NationStates Jolt Archive

The Resolution admittedly pulls together a water-tight case. However it fails to put itself in that "water." The resolution states that the introduction of a few measly micro-organisms IS harmful to the ecosystem but never states HOW it is detrimental and therefore has no ground to stand on.
The base of argument for this resolution is also defeated by the fact that adding new organisms to an environment is just as likely to improve the ecosystem as to hurt it. Therefore without proof that these "new organisms" (which may also be there already, and not really new) will hurt the ecosystem we must assume they will be neutral if not helpful to the ecosystem.
In light of no grounds to pass the resolution I now provide you with the grounds against. Time is the greatest and most immediate factor. Constant cycling of ballast water en route to destination can take away as much as a day from the arrival of important goods. You might state that if time was such an essence then why not send by plane which is faster and free from ballast water requirements. I then would ask: What of the Poorer nations which cannot afford to send goods by plane? Should we simply forsake them out of or need to protect port ecosystems from actions that may be helpful? NO I say.

Vote AGAINST the new resolution on ballast water!

The Head Cluck, Feather-Belly

Err...no. We're not just talking about "a few measly micro-organisms", but large, damaging and invasive creatures. Read any one of the several threads in which Mikitivity and others have described in detail the dangers to the environment caused by invasions of non-native animals.
The base of argument for this resolution is also defeated by the fact that adding new organisms to an environment is just as likely to improve the ecosystem as to hurt it.
But this "fact" is defeated by the fact that it isn't a fact at all, merely an unsupported assertion. Name one example, please, of an ecosystem being improved by an invading organism. And we shall counter it with talk of mitten crabs, zebra mussels...don't we have some Aussies on the board? Ask them about cane toads and watch them run screaming into the night....

The Resolution admittedly pulls together a water-tight case. However it fails to put itself in that "water." The resolution states that the introduction of a few measly micro-organisms IS harmful to the ecosystem but never states HOW it is detrimental and therefore has no ground to stand on.
The base of argument for this resolution is also defeated by the fact that adding new organisms to an environment is just as likely to improve the ecosystem as to hurt it.


I can only assume you've not been reading the forum, because these points have been discussed for days now.

Why don't you bother to read many of the posts that already illustrate how harmful invasive species are. The costs of a few select case studies range from $5 million / year to $100s million / year. These are just individual case studies and not cumulative totals.
The act of purposefully introducing new species to a bio system is purposefully not addressed. Invasive species by definition are invaders ... species that were not intended to be introduced.

Think of them like STDs. Nobody wants them. They are unhealthy for the host organism, and once you've got them, you become uber undesirable.

::sigh::
Where do these pups come from?

10kMichael

I concede on the point of these invasive species being dangerous. I was admittedly uneducated. I now question the validity of suggesting that mid-ocean ballast cycles, which again take a large amount time, will solve anything. Would there not be just as many organisms that are equally dangerous in open water as in port waters?

On the issue of good species being introduced by ballast water cycles. I ask you why would an environmental group conduct a study to find helpful species among damaging species? they would rather just do away with the negative ones and destroy the helpful organisms along the way w/o anyone knowing about it.

mikitivity......j/w to increase my meager knowledge on this subject....

could you give me a list of invasive species that have caused harm to a port or tell me where to find one?

I slightly question the degree of the problem seeing how billions of tons of ballast water are transported a year.

Would there not be just as many organisms that are equally dangerous in open water as in port waters?

No. Waters of the depth proscribed in this legislation support far less life than continental-shelf waters. Further, any organisms living in them would be capable of crossing deep-sea divides anyway, and therefore aren't our concern.

This is also why the 'but my sea isn't deep enough!' argument doesn't work. If the sea isn't that deep, you're still on the continental shelf and whatever's in your ballast tanks would have been quite capable of making the journey on its own.

The ocean is not teaming with life all over by any means. Most of the ocean is a relative desert. Ever notice how the sea floor is often portrayed in cartoons as just a bunch of sand? That's actually pretty accurate. Once you get away from the ecologically diverse shallows, the sea becomes something of a wasteland.

Now that does not mean that there are no creatures out there. There are lots, but the ocean, like the sky, is a really big place. The chances of picking up an animal out of any randomly selected ten or twenty tonnes of sea water from the open ocean is very very small.

Similar to your chances of catching a bird by just cycling air through a turbine up in the sky. Sure, it happens, but much less than if you took the same turbine and just turned it on in the middle of a park full of pdgeons.

Good night, everyone.

The biggest problem with this resolution is that not all nations are in the UN.

Remember that UN resolutions only apply to UN nations.

If even one non-UN nation decides it wants to pick up ballast water in one place and transport some species to somewhere it isn't native, the whole resolution is useless. The organisms still spread. This will ruin your industries, and nations will rely on boats registered in MY country in order to transport their goods, as I could charge less for transporting goods, not having to empty their ballast in special places or deoxidize it or whatever.

Frankly, this resolution helps out my economy, hurts yours, and does nothing to save the oceans.

I'm glad somebody else out there thinks like me!! :!:

This resolution does not have the power to solve the problem at hand, and at the same time damages the economy of UN member nations.

VOTE NO on ballast water regulation :!: :!: :!:

The biggest problem with this resolution is that not all nations are in the UN.

This is indeed a biggie, and I wish someone had thought of it before the proposal left draft stages. The only solution I can come up with for this is to require UN nations to close their waters and ports to non-UN nations unless they also complied with the minimum requirements of ballast cycling; few non-UN nations would want to risk losing their entire UN markets just to avoid a simple and cheap procedure. This is still a possibility, but will clearly now have to occur at a later date. In any case, while this proposal won't wipe out the problem entirely, it will clean up a very substantial proportion of the world's shipping. (Personally, we would hope that most UN nations would be blocking trade with the less scrupulous non-UN nations anyway, since, y'know, blood money and all that).

(Rehochipe is landlocked, and doesn't stand to be affected at all by this resolution. We just feel it's in the world's interest).

I agree and until this proposal is rewritten I continue to vote NO

Chicken Traders,
IRL here inthe Great Lakes,the Zebra Mussell got in thru ballast water...it's in 20 years killed off most of the native trout population of the region,the mussell attaches itself to the trout and sucks it dry.

Thankfully, the majority of the UN is either intelligent enough to see past the ignorance in your arguments, or ignorant enough to never see the unwarranted, unsupported claims you make. The nation of Sophista will be hosting a small celebratory gala upon passage of the resolution, for all supporting forum speakers to attend.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The biggest problem with this resolution is that not all nations are in the UN.

Remember that UN resolutions only apply to UN nations.

If even one non-UN nation decides it wants to pick up ballast water in one place and transport some species to somewhere it isn't native, the whole resolution is useless. The organisms still spread. This will ruin your industries, and nations will rely on boats registered in MY country in order to transport their goods, as I could charge less for transporting goods, not having to empty their ballast in special places or deoxidize it or whatever.

Frankly, this resolution helps out my economy, hurts yours, and does nothing to save the oceans.

That is like saying, I won't wear a condom dear, because it will make this sexual experience less.

While it is true that condoms can change the pleasure involved in sex, if you sleep around (i.e. if your ships travel from port to port) a little bit of protection can go a long ways.

It hardly matters if non-UN members don't follow this resolution. The law is put on the entry into ports. Let's pretend that my neighbor state Sydia (which is a UN member) is contacted by a ship flying the flag of Gonorhea requesting rights to enter Sydian terrorial waters. If this resolution passes, the Sydia government will tell the Gonorhean ship, "Hey, I don't want your filthy sea chests within our terroritorial waters, because frankly your cargo brings with is a huge cost in ecological damage."

To say that this resolution is going to only impact UN members is misleading. Non-UN members will have to comply when they enter UN member states. But guess what? All UN resolutions work this way. Why is that? Simply, when a nation enters your nation, they've got to follow your rules, not their own.

Next you bring up the question of costs. Please read the numerous reports I've linked to, because the bottom line is:

Ballast Water Exchanging costs range on the order of $20 million / year for the largest consuming states. Far far less for smaller nations.

Invasive Species costs start at $5 million / year for the smallest species and hit upwards in the $100s of million / year. When you look at a large nation's cumulative impact for biodegregation of just estuaries, you are easily talking about damages of on the order of BILLIONS per year.

Call me stupid, but in first grade math terms, the nations that are gonna be paying the cost and taxes aren't the ones that slap on the ballast water management policies, but rather the ones that essentially sleep around.

Finally, non-UN members can always opt to join in on UN resolutions and actions. When there was a genocide in Joccia, there were more non-UN member states that joined the embargo against that nation than UN member states.

I'm sorry, but all of the evidence out there from environmental organizations, shipping organizations, governmental studies, and other non-governmental organizations points to the same conclusion: ballast water management is a way to save money.

Keep in mind that by cycling your sea chests in deep oceans, you only delay your trip by about one day. 24 hours. In that time, you can check the status of your pumps and your hull, and should there be a problem, you can *gasp* call ashore and request a dry docking birth ahead of time and actually save money.

I've yet to find one international shipping firm that doesn't support this legislation. Please, if you have credible information, please cite an on-line report or quote a respected publication and show this information to me. Otherwise, spend the time to see what has been brought up already, because those of us that have honestly spent an hour here and there know who is making material up and who has done their homework. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather that the rest of the international community associate the Confederation of Mikitivity with solid research and informed opinions than knee-jerk reactions!

10kMichael

The biggest problem with this resolution is that not all nations are in the UN.

This is indeed a biggie, and I wish someone had thought of it before the proposal left draft stages. The only solution I can come up with for this is to require UN nations to close their waters and ports to non-UN nations unless they also complied with the minimum requirements of ballast cycling;

(Rehochipe is landlocked, and doesn't stand to be affected at all by this resolution. We just feel it's in the world's interest).

Not an issue at all. Let's look at the Gay Rights protection resolution that was passed some time ago. Just because a nation, say Hitlerland, is not in the UN, does not mean that when Nazi citizens come to visit Rehochipe or Mikitivity that they can run around and attack homosexuals. Even if Hiterland regularly rounds up minorities and gases them, laws are still enforced in nations, and don't travel with people.

The same is true of environmental regulations. A Nazi cargo ship is not immune to UN resolutions if it attempts to enter a UN port. I would be surprised if any North Pacific nation allowed a Nazi ship to enter port, unless that ship complied with UN regulations. Furthermore, it would be foolish for Hiterland to not adopt similar proposals, because even Nazis don't want the rest of us dumping our trash (even if by accident) in their ports.

Trust me, this was all thought out long ago. The non-UN members that don't adopt similar or even better environmental standards, will become dumping grounds and in a few short years they will be paying the cost by placing their estuaries and human populations at risk.

10kMichael

quote="Mikitivity"]
Trust me, this was all thought out long ago. The non-UN members that don't adopt similar or even better environmental standards, will become dumping grounds and in a few short years they will be paying the cost by placing their estuaries and human populations at risk.

10kMichael

Hear, Hear! (The Emissary for the Peoples of Yavanna stands and applauds)

The Peoples of Yavanna will be closing their ports to any non-UN nation that does not adopt this proposal, or even tougher ones.

Thankfully, the majority of the UN is either intelligent enough to see past the ignorance in your arguments, or ignorant enough to never see the unwarranted, unsupported claims you make. The nation of Sophista will be hosting a small celebratory gala upon passage of the resolution, for all supporting forum speakers to attend.


*ROTFL*

I too was wondering if the proposal was catchy enough for the sheep. Lately a series of well structured and thought out resolutions have been called to a vote. I think in time the UN members that don't participate in forum discussions will develop their own critical eyes (if they haven't already). I'm also guessing that the majority of nations actually want to make the world a better place and understand that international problems are best solved through an international forum.

I'll join your celebratory gala and bring with me a case of this winter's Doppel Bock! *yummy stuff*

10kMichael

It just wouldn't be a gathering of the UN's elite minds without you, Michael. And I'm not just saying that because you have a knack to agree with me around 95% of the time.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Not an issue at all. Let's look at the Gay Rights protection resolution that was passed some time ago. Just because a nation, say Hitlerland, is not in the UN, does not mean that when Nazi citizens come to visit Rehochipe or Mikitivity that they can run around and attack homosexuals.

Yes, but species don't respect international boundaries, just deep water. So if the proud but oozing nation of Gonorrhea, the only non-UN member of its continent, allows ships from the distant and unhygienic nation of Chlamydia, also a non-UN state, to 'enter its waters' without 'cycling its ballast' (okay, okay, I'll stop now), any species introduced as a result will quickly spread along the coast and infect everybody else. Species have a hard time crossing oceanic waters, but they can spread along a coastline with very little trouble.

Not to say that this won't make your chances better, but it's no cure-all.

Yes, but species don't respect international boundaries, just deep water. So if the proud but oozing nation of Gonorrhea, the only non-UN member of its continent, allows ships from the distant and unhygienic nation of Chlamydia, also a non-UN state, to 'enter its waters' without 'cycling its ballast' (okay, okay, I'll stop now), any species introduced as a result will quickly spread along the coast and infect everybody else. Species have a hard time crossing oceanic waters, but they can spread along a coastline with very little trouble.

Not to say that this won't make your chances better, but it's no cure-all.

Sad, but very true point you've raised. In this case, as a landlocked nation, I would put political pressure on my neighboring state to adopt similar standards, pointing out the obvious ... their ships are having to comply when traveling into UN member's terrorial waters.

But there is no cure-all.

10kMichael

p.s. this really is an interesting point you've raised!