NationStates Jolt Archive

SPCC Regulation Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: 12 Days Till Midnight
Description: SPCC (Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures)

Oil leaks; from out of date pipelines or huge storage tanks/refineries can cause enormous environmental damage. The cost to taxpayers and future generations of the world due to a mass spill on land or at sea could be catastrophic. Millions of barrels of crude oil are lost to the oil-hungry nations of the world each year. We must unite to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles worldwide. This would prevent environmental disasters like the one caused by the train wreck in North Korea in 2004, that killed 3000 civilians, or the underground pipeline leak outside San Francisco, where 15 Million gallons of crude oil leaked into the Pacific Ocean affecting between 300 and 600 acres of marshland near Suisun Bay.

Oil storage tanks occasionally leak. The risk of leakage increases as the oil tank ages. If the oil storage tank is underground, a small oil leak may go undetected for a long period of time. When an oil leak occurs, it often contaminates the surrounding soil. In an area such as Long Island, this contamination eventually gets into the underground aquifer that is the sole source of Long Island’s drinking water. Therefore, oil spills in areas such as Long Island and other large cities are considered very serious. In other areas, oil spills are also serious, but may not contaminate the ground water to as great an extent. Oil spill cleanup steps are mandated by regulatory agencies and can be very expensive.

This resolution would be a huge cost the Oil Industry at first, but in the long run ~ would help lower the cost of fuel and lower the cost of environmental clean ups ~ which as we know, are sooner or later passed on to the consumers of the world. This SPCC Regulation Act would benefit the fishing, tourism, shipbuilding industries, and trucking/transport industries.

"Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" was an earlier resolution, passed by the United Nations back on April 25th, 2003 and was implemented on April 28th, 2003.
That resolution had, Votes For: 16664 & Votes Against: 2670

This proposal, is an updated extention of that resolution.


Votes For: 986

Votes Against: 250

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Mon May 17 2004

Fellow members and delegates of the United Nations,

UN states have been subjected to some pretty rotten resolutions in the past. We've had to deal with nonsensical attempts to save the trees, ban spam, save one nation's failed education system and enact mangled copyright law. However, this resolution may well be the most awful tripe to land on our desks yet.

However noble the intention, this resolution does precisely nothing for the environment. Read closely... is there actually anything of substance stated? Any suggestions for how we deal with the issues at hand? Merely the reiteration of support of a previous resolution. Our economies take a substantial hit and there's absolutely no explanation of where the money is going!

In addition, the resolution refers to areas known as 'San Francisco' and 'North Korea', among others. Ecopoeian intelligence (hopefully not an oxymoron) can find no trace of these nations. Where are they?

Ecopoeia is a fervent supporter of environmental legislation that works. This will not. We not only urge all members present here today to vote 'nay', but to join our nation and our regional allies in urging all UN nations to vote against this nonsense.

We encourage our fellow campaigners to post suggestions for how we can defeat this resolution here.

Many thanks for your time and our sincere best wishes to you all.

Ann Clayborne & Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speakers for the Environment & Industry
The Community of Ecopoeia
The Anti-Capitalist Alliance

We agree with our allies in Ecopoeia; this proposal does nothing but make the UN look ridiculous. We propose a sustained TG campaign to bust this down.

It needs a co-ordinated telegram campaign to every delegate who votes in favour. You have to explain that it doesn't actually do anything, point out any other problems, and apologise for spamming them. For those who actually oppose the environmentally-friendly spirit, I wouldn't recommend attempting to argue that it damges the economy. In fact, it's a good idea to make clear our support for the spirit of environmental protection, just not this proposal.

This approach got a lot of positive responses when i worked against the euthanasia resolution (because of the loopholes etc), I only failed because I started too late and was working on my own.

I reckon the best way is to a few people to check the list of approving delegates every day of voting. One person should telegram those with under 5 votes, another should get those with 5-9, another 10-14, another 15-20, and another 20+.

Also somebody should write a form telegram that we can all copy-paste, that takes in all the arguments.

EDIT: All the arguments that we want to include, that is.

It doesn't matter what anyone says here- the resolution will pass anyways.

Nonetheless, this resolution doesn't resolve that the UN does anything. It is merely a statement of the enviormental hazard that oil tankers pose.

From the proposal:
This proposal, is an updated extention of that resolution

In what way? What is this resolution enforcing? There are no measures that are actually mentioned anywhere in the text of the resolution. It is nothing more than a high school social studies or science report.

Bootai-Bootai doesn't support this resolution, simply because there is nothing in it!

It doesn't matter what anyone says here- the resolution will pass anyways.

Actually telegramming can make quite a dent in voting numbers. It just needs a good form letter, and a group to work on it.

To the honourable delegate of [nation],

We write to urge you to reconsider your vote for the current proposal, the SPCC Regulation Act. Although [your nation] is firmly committed to environmental goals, we feel this document would do nothing whatsoever to further these - mostly because it doesn't recommend a single measure. All this does is state a problem.

We feel that passing documents of this kind makes the UN look ridiculous and greatly reduces the credibility of the green lobby. We hope you will reconsider your position.

Yours sincerely,
[your diplomat and nation here]

I'll split the FOR delegates up into 25-nation blocks and post them here shortly.

EDIT: What the hell? The nation that proposed this is 'a small, safe nation, remarkable for its barren, inhospitable landscape.' Not exactly the sort of people we'd want to take ecology lessons from.

Hyarnustar agrees that this resolution is pointless, useless, and a waste of the UN's time and resources to even consider.

I like that Rehochipe.

I think the divisions I suggested may need reworking, because more delegates have few votes, so the under 5s and under 10s would have their work cut out.

All delegates have at least 2 votes, so maybe 2-3, 3-4, 5-7, 7-10, 11-15, 15+? It depends on what others think, and also on how many volunteers there are.

I like that form letter Rehochipe.

I think the divisions I suggested may need reworking, because more delegates have few votes, so the under 5s and under 10s would have their work cut out.

All delegates have at least 2 votes, so maybe 2-3, 3-4, 5-7, 7-10, 11-15, 15+? It depends on what others think, and also on how many volunteers there are. (sorry if I fail to post again today, it's 6 pm here and the server's starting to get creaky. Assume I'm volunteered for whatever telegramming scheme is worked out).

Fellow UN members:

The Most Serene Rebublic of Misty Creek urges all members to vote no on this poorly written, ill thought proposal.

The way we've done this before is to start at the beginning of the delegate votes list and divide it into blocks of twenty or so; then someone posts the blocks and individuals post to claim them, then edit to say when they're done.

BLOCK ONE: The Gifted - Battlemech Rehochipe DONE
BLOCK TWO: Shaemal - Izquierdo Unido Myopia DONE
BLOCK THREE: The Sex Mad - USS Excelsior
BLOCK FOUR: Woznicaland - Sovietonia
BLOCK FIVE: Estivation - The Allied Soviets
BLOCK SIX: Landris - Mohicania
BLOCK SEVEN: Jackuul - Somnaphobia

As more delegates vote, I'll add new blocks.

Ok that's a better idea. I'll take block 2 and get to work.

Done with block two. I have to go now, but I'll probably come back tomorrow and do some more.

Fellow members and delegates of the United Nations,

UN states have been subjected to some pretty rotten resolutions in the past. We've had to deal with nonsensical attempts to save the trees, ban spam, save one nation's failed education system and enact mangled copyright law. However, this resolution may well be the most awful tripe to land on our desks yet.

However noble the intention, this resolution does precisely nothing for the environment. Read closely... is there actually anything of substance stated? Any suggestions for how we deal with the issues at hand? Merely the reiteration of support of a previous resolution. Our economies take a substantial hit and there's absolutely no explanation of where the money is going!

In addition, the resolution refers to areas known as 'San Francisco' and 'North Korea', among others. Ecopoeian intelligence (hopefully not an oxymoron) can find no trace of these nations. Where are they?

Ecopoeia is a fervent supporter of environmental legislation that works. This will not. We not only urge all members present here today to vote 'nay', but to join our nation and our regional allies in urging all UN nations to vote against this nonsense.

We encourage our fellow campaigners to post suggestions for how we can defeat this resolution here.

Many thanks for your time and our sincere best wishes to you all.

Ann Clayborne & Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speakers for the Environment & Industry
The Community of Ecopoeia
The Anti-Capitalist Alliance

I agree, we do not need these resolutions. I am sick of all the votes these resolutions get.

It will accomplish nothing and simply put the cost on our industries.

I am also sick of all these tree hugging hippy nations ruling the UN.
We need more capatalism in the UN.

First of all let me state that I am a new member of this body, this being just my third vote and first time speaking out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you weed out the chaff of this resolution you are left with but one sentence regarding any actual proposal of action. It is a simple endorsement of using "double-hulled" pipelines, storage facilities and transportation vehicles. Now ignoring the fact that ships have hulls, but pipelines and storage facilities do not (unless the storage is onboard a ship), this is just an endorsement, not a mandate. If that is the case I will happily ignore this meaningless resolution upon passage, if that occurs.

I would also like to state that I oppose this resolution based on its pointlessness, its (I believe) intent and desire to actually regulate all industry in my sovereign nation (outside of what I believe this body's powers should include), and its poorly written quality.

I urge all member nations that value freedom, sovereignty, and the right of self-determination to join with me in opposition to this resolution.

Hyarnustar agrees that this resolution is pointless, useless, and a waste of the UN's time and resources to even consider.

I agree that this resolution is poorly written and that it really won't do anything. My nation has voted against this proposal.

However, the idea of the resolution is worth at least considering. That doesn't mean I'm encouraging nations to vote for this proposal, but instead to invest their time in writting something that doesn't look like it was written at the back of a napkin. Something that has meaning and will stand the test of time.

10kMichael

The Commonwealth's of Rose view on the Resolution:

As a UN Delegate, I voted for it. All I saw was to protect the pipeline better, yes yes, it might hurt the economy, but maybe in the shortrun, it will improve. Look, nobody knows what is going to happen, if this resolution is not going to affect anything, why vote against it.

Also, my country, the Island of Rose, is very hospitible and lush with trees, so I think my voice matters more then the proposer. But do not get me wrong, I am upset how idiotic proposals get through the system. But all I see is a proposal that the only thing it does is nothing. Again yes, it might hurt your economy, but oil is not everything. I mean, there's gold, automobiles, toys, plastics. If you have a rebuttal, say it with manner and do not insult me.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of Rose.
UN Delegate of the New Roman Empire.

OOC:If you disagree don't flame me, it's oh so annoying -.-, if you have a different opinion, say it all dignified like. Besides I'm new XD

The point is that most of us will gladly sacrifice economic strength for a safer, cleaner world, but we won't do it for nothing. The proposal just says what the problem is, and the specific faults like poor containers. It does not do anything. If we're going to pass environmental resolutions on this issue, they should actually say something like: "The UN strongly urges member nations to impose appropriate regulations on oil transportation and storage in order to significantly reduce the risk of spillages and leaks, and to conduct monitoring to ensure that these regulations are followed."

The Commonwealth's of Rose view on the Resolution:

As a UN Delegate, I voted for it. All I saw was to protect the pipeline better, yes yes, it might hurt the economy, but maybe in the shortrun, it will improve. Look, nobody knows what is going to happen, if this resolution is not going to affect anything, why vote against it.


Why vote against it?

Because in the time of 1-day we could have written a proposal ten times better that would actually do something and stand the test of time.

Realistically we aren't going to be saving that many wetlands by rushing in head first to adopt a poorly written proposal.

This is an international body. That means things take time. But similarly, our solutions should be able to stand the test of time. Instead, we are debating something that comes off as a knee-jerk reaction to a real life tragic event.

Believe me, I have visted the Suisun Marsh with great regularity. It is not just an American treasure, but certainly has international importance, as the wetlands is one of the largest points for migrating geese to visit as they travel along the Pacific flyway.

Those of us asking for you to reconsider your vote and vote against this poorly written proposal are saying is:

If you vote this proposal down, we'll help you write something BETTER.

You've said you are new to this forum. I am not. If you don't accept my word in this, do a search on my statements and better yet, my conduct in this forum, since I've been representing my nation. I assure you that the real world expertise to make a meaningful and sound environmental resolution exists.

10kMichael

As concerned as we are in Davistania about the environment, this proposal must be voted down. Many nations here have given excellent reasons why: this lacks specificity, is detrimental to business with no real payback, etc.

However, I'd like to elevate the discourse a little bit. Some other nations have discussed building a faster, stronger, better than it was before Environmental Bill, and I'd like to facilitate this.

First, I'd like to state that in Davistania in particular and in healthy free market countries in general, environmental movements need not be a force directed at the expense of industry. Instead, because it is in the business and ethical interests of industries to operate in an environmentally friendly environment, INDUSTRY CAN and SHOULD BE AN ALLY OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk will be voting against this resolution, not because we believe that the environment doesn't need to be protected, nor that business deserves some sort of break from the policies implemented in the UN, but because we too disagree with the efficacy of this solution.

We fail to see how double-hulling will automatically solve what are described in the Proposal as maintenance problems. Instead of addressing the problem of maintenance, the Proposal advocates decreasing the probability of a leak due to poor maintenance practices by adding a second layer. This, in our opinion, bypasses the problem.

A regulatory authority as well as clear and consistent international guidelines for the construction of fuel transfer methods would have been a far more appropriate approach. Unfortunately this would have been one where the costs would have had to have been carried by government (directly), rather than indirectly (through business subsidies for compliance) or by businesses as a whole (who will pass this significant cost on to the consumer.

As a result of this, the Commonwealth has to vote no on this proposal.

it says in the proposal that the transport and trout industries will benefit from this proposal. those are my two biggest industries. i know it does nothing for the environment, but will it help my industry? im a pro-econ and civil-rights country(sort of like an enlightened-abosolutist), will this benefit me or not?

I'm afraid, I didn't have time to read all the postings, so I assume that somebody already made a comment in my way of thinking. It's not about making ships and pipelines safer. It's about getting rid of the addiction to oil. The resources will only last for at most another hundred years. So it is time, to develop other sources for energiy. So why spend all the money for a decaying industry? Especially since the oil industry is a very corrupt one. It's useless. companies will always be looking for a way to avoid the existing laws of ecology. So spend the money for research on alternative sources, like the safe mining of "methan ice", which will last for a very, very long time (the energy stored being a multiple of the fossile sources delivered so far).
I vote "NAY".

This resolution would be a huge cost the Oil Industry at first, but in the long run ~ would help lower the cost of fuel

Why would this lower the cost of fuel? It would make it more difficult to transport, with no benefit to the economy. The added difficulty of transportation would increase the price of fuel, not decrease it.

and lower the cost of environmental clean ups

That doesn't follow from the premises either. There would be fewer clean-ups, because it would be more difficult to move the oil around, but the clean-ups wouldn't be cheaper. In fact, the extra difficulty may cause more oil to be transported in the same containers, thereby making clean-ups a more expensive and consuming (not to mention environmentally damaging) process.

From what I've seen, anything passes. This anti-economic and anti-environmental act cloaked in the guise of protecting nature should be voted down not only to prevent its ambiguous but negative terms from hindering the members of the UN, but to demonstrate in the form of an object lesson that the United Nations are not a herd that repeats and agrees with anything suggested to it, that we are capable of making decisions to guide the world in a positive direction, and we will.

SPCC Regulation Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

This resolution is the worst we have seen being put up to vote.

It does nothing. All it is is a description of oil leaks and what damage they do.

This proposal shouldn't have been up for voting. The idea might be nice, but this resolution is a waste of time. Back to the drawing board and put some actions in it, is our recommendation.

Regards,

PRoGG UN Ambassador

PolarisSol, I doubt that your business will be helped - the actual category, which is what controls your nation's stats, says all businesses will be negaitivley affected.

So if so many of you oppose this, help us get it voted down! Look on the previous page. I'm taking block 3 to telegram.

EDIT: Done with block 3. Please, somebody else do some too, I have to go.

The government of Telidia welcomes proposals that seek to enhance the world’s environment and our government takes its international environmental policy very seriously indeed. However, with much respect to its author who obviously does care about this issue greatly, this proposal is ill thought out and does nothing to help the environment at large. We fully support the writing of a better resolution to be voted on at a later time. I will be contacting our regional delegate in the West Pacific urging them to vote against this resolution as indeed we have. I would also suggest that convincing the rest of the larger Pacific regions to vote against this proposal would go a long way in defeating it.

Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

The way we've done this before is to start at the beginning of the delegate votes list and divide it into blocks of twenty or so; then someone posts the blocks and individuals post to claim them, then edit to say when they're done.

BLOCK ONE: The Gifted - Battlemech Rehochipe DONE
BLOCK TWO: Shaemal - Izquierdo Unido Myopia DONE
BLOCK THREE: The Sex Mad - USS Excelsior
BLOCK FOUR: Woznicaland - Sovietonia
BLOCK FIVE: Estivation - The Allied Soviets
BLOCK SIX: Landris - Mohicania
BLOCK SEVEN: Jackuul - Somnaphobia

As more delegates vote, I'll add new blocks.

Myopia's done Block 3, I'll get on with Block 4. Any other takers?

Block 4 done, I'll do Block 5 now.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono, a leading opponent of fascism and attempts to infringe upon national soverignity in the UN, can only add its voice to the growing chorus against this asanine resolution.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono, a leading opponent of fascism and attempts to infringe upon national soverignity in the UN, can only add its voice to the growing chorus against this asanine resolution.

I'm somewhat alarmed by your rhetoric, but your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please confirm here whther or not you will be able to join our telegramming campaign - Block 6 would be a good start.

Best wishes

Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speaker for Industry

Ecopoeia, Myopia, thanks for the help. Sadly, unless we get a whole lot more delegates switching, this is going to pass with a landslide - current voting figures stand at four to one. If more people are willing to back up their views by helping us TG delegates, I'll update the list.

OOC : In just over 12 hrs, I will be back online, ( Need to * try * to sleep, plus give up phone line + catch favourite show :) )

After that the T.G.'ing begins. :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

It makes you wonder why on earth this empty Proposal managed to come before the whole UN when there are so many other much more important Proposals which do not make it.

It is a wasted opportunity.

G Chicherin
Scawenland
Soviet Union

Once again we can clearly see that the resolutions that are being passed (and have been passed in my absence) are suffering from a lack of quailty. Once more I urge persons to have a problem+action=plan setup to thier resolutions, and to read the guidelines posted. Let's show the world that this kind of claptrap just doesn't stand.

I'm going to start adding this to my telegrams:

P.S. This telegram is part of a wider campaign to persuade all delegates to change their votes from FOR to AGAINST. If you would like to help, go to the UN forum thread "New resolution at vote - SPCC Regulation Act" at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145156&sid=98088a0ce2aa5e5eef2cd72672121eb5

I'm taking block 6

If there's a bloc of delegates that need swaying, I have brought the issue to my region, but I may be able to do more. Telegram me if there's more left to be done today.

Umm well as the delegate from Supremums I feel that such a UN resolution would in more ways than one pave the way for research into ways to actually reduce spillage. In the long run we don't really want industries to face a huge tax burden as we impose unjust and unnecessary levies in the hopes of reducing damage to the environment.

Simply pointing out the problem is in more ways than one likely to focus greater attention on the issue and that usually leads to more research into the topic at hand, which is why the Supremums support this resolution and urge others to do the same.

The Incorporated States of Supremums

On the other side, Supremums, this will significantly reduce the strength of the green lobby. Every day we get some tinpot pro-market dictator posting a rant to the effect of 'the UN is fun by @*&^$ tree-hugging liberals, u r all communist, we need more Christian values - and we all know Christ loved money - I resign.' When a poorly-thought-out, ineffective pro-environment proposal gets passed, it adds credence to this argument and reflects badly on the greens.

Simply pointing out the problem is in more ways than one likely to focus greater attention on the issue and that usually leads to more research into the topic at hand, which is why the Supremums support this resolution and urge others to do the same.

If the resolution called for research into prevention and cleanup technologies, then it might be worthwhile. Why not vote this down and write your own that explicitly requests that governments or corporations fund this research?

Umm well as the delegate from Supremums I feel that such a UN resolution would in more ways than one pave the way for research into ways to actually reduce spillage. In the long run we don't really want industries to face a huge tax burden as we impose unjust and unnecessary levies in the hopes of reducing damage to the environment.

Simply pointing out the problem is in more ways than one likely to focus greater attention on the issue and that usually leads to more research into the topic at hand, which is why the Supremums support this resolution and urge others to do the same.

The Incorporated States of Supremums

I don't see how the resolution is saying this at all. The only content in the resolution is a description of the problem. Like any piece of legislation, the description of the problem is only suppose to provide the motivation for the real meat of the bill- the actual specific action that is suppose to be taken in order to address the described problem, which is completely absent from this legislation. If this legislation passes, then it will have a real econimic impact on UN nations without actually mandating any actions to help the enviorment. For the most part, the posters in this thread are not opposed to the spirit of the resolution, but rather lack of content in this particular resolution as it is written.

I take on board the points people are making about the lack of specific action being proposed.

May I add something from a "real world" perspective, especially as the proposal makes reference to real events? This is what I posted on our regional boards:

In NS terms, I'd be very happy to support this resolution: if it passes, the computer will be programmed to improve all UN nations' environment at the expense of industry, and that's fine by me.


But I'd just like to add: in real life, things aren't quite as simple and the double-hulled tanker is not an unmixed blessing. (I worked for a shipping magazine 10 years ago when they were being legislated for.)

They are good at preventing oil leaks from minor bumps and scrapes, while making no difference in major incidents. But that gap between hulls poses problems of its own, it does become contaminated with oil very easily. This means when the tanker is full and the gap is empty (full of air) the fumes in a confined space pose a risk of explosion, which could be sparked by a collision.

And when the tanker is empty, they fill the space between the hulls with seawater as ballast. Flushing it out not only has the risk of contamination by oil, but I've heard concerns about marine organisms being moved from one area to another. (I don't quite follow this but apparently the world's oceans are not homogenous.)

Sorry to ramble on about this, but the public were never given the whole argument for or against double hulls. They were made compulsory after the Exxon Valdez - where oddly enough, a double hull would have made no difference - and the debate has now stopped, so innovations such as the Coulombi Egg Tanker (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_secret.htm) aren't being trialled.


Back to NationStates though - I will, as ever, be guided by the region's wishes!

White Lotus Eaters
UN Delegate, Urbanites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=urbanites)

it dosent look like we are going to be able to stop this. i voted no and my delegate did too, but i dont think this is going to work out.


also, what is the difference between a delegates vote and a vote by me?

I don't see how the resolution is saying this at all. The only content in the resolution is a description of the problem. Like any piece of legislation, the description of the problem is only suppose to provide the motivation for the real meat of the bill- the actual specific action that is suppose to be taken in order to address the described problem, which is completely absent from this legislation. If this legislation passes, then it will have a real econimic impact on UN nations without actually mandating any actions to help the enviorment. For the most part, the posters in this thread are not opposed to the spirit of the resolution, but rather lack of content in this particular resolution as it is written.

Exactly. And I'll continue ...

I've really yet to see somebody say, "Well it needs to be passed IMMEDIATELY." Since it doesn't, even if you think this is a good idea, vote against this poorly written proposal so that something that not only makes a simple statement, but goes a small step forward too, can be drafted.

This proposal came from no-where and it reads like it.

If we pass trash like this, we will see more of it making it to the floor.

10kMichael

The Republic of Arthuria-Elizabetia supports this motion.
Not only does it further reduce the risk of tragic and expensive environmental damage (not to mention the loss of commercial product) it also opens up a new field of industry to bring the UN nations into compliance with this resolution.

>> I may have missed this posted previously. If so, I apologize for reposting the same view.

The Republic of Arthuria-Elizabetia supports this motion.
Not only does it further reduce the risk of tragic and expensive environmental damage (not to mention the loss of commercial product) it also opens up a new field of industry to bring the UN nations into compliance with this resolution.

>> I may have missed this posted previously. If so, I apologize for reposting the same view.

How?

That is like saying, that the following resolution will bring about world peace:

RESOLVED that war sucks,
AGREES to make love, not war.

So what is this new field of industry?

10kMichael

Not only does it further reduce the risk of tragic and expensive environmental damage (not to mention the loss of commercial product)

How so? It isn't defined in the resolution. This regulation won't benefit the environment at all.

it also opens up a new field of industry to bring the UN nations into compliance with this resolution.

What new field of industry? The only thing this will bring to the UN is an even lower reputation. After seeing how close this resolution is to passing, I doubt that most of the UN members ever think about voting a resolution down. I'm considering resignation from the UN, because I don't want to be subject to arbitrarily passed rules that are never judged for validity or necessity. This rule shouldn't be passed for it's lack of content, damage to the economy, and disregard for the environment, despite the cloak of ecology that it sneaks in.

There's still time to reconsider, and join the telegramming campaign to prove that the UN is still a functioning body capable of comprehending the resolutions brought before its members.

I'm going to start adding this to my telegrams:

P.S. This telegram is part of a wider campaign to persuade all delegates to change their votes from FOR to AGAINST. If you would like to help, go to the UN forum thread "New resolution at vote - SPCC Regulation Act" at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145156&sid=98088a0ce2aa5e5eef2cd72672121eb5

I'm taking block 6

I'll take block 7 and then some.

Jackuul->Geostationary Orbit.
DONE

g.e.
spokesperson for the jovian worlds

If the resolution called for research into prevention and cleanup technologies, then it might be worthwhile. Why not vote this down and write your own that explicitly requests that governments or corporations fund this research?

Hmm I am kindda new at this, but can't someone like whatever state proposed this resolution amend it or something? 'Coz while I agree with your observation, and well wiith Bootai-Bootai's observation that this resolution doesn't mention any specific action, isn't it that in most places bills such as these often justify spending on research, since people and countries agree that they have a problem such as this?

Aurojit

If we pass trash like this, we will see more of it making it to the floor.

Can't the mods simply remove this resolution on account of being useless and silly?

Regards,

PRoGG

Hmm I am kindda new at this, but can't someone like whatever state proposed this resolution amend it or something?


Nope. You can't change things once they're on the floor.

isn't it that in most places bills such as these often justify spending on research, since people and countries agree that they have a problem such as this?

This isn't reality. Research only happens when someone role-plays it, in which case we don't need a resolution, or it is ordered by a resolution, which this one doesn't do.

I have sent telegrams to around one hundred and fifty UN members, personally focusing only on those nations with 5 votes or more, starting at Ethertonia (the first country with 5 votes or more after the end of Block 7) and ending at Bucharuie. To make things easier on myself, I sent each country the same message, an amended version of the message being sent to each block, the amendment being that I do not mention each nation by name. I also included the postscript that leads them to this thread for more information.

At least five nations have changed their vote due to this. Hopefully more will follow suit. As you are telegramming any new blocks, you can take into account that I have already telegrammed those nations with 5 votes or more from Ethertonia all the way to Bucharuie (in case Bucharuie changes its vote, the nation before that is Madsenavia with 3 votes).

Dear UN members,

This duncical resolution that will probobly be passed by all those who don't realize that the UN is just a bunch of nations trying to spread Liberalism throughout the world to nations that don't know any better. THe UN has passed numerous resolution that will not help the world in any way, except to push for liberal issues, such as teh enviornment. It seems that the UN has passed so many resolutions protecting teh enviornment, that it hasn't even focused on the population of the countries in the world, or ensuring the prosperity of countries by aiding industry and business. I plead to everyone to not only vote 'nay' for this deficient resolution, but to vote 'nay' for the UN and its Liberal policies. THe world needs to expose the UN for what is really is, a liberal safehaven. We need to abolish this entitiy and start a new, fresh organization that represents every country in Nation States, not only the enviornmentalist Liberals.

Thank you,
Andy Sotak-President of the Borderlands of Ivana Tapit

What did I say five minutes ago?
Every day we get some tinpot pro-market dictator posting a rant to the effect of 'the UN is fun by @*&^$ tree-hugging liberals, u r all communist, we need more Christian values - and we all know Christ loved money - I resign.' When a poorly-thought-out, ineffective pro-environment proposal gets passed, it adds credence to this argument and reflects badly on the greens.

My fellow members,

Have we become sock puppets? Do we merely vote yes, blindly, instead of thinking about each issue? This issue SAYS NOTHING. As for those who bring up such squalid proposals; Congratulations. You are helping to make the UN a joke.

My nation will be voting NO. However it looks like the rest of the sheep are voting yes... to everything.

I think I've only seen one resolution voted against. Everything else was approved by substantial YEAs. It's sad really.

We must unite to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles worldwide.
Quote from the resolution. Maybe my english is not refined enough, but I thought this part IS recommending a measure. Please enlighten me if this is not so.

The problem is that it's one very rhetorically-worded, voluntary recommendation in the midst of a vast pile of pointless gabble.

I have sent telegrams to around one hundred and fifty UN members, personally focusing only on those nations with 5 votes or more, starting at Ethertonia (the first country with 5 votes or more after the end of Block 7) and ending at Bucharuie. To make things easier on myself...

Well, you've made things harder on everyone else. :x

We at the United States of America the American were about to assign our diplomatic corps to a new block of delegates, but noticed your message. You've made it impossible to continue the sensible numbered assignment of blocks, and would require our diplomats to waste time carefully picking through the list to avoid spamming.

We will set our diplomats to work on a new, now unavoidably out-of-sequence, block starting with the nation immediately following Bucharuie. We will post here again to let everyone know where our block begins and ends.

Richard Held
UN Ambassador
United States of America the American

UN nations must endorse the use of double-hulles. It is a bit volunary. But all governments at least must encourage it. Wich also brings the economical pressure down compared to a compulsory "all hulles must be double by 2005".

anyway, I am bound to vote according to the outcome of the poll on the forum. I did post your tm there.

regards, Bagheera

This bill doesn't ban single hulls on oil tankers.

Let me say it again. This bill doesn't ban single hulls on oil tankers.

In fact, language in this bill refers to a previous UN bill that ALREADY BANNED single hulls on oil tankers.

It refers to some dubious "double hulled pipelines" and so forth, which as far as we know, do not exist.


OK, back to business:

We sent telegrams to the delegates in the block immediately following Bucharuie, beginning with Otters Bar, Korjevia, and Longbeards, and ending with Hordakistan, Berens, and Frutini.

Here is the form letter we used (including the attachment of Ecopoeia’s forum message):

Honorable Delegate of [region],

We apologize for the intrusion, and hope you will pardon our transgression into your nation’s precious time and diplomatic resources long enough to consider our appeal.

We urge you to reconsider your vote for the current proposal, the SPCC Regulation Act. Although we understand that [nation] is firmly committed to environmental goals, we feel this document would do nothing whatsoever to further these - mostly because it doesn't create a single measure of legislation. All the SPCC Regulation Act does is state a problem.

We feel that passing documents of this kind makes the UN look ridiculous and greatly reduces the credibility of the green lobby. We hope you will reconsider your position.

Cordially,
[your diplomat and nation here]


P.S. This telegram is part of a campaign to persuade delegates to change their votes from FOR to AGAINST. If you would like to learn more, go to the UN forum thread "New resolution at vote - SPCC Regulation Act" at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145156&sid=98088a0ce2aa5e5eef2cd72672121eb5

The campaign against SPCC was sparked on the forum by the following excellent message, which we attach for your further consideration:

Fellow members and delegates of the United Nations,

UN states have been subjected to some pretty rotten resolutions in the past. We've had to deal with nonsensical attempts to save the trees, ban spam, save one nation's failed education system and enact mangled copyright law. However, this resolution may well be the most awful tripe to land on our desks yet.

However noble the intention, this resolution does precisely nothing for the environment. Read closely... is there actually anything of substance stated? Any suggestions for how we deal with the issues at hand? Merely the reiteration of support of a previous resolution. Our economies take a substantial hit and there's absolutely no explanation of where the money is going!

In addition, the resolution refers to areas known as 'San Francisco' and 'North Korea', among others. Ecopoeian intelligence (hopefully not an oxymoron) can find no trace of these nations. Where are they?

Ecopoeia is a fervent supporter of environmental legislation that works. This will not. We not only urge all members present here today to vote 'nay', but to join our nation and our regional allies in urging all UN nations to vote against this nonsense.

We encourage our fellow campaigners to post suggestions for how we can defeat this resolution here.

Many thanks for your time and our sincere best wishes to you all.

Ann Clayborne & Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speakers for the Environment & Industry
The Community of Ecopoeia
The Anti-Capitalist Alliance

I have changed my vote from FOR to AGAINST, in light of what I have read here, I am a UN delegate and I will attempt to persuade my fellow members of the UN in my region to vote AGAINST aswell.

I have sent telegrams to around one hundred and fifty UN members, personally focusing only on those nations with 5 votes or more, starting at Ethertonia (the first country with 5 votes or more after the end of Block 7) and ending at Bucharuie. To make things easier on myself, I sent each country the same message, an amended version of the message being sent to each block, the amendment being that I do not mention each nation by name. I also included the postscript that leads them to this thread for more information.

At least five nations have changed their vote due to this. Hopefully more will follow suit. As you are telegramming any new blocks, you can take into account that I have already telegrammed those nations with 5 votes or more from Ethertonia all the way to Bucharuie (in case Bucharuie changes its vote, the nation before that is Madsenavia with 3 votes).

Well, you've made things harder on everyone else. :x

We at the United States of America the American were about to assign our diplomatic corps to a new block of delegates, but noticed your message. You've made it impossible to continue the sensible numbered assignment of blocks, and would require our diplomats to waste time carefully picking through the list to avoid spamming.

We will set our diplomats to work on a new, now unavoidably out-of-sequence, block starting with the nation immediately following Bucharuie. We will post here again to let everyone know where our block begins and ends.

Richard Held
UN Ambassador
United States of America the American

If you think I made things harder for others, then I pity you. It's quite simple to see whether someone has less than five votes. Split the blocks up as before and avoid the ones that have five or more. It's quite simple and easy and I'm offended by your implication that I've made things harder, because basically now you're just belly-aching. I personally made an incredible dent in getting the message out and you come on these forums and deride me for it? I pity you.

I try to be as diplomatic as possible, but in this case it's near impossible; the only way I can be diplomatic at all is to not call you an idiot for being unable to do something as simple as look at the number next to a nation's name.

It would be interesting in the real world to see this happen, have someone put in hours of work on a political campaign and then be insulted by their own cause for doing so, not the best way to encourage activism. I'd just like to say thank you very much for your support.

One last thing, either act or don't. There isn't much time before the vote closes. Just to put things in perspective, the number of nations I contacted is more than the original seven blocks put together. I will not be an apologist for this.

12 Days, there's some harsh criticism of your proposal. As the sponsor, do you have a defense to offer?

How, exactly, will this measure protect the environment? It's not enough to merely make enterprise more difficult. Seems to me it's a platitudinous feel-good proposal without any teeth.

I would like to improve the environment, but this plan doesn't seem to do it.

I've voted against it, but would be willing to reconsider if you can offer a cogent defense.

AM

If you think I made things harder for others, then I pity you. It's quite simple ... It's quite simple and easy and I'm offended by your implication that I've made things harder, because basically now you're just belly-aching. I personally made an incredible dent in getting the message out and you come on these forums and deride me for it? I pity you.

I try to be as diplomatic as possible, but in this case it's near impossible; the only way I can be diplomatic at all is to not call you an idiot ...

Way to be diplomatic. Well done.

We'll do our best to reciprocate in similarly diplomatic fashion, by not calling you a hypersensitive, illiterate moron who takes offense where none was offered or intended, and starts 'not' calling people idiots when they offer the smallest criticism of your actions.

We did not "deride" you in our previous message. We pointed out that you've made it harder for the campaign to break up the blocks of delegates without accidentally spamming, by breaking ranks. If you thought your technique was justifiable, all you had to do was defend the technique, because that's all we were criticizing.

It would be interesting in the real world to see this happen, have someone put in hours of work on a political campaign and then be insulted by their own cause for doing so, not the best way to encourage activism. I'd just like to say thank you very much for your support.

You're welcome. It's called constructive criticism.

If you think it was an insult, you clearly have never been seriously involved in real world politics (or real world insults). Real world politics reqire a significantly thicker skin than to take personal offense from a simple criticism of a technique that breaks the standards set by a campaign. Many political campaigns and groups denounce, expel, or occasionally kill people for such undisciplined or ill-considered action, whether undertaken out of enthusiasm or malice.

One last thing, either act or don't. There isn't much time before the vote closes.
We sent telegrams to the delegates in the block immediately following Bucharuie, beginning with Otters Bar, Korjevia, and Longbeards, and ending with Hordakistan, Berens, and Frutini.

Thick skin on.

America the American, I won't let this spiral into a flame fest between the two of us, so I will not respond to any of your points.

Have a nice day.

Way to be diplomatic. Well done.

We'll do our best to reciprocate in similarly diplomatic fashion, by not calling you a hypersensitive, illiterate moron who takes offense where none was offered or intended, and starts 'not' calling people idiots when they offer the smallest criticism of your actions.

We did not "deride" you in our previous message. We pointed out that you've made it harder for the campaign to break up the blocks of delegates without accidentally spamming, by breaking ranks. If you thought your technique was justifiable, all you had to do was defend the technique, because that's all we were criticizing.

You're welcome. It's called constructive criticism.

If you think it was an insult, you clearly have never been seriously involved in real world politics (or real world insults). Real world politics reqire a significantly thicker skin than to take personal offense from a simple criticism of a technique that breaks the standards set by a campaign. Many political campaigns and groups denounce, expel, or occasionally kill people for such undisciplined or ill-considered action, whether undertaken out of enthusiasm or malice.

OOC: What's with all the "we's"? You schitzo or something...?

IC: The ambassador of the Dictatorship of Proletariat Comrades, while agreeing with virtually nothing the Mighty Capitalist Superpower of American the American (and what an abhorrently decadent name THAT is) supports, nonetheless thanks America the American for the display of dry humor. The UN sure can use the amusement from time to time.

Despite the fact that one member has taken it upon him/herself to TG a bunch of delegates without selecting a specific block of names, we should continue.

Has anyone taken the last group I *know* that was completed was 7 (and a bit more) which I took on.... Jackuul-->Geostationary Orbit

I've used motley, half-assed, slapped together bit of counter argument compiled from the thread as well as bits of Ecopoeia or Rehocipe? (I apologize for being disorganized and misquoting sources of material--This is just a game, right? :oops: )

added the--to add prefixes...eg...the people's republic of booger eaters
Where possible I try to throw in a little customization if I see an opportunity--common ground between the nation and my own, or whatever.

Letter
===========>
To the honourable delegate of the [nation],

I as spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds, strongly recommend that you reconsider your vote for the SPCC Regulation Act (SPCCRA). I form part of a multi-partisan coalition for creating good public policy. As a result of studying the SPCCRA and discussion on the NS UN Forums, we have concluded that the goal the SPCCRA attempts to solve MUST be confronted. However, the SPCCRA in its current form will do nothing whatsoever to affect the desired end -- mostly because it doesn't recommend a single measure. The measure simply states a problem! The measure needs to be redrafted and resubmitted in a mature form that will actually improve the environment.


1) Poorly defined -- Pipelines don't have HULLS ships have hulls--

-also accidents of the sort that cause large spills aren't solved by reinforcing ship hulls.
-multiple layers also causes other potentially more dangerous situations.

2) the one clause that actually states what his resolution will DO is only a SUGGESTION.

3) All nations will take a hit to their economy without any significant justification of how this resolution will do good.
-A few lines could help remedy the situation. eg. Research funding for spill containment technology would be more effective. Specifically...funding materials research to spill-proofing pipelines....etc.

4) RESPONSIBLE NATIONs that have adopted renewable energy sources will effectively be PENALIZED by being forced to subsidize WASTEFUL nations that are destroying their environment.

We strongly urge you to Vote AGAINST the resolution! In time a better resolution that DOES something will provide the REAL CHANGE you wish to see!

Passing documents that will never acheive their desired end makes the UN look ridiculous and greatly reduces the credibility of the green lobby. As a nation of people attempting to incrementally enact successful environmental policy (a few bad past policy decisions has disrupted our environment, but by relying on renewable resources we are making progress), we hope you will reconsider your position and persuade those in your region to do the same.

Sincerely,

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds.

P.S. This telegram is part of a wider campaign to persuade all delegates to change their votes from FOR to AGAINST. If you would like to help, go to the UN forum thread "New resolution at vote - SPCC Regulation Act" at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145156&sid=98088a0ce2aa5e5eef2cd72672121eb5


===

If you're going to take a block of nations to contact, post on this forum, please!

Please try to encourage as many delegates as you can to take an active part in changing the tide. Also, if you happen to catch something really dumb in my form letter let me know. I might not have been completely sober when I wrote it. :?

Good luck!
g.e.
Spokesperson for the future People's of the Jovian worlds

State action is bad. One word panopticism. Don't force people to be regulated over a resource that will soon be gone. You don't even provide evidence that says double hulls work. Think about it. If a big rock can break one hull, it can break through two. (note this is for oil tankers) As for double hull pipelines, it would cost a business so much money to replace the equipment (with something that doesn't work, see footnote 1) that they would go out of business. There go your long term advantages. And short term too. And I didn't even have to bother with my big bomb, paopticism. But I'll still do it. Here goes. The panopticon is the perfect prison. Therefore, panopticism is the use or belief(yeah, who would believe in it) in the panopticon. When you pass your policy, you give the UN and those who control it an additional power. A hollow power, to be precise. While we think we are safe and that the UN will protect us from nasty spills or whatnot, they use their power to increase their power. Soon, other countries join the UN, and this soon results in near ultimate panopticism. (Note also that with each joining nation, more money is spent, which is a form of capitalism.) Thus we soon have a UN that is able to repeal the so called protective laws that "save" our environment, and also it begins to destroy our personal freedoms. Then the capitalism kicks in too. So now we are all starving slaves with no rights whatsoever. Along with the fact that we must watch our children starve, be enslaved, die, and our daugthers raped, and eventually everything dies, a giant, worldwide extinction, ending our desperate little struggle on this earth.
Also, I agree with the Jovian Worlds. It is very poorly defined. Maybe an attempt to confuse the anti-planers. So, if you choose the ships, double hulls don't solve. Pipelines destroy businesses. It would be a big oops to pick this plan of all plan to "save" the environment. I'd rather play RUssian Roulette.
It's your choice.

That was quite... um.... dramatic, Magdhans, but if you're worried about your "daughters getting rapped" and the end of the world beginning with the use of double-hulled tankers, you're too late-- if you'll carefully re-read the text of the resolution, you will see a clear reference to a previous resolution that already requires the use of double-hulled tankers. Thus, aside from urging nations to use "double-hulled pipelines (??)" to transport oil, the proposal is adding nothing new at all.

"Minister Nibbling, it looks as if we've got another ally agaist that godawful resolution..."

Elsepeth Nibbling peered over her glasses. "Well, good. We need everyone we can get."

"Um, I don't think we want this one. Their official government line appears to be that this resolution will result in our daughters being raped."

The Minister for Being Nice raised an eyebrow and grabbed a sheaf of documents. "Well, I knew it was badly worded, but I don't see how... is this the same guy who thinks that labour rights are equivalent to slavery, by any chance? Or is it some strange cultural reference to 'double hulls' and 'oil spills' that I was previously unaware of?"

"Um, no. They've been expressing their contempt for all religions as well. Looks like we've got yet another insane libertarian dictator, by the looks of things."

"Oh, their poor people."

"Minister Nibbling, it looks as if we've got another ally agaist that godawful resolution..."

Elsepeth Nibbling peered over her glasses. "Well, good. We need everyone we can get."

"Um, I don't think we want this one. Their official government line appears to be that this resolution will result in our daughters being raped."

The Minister for Being Nice raised an eyebrow and grabbed a sheaf of documents. "Well, I knew it was badly worded, but I don't see how... is this the same guy who thinks that labour rights are equivalent to slavery, by any chance? Or is it some strange cultural reference to 'double hulls' and 'oil spills' that I was previously unaware of?"

"Um, no. They've been expressing their contempt for all religions as well. Looks like we've got yet another insane libertarian dictator, by the looks of things."

"Oh, their poor people."

LOL. PLease, im having fun. Its just a game. On the religious note, I am pro-religion. Just don't force you're opinion on me. Find your truth. I've found mine. It's choice. Red pill or blue pill? Also Rehochipe, I do enjoy your monolouges. THey always crack me up. I guess i have to get really random so I can get more of them. I don't get your labour rights point but okay. As for the pipeline and whatnot, thats due to the poor wording of the proposal. So let me give an example that will get me a monologue.

We will ban all gay marriages and then allow sodomy.
We will kill all (state a religion) but allow baptism in that (religion)

These are poor examples but its kinda like that. Hes saying we will have double hulls (used in ships) and an advantage is better pipelines (dont use double hulls). WTF?
Please. I dont hate religion. Im not insane. Im a liiberatarian dictator whose people can do what they want. Oh well. Oxymoron? maybe. My solution to everything? educate and give people a choice. (notte i know i banned elections i was having fun)
You choose.

"Minister Nibbling, it looks as if we've got another ally agaist that godawful resolution..."

Elsepeth Nibbling peered over her glasses. "Well, good. We need everyone we can get."

"Um, I don't think we want this one. Their official government line appears to be that this resolution will result in our daughters being raped."

The Minister for Being Nice raised an eyebrow and grabbed a sheaf of documents. "Well, I knew it was badly worded, but I don't see how... is this the same guy who thinks that labour rights are equivalent to slavery, by any chance? Or is it some strange cultural reference to 'double hulls' and 'oil spills' that I was previously unaware of?"

"Um, no. They've been expressing their contempt for all religions as well. Looks like we've got yet another insane libertarian dictator, by the looks of things."

"Oh, their poor people."

LOL. PLease, im having fun. Its just a game. On the religious note, I am pro-religion. Just don't force you're opinion on me. Find your truth. I've found mine. It's choice. Red pill or blue pill? Also Rehochipe, I do enjoy your monolouges. THey always crack me up. I guess i have to get really random so I can get more of them. I don't get your labour rights point but okay. As for the pipeline and whatnot, thats due to the poor wording of the proposal. So let me give an example that will get me a monologue.

We will ban all gay marriages and then allow sodomy.
We will kill all (state a religion) but allow baptism in that (religion)

These are poor examples but its kinda like that. Hes saying we will have double hulls (used in ships) and an advantage is better pipelines (dont use double hulls). WTF?
Please. I dont hate religion. Im not insane. Im a liiberatarian dictator whose people can do what they want. Oh well. Oxymoron? maybe. My solution to everything? educate and give people a choice. (notte i know i banned elections i was having fun)
You choose.

That was quite... um.... dramatic, Magdhans, but if you're worried about your "daughters getting rapped" and the end of the world beginning with the use of double-hulled tankers, you're too late-- if you'll carefully re-read the text of the resolution, you will see a clear reference to a previous resolution that already requires the use of double-hulled tankers. Thus, aside from urging nations to use "double-hulled pipelines (??)" to transport oil, the proposal is adding nothing new at all.
Yes t'was. It was quite fun though. My point is this plan is risky. It gives theGoverment (UN/state) more power. Someday, theyll have a wee tad too much. Or so i say. And is tht what they are saying? Double WALLED pipes? ok.
Thanks. You chose.

Hah. Fair enough. (And the labour rights = slavery was someone else entirely).

The current resolution only says it does:


This resolution would be a huge cost the Oil Industry at first, but in the long run ~ would help lower the cost of fuel and lower the cost of environmental clean ups ~ which as we know, are sooner or later passed on to the consumers of the world. This SPCC Regulation Act would benefit the fishing, tourism, shipbuilding industries, and trucking/transport industries.

The problem is, no where in the resolution does it explain how it does this. Are we using magic fairies or are we authorizing martians to come to the Earth and solve all these problems.

My nation does not understand how any nation can vote yes when the resolution doesn't explain how it does anything. It is like handing a signed blank check book or credit card to a 16-year old girl. It is asking for trouble.

10kMichael

The facts are simple, you can't stop accidents, hince the name accidents. No matter how hard you try, double pipes, tripple pipes there will still be accidents. All this law does is push more regulations and restriction and rules over people, in the act dehumanizing them. And why does the government have to do this. When did the governmenet become so adept and knowing how to build these double casese. Instead why not provide incentives to the buisnesses. That way its the best of two worlds. You will get your "environmental protection" if you believe that. And for those who don't want the economy to take a hit it won't. In fact, it will help the economy. And at the same time it will stop dehumanization. Therefor this should be voted down and a new, sane, and thought through resolution should be put forward.

Once again, mob rule is about to win out. I'm going to pull a last minute effort sway a few delegates. Since it's so late in the voting cycle, all we may be able to do now is hit the delegates of large regions and hope they can pursuade enough clumps. Rebeccania --> Bob569 (Tried to pick a large number of 'big' regions.)

For those with an interest in creating good policy, perhaps we could create an organization for TG'ing delegates on UN policy to handle this massive task more efficiently.

(OOC The Delegate list desparately needs a search function to sort by number of endorsements.)

Delegates Contacted....

All Delegates with MORE THAN 2 endorsements from TheSkwunkie -->> Ottoman Empire

So far I've seen some shifting of delegate votes. It's having an affect, albeit a very small one... Anyone feel like pitching in?

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds

It's useless now

Bump

*sigh*

And I must've contacted over 200 delegates including the feeder regions.

i hope u arent trying to get ppl to vite FOR this res. cuz most everyone wants industry over nature, to get their economy up. the body text of the res doesnt do anything, its just for roleplaying. a well-writen res always gets voted for.

this res will hurt everyones economy.

Nice work, Jovian Worlds. I hit about one hundred and fifty myself. I would have hit more, but my methods were discouraged, and I therefore had more important things to do than unreal political activism. It is heartening to see how many of the people I contacted changed their votes, however. Unfortunately, it looks to be too little, too late. Luckily, my real life political activism gives me some solace.

This problem might be lessened by requesting Nation States to use slightly stronger wording to encourage people to become educated on the issue at vote (by visiting the forums) before doing any actual voting.

Well, we're glad that our initial rant at least unified (with an unfortunate exception) representatives in this thread. In one regard, it is highly unfortunate that the Geneva Convention proposal was deleted so late in the day. Had it come to vote, then we would have had more time to shoot down the SPCC.

Oh, well. Our sincere thanks to all who contributed their energies to this enterprise. I note with pleasure that members of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance have united with a 'Mighty Capitalist' nation for this campaign. In light of this unusual development, we have sent a party of senior scientists to Hell to search for evidence of sub-zero temperatures.

Best wishes to you all.

Ann Clayborne & Nadia Cherneshevsky
Speakers for the Environment and Industry
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

With all of the many Nations against this...why is it still passing?

Does no one read? I am so sick of these pointless tree hugging resolutions.

double post

With all of the many Nations against this...why is it still passing?

Does no one read? I am so sick of these pointless tree hugging resolutions.

Actually, if we had another day or two, I'm pretty confident we could scuttle this version of the resolution. In time one that will actually *DO SOMETHIGN* might pass. Since last night an additional 1000 votes has come in on the AGAINST side while only about 100 on the FOR side...

I'd say that's some pretty good last minute progress (despite not being enough).

g.e.

The UN needs to fall, and be replaced with a entity that will accualy represent every nation in the world. Our current UN represents only the anti-business, enviornmentalist, welfare-loving liberals. This needs to stop. We need a resolution stopping any further procedings of the UN, and their liberal propaganda. THey are sbjugating all of the nations that do not realize what is going on. Those nations who just post "agree" when voting for UN resolutions, without even reading the wole article. I am tired of being overlooked by this horrible leading organization. If there is a way to start a new UN-type organization, we need to start it. We might even want to just replace the current UN, with a new organization that represents the entire world. We need to pass a resolution to disban the UN. If anyone will support me with this, please send me a telegram or just reply in this forum. ITS TIME FOR THE UN TO GO!

The President of the Borderlands of Ivana Tapit
-Andy Sotak

Please send me support letters!

Fellow anti-SPCC nations
I am new at this game and have a question. Can we pass legislation that voids past legislation? Like an anti-SPCC bill? If not, we should pool our resources, like the hippies did. Maybe a region, something like an anti-excessive environmental policy peoples. Then we could just call up our little fellow UN nations and vote, in one big swarm, allowing us extra time to recruit extra nations. If all else fails we can all leave the UN, and just live in a loose alliance for reasons to be decided. Also, sorry Magdhans didn't vote, it was just now accepted into the UN.

We will succeed someday,
The Most Corrupt Dictator of Magdhans, (attempted to be benevolent) Sir LG

PS: Good luck to Chancellor Nibbles, and everyone else with enough sense to not want this plan.

Can we pass legislation that voids past legislation? Like an anti-SPCC bill?

In a word.... no. It would involve the game moderators having to recode large chunks of the software that runs it, so is a big no-no. And nations which submit proposals repealing past resolutions tend to disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen again...

Hmm. Well, I've quit the UN for now. If they get a little less green (and by that, I mean drop the disgustingly vague and economically damaging economic crap alltogether), I might consider rejoining. I'm bothered by the fact that it actually affected my nation. If I were actually in control of my dictatorship, we would have vehemently disobeyed the regulation, and dumped oil into the sea in protest.