics on some level. Thus, the UN, under no circumstance, can makea decision.

Funny. Somehow, I don't think that interpretation would work out to well.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

In response to The Nixon, the simple answer is: it doesn't affect you and costs nothing. If you have are land-locked nation, this proposal is of no direct consequence to you.

This is not true. Even for a nation with no access to international water, it would still reduce their industry. This is in effect a UN tax.

[OOC: If you are worried about your game stats, why are you in the UN? Every UN resolution changes your game stats ... unless of course the point of staying in the UN is to grief other players.]

Actually, I represent a landlocked nation and I totally support this resolution. Here is why: Mikitivity benefits from international shipping much like nations such as Sydia does. When goods travel from Ecopoeia, such as the much prized Ecopoeian wine, to Sydia, a fraction of the wine is loaded onto rail in Sydia and then shipped to Mikitivity.

As a responsible nation, the costs (which are minimal ... the delay for deep ocean cycling is measured in hours, not days) would be tagged onto the products. My nation will pay a fraction more for Ecopoeian wines. Big deal. By doing so, my nation will not one day pay a larger cost for the same Ecopoeian wines when the Sydian ports are so polluted that Sydia has to buy bottled water from Mikitivity and then charge us an arm and a leg in rail traffifs to account for the costs of our bottled water.

[OOC: NationStates costs are very primative and don't account for long-term costs. There always will be a game penalty for sustainable development, which this resolution is. Again, if you are playing for game stats, you'll recover quickly enough. Just pass another Free Trade agreement. But you are playing for game stats and find yourself constantly opposed to UN resolutions, leave. You are griefing those of us that are playing a completely different game, where we don't give a hill of beans about game stats, but are looking to developing SOUND and lasting policy within the rules of NationStates ... i.e. where we can't undo resolutions and where the UN can pass laws that the real UN would never touch, like some of the civil rights things.]

10kMichael

Every UN resolution changes your game stats ... unless of course the point of staying in the UN is to grief other players.

You've obviously taken opposition to this proposal personally, as this is the second time you've attacked me and not the argument.

OOC: Every UN resolution changes your game stats ... unless of course the point of staying in the UN is to grief other players.

You've obviously taken opposition to this proposal personally, as this is the second time you've attacked me and not the argument.

[OOC: NOTE: I've replaced the Out of Character note in my above comment, because it seems you totally ignored my in-character comments and I would rather treat the two points separately.]

Please reread my post above before you accuse me of not replying to your comments in good faith. I did respond to your argument. You said that this resolution is a tax. I responded that there is a short term cost, that even land locked nations will see for good reason.

Even if you choose not to reply to it, the content is still a matter of record for everybody else to consider.

[Out of Character: As for the above quote of mine you replied to, I could say the same to you. You refuse to acknowledge my own in character reply to your question and then accuse me of launching a direct attack on you without replying ... I would certainly say that *is* what GRIEFING is all about. Instead of being so quick to accuse me of a personal attack, why don't you prove me wrong about this GRIEFING business and start to address my in character comments? I honestly have nothing against you. Your comments have been civil, i.e. you have not called anybody an idiot, which is all to common a debate tatic. But I also think it is a complete waste of my time to really try and sway your mind if you really are playing either just to be a devil's advocate or to improve your game stats, as there is an inherent flaw in the NationStates UN options, because by definition all sustainable development issues would always result in a short-term cost, but NationStates has no reward for long-term development plans, which can be stable. With that in mind, I have to talk about game mechanics, which I honestly find better if done out-of-character, and key to that is finding out if basically other players don't care about long-term goals but just want to play to whatever Max's short term goals are.]

Barring the "conflict" between Mikitivity and Florida, The Protectorate of Cruzana will have to vote against this proposal. Reguardless of the positive or negative ecological/social/economical impact of this resolution, we as a nation find this resolution a waste of the UN's time. Our time could be better spent affecting changes in different matters, a few rogue species in the already polluted harbors is hardly worth the energy to talk about.


PoC

AMEN cruzana

* The Rep of Komokom stands and declares,

"Anyway, now that the proposal has passed..."

* Aide of staff whispers in his ear,

"What, well, its like 12,000 yes to 4000 no, so I don't much think..."

* Aide of staff whispers in his ear,

"Oh please, like more then 8000 sheep voters will apear in what..."

* Aide of staff whispers in his ear,

"Less then 24 hrs, so really, its all a bit moot now surely..."

* Aide of staff whispers in his ear,

"The Bar, no old boy, sorry, already been, just tottled back from it."

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Barring the "conflict" between Mikitivity and Florida, The Protectorate of Cruzana will have to vote against this proposal. Reguardless of the positive or negative ecological/social/economical impact of this resolution, we as a nation find this resolution a waste of the UN's time. Our time could be better spent affecting changes in different matters, a few rogue species in the already polluted harbors is hardly worth the energy to talk about.


PoC

So then your nation does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs amongst your population right? Because what does it matter if say 10% of your population gets AIDS ... why bother to use protection? And why start even after that? Why not wait for another 50% of your population to gets AIDS! Protection costs money and who cares even when 99% of your population gets AIDS.

The truth is biological invasions are like STDs. Any doctor will tell you that "a once of prevention is worth a pound of a cure".

I beg you, not for the sake of the resolution, it will pass, but for the sake of the health of your population, to reconsider your vote. Vote yes. The annual cost of Ballast Water management runs around $20 million / year for a large nation. The annual cost of mitigation of damages to human and biological populations due to invasive species starts around $6 million / year for a single species and reaches well above $200 million for other single species invasions. All said, the costs of invasive species easily are ten times that of simple management measures.

Voting yes will save you money in the long-term.

10kMichael