NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal aims to regulate the harvesting of oil and promote the right to safety and environmental well-being of nations in which multi-national corporations operate.

Description: OHS (Oil Harvesting Safety)

In a recent UN proposal, it was stipulated that oil leaks were an environmental danger and were capable of wreaking immense damage. This is true also of the harvesting done in typically third-world countries by oil magnates. The loss of life and general environmental upheaval caused by below standard harvesting and transport tools in countries such as Nigeria has begun to take a great toll on the world.

For the sake of future generations of both oil users and the people of third-world countries, we must unite to ensure that multi-national corporations such as Shell are unable to exploit the lands of those less fortunate and escape with no consequences.

The situation in these countries has become appalling. In a third world country where laws are seldom enforced when multinational corporations are involved, pipelines carrying crude oil are placed above ground, sometimes up to six feet off the ground which is against regulation. Any leaks from these pipes contaminate local flora and fauna and place the inhabitants of the immediate area in dire peril.

This proposal does indeed extend on that proposed recently under the SPCC regulation act but I ask my fellow UN members to not only consider the fates of areas such as Long Island and San Francisco but that of less fortunate nations. This proposal also aims to set specific sanctions on corporations and their origin countries through due process of a disciplinary hearing.

As such, it is suggested that a levy of $300 Million is used as a first offence charge with escalating costs as decided by a panel put forth by the UN.

It is furthermore suggested that a mandatory site inspection by a UN official (preferably a delegate) on any approved harvesting or transport site should precede development of aforementioned site. A regulation depth of 2 (two) meters depth for pipes shall also be enforced.

The initial cost of this venture will be placed upon the oil industry itself. Although the first costs of this regulation will be quite large, the benefits for oil industries will be great once the measures suggested have been implemented. The oil industry in general should realize an 80% drop in clean-up charges as well as a 75% drop in transport maintenance costs once pipe-lines are securely underground.

This OHS Regulation Act would benefit the fishing, tourism, pipe-building, pipe-maintenance, architecture and engineering industries.

"Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures" was an earlier resolution, at the time of submission still to be passed. At the time of this submission, the votes stood as follows: 97073 For & Votes Against: 3773

Currently looking for endorsements for this proposal

Oh god no. People are using SPCC as a model now? Kill me.

You ever hear that expression "like father like son?" Well, I have a variant that I like even better. It goes "from shit comes shit." Speaking of which, how about we all knock off the oil proposals, hmm? Especially proposals that aren't so much proper proposals but essays on a topic suggesting that we should levy fines on people but provide enforcement group to monitor the places where the infractions take place.

Wow. That's a long sentence.

Well, it didn't take long did it? On the SPCC thread several people pointed out that if you let bad proposals like that one reach the floor for a vote, it would only encourage more of them. Voila!

I agree with the member from Sophista, can we please have a moratorium on environmental proposals, particularly in regards to oil?

Well, it didn't take long did it? On the SPCC thread several people pointed out that if you let bad proposals like that one reach the floor for a vote, it would only encourage more of them. Voila!

I agree with the member from Sophista, can we please have a moratorium on environmental proposals, particularly in regards to oil?

Well, it didn't take long did it? On the SPCC thread several people pointed out that if you let bad proposals like that one reach the floor for a vote, it would only encourage more of them. Voila!

I agree with the member from Sophista, can we please have a moratorium on environmental proposals, particularly in regards to oil?

Well, it didn't take long did it? On the SPCC thread several people pointed out that if you let bad proposals like that one reach the floor for a vote, it would only encourage more of them. Voila!

I agree with the member from Sophista, can we please have a moratorium on environmental proposals, particularly in regards to oil?

Well, it didn't take long did it? On the SPCC thread several people pointed out that if you let bad proposals like that one reach the floor for a vote, it would only encourage more of them. Voila!

I agree with the member from Sophista, can we please have a moratorium on environmental proposals, particularly in regards to oil?

Dear Moronic Overlord

Sorry. Demonic Overlord. Oops.

I apologise that my proposal has obviously incensed your puny UN mind and is not up to standard to your usual hoity-toity tight-ass ideas.

Gwarra Gwarra

:)

This proposal aims to regulate the harvesting of oil and promote the right to safety and environmental well-being of nations in which multi-national corporations operate.

Description: OHS (Oil Harvesting Safety)

In a recent UN proposal, it was stipulated that oil leaks were an environmental danger and were capable of wreaking immense damage. This is true also of the harvesting done in typically third-world countries by oil magnates. The loss of life and general environmental upheaval caused by below standard harvesting and transport tools in countries such as Nigeria has begun to take a great toll on the world.

For the sake of future generations of both oil users and the people of third-world countries, we must unite to ensure that multi-national corporations such as Shell are unable to exploit the lands of those less fortunate and escape with no consequences.

There are several problems with this paragraph; firstly not all nations in NS are capitalist which is what you are assuming. Secondly you are using examples from real life, this is Nationstates and so corporations such as Shell and countries such as Nigeria do not exist nor is there a ‘third world’ as far as I am aware. In our opinion proposals should as far as possible be written with the NS community in mind.

The situation in these countries has become appalling. In a third world country where laws are seldom enforced when multinational corporations are involved, pipelines carrying crude oil are placed above ground, sometimes up to six feet off the ground which is against regulation. Any leaks from these pipes contaminate local flora and fauna and place the inhabitants of the immediate area in dire peril.

This proposal does indeed extend on that proposed recently under the SPCC regulation act but I ask my fellow UN members to not only consider the fates of areas such as Long Island and San Francisco but that of less fortunate nations. This proposal also aims to set specific sanctions on corporations and their origin countries through due process of a disciplinary hearing.

Again, reference here is made to events in real life and while fascinating and worthy to note, does nothing to help the proposal. It is purely background with no relevance to the NS world. In addition whilst the SPCC regulation act may have recently passed, you will note many worthy comments from many esteemed members in the UN forum. The last proposal did nothing, it was an essay of the ills of the RL world but there were no measures to be taken at all. The UN is a body by which members seek to improve the world by taking active measurable steps. Proposals such as the SPCC make a mockery of the NS UN. They say nothing and achieve nothing.

As such, it is suggested that a levy of $300 Million is used as a first offence charge with escalating costs as decided by a panel put forth by the UN.

It is furthermore suggested that a mandatory site inspection by a UN official (preferably a delegate) on any approved harvesting or transport site should precede development of aforementioned site. A regulation depth of 2 (two) meters depth for pipes shall also be enforced.

Everything above is suggestions alone and no measures. It makes the resolution useless because no one has to do anything, which brings me back to my comment on the SPCC regulation. In addition, all the NS nations have their own currency, as indeed you do, it makes the levy meaningless.

The initial cost of this venture will be placed upon the oil industry itself. Although the first costs of this regulation will be quite large, the benefits for oil industries will be great once the measures suggested have been implemented. The oil industry in general should realize an 80% drop in clean-up charges as well as a 75% drop in transport maintenance costs once pipe-lines are securely underground.

This OHS Regulation Act would benefit the fishing, tourism, pipe-building, pipe-maintenance, architecture and engineering industries.

When you quote figures or say, “this will happen when this is passed” you are making a statement. This can be challenged and you will have to provide proof for your argument. Resolutions are legal documents they must not be ambiguous. Currently all this is an opinion, which you have the right argue, but not enforce.

My final suggestion would be to take part in a coherent effort to write a proposal that would help the environment and would stand up against criticism. I am sure you will agree that to have a proposal worth its salt, is much better than something wish washy. We respect your efforts to write a proposal on a subject you care about, but we feel that in trying to help the cause, you may, however inadvertently, do more damage than good.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

I am impressed by and in agreement with the comments made by Ms Cornwall of Telidia.

Ann Clayborne
Speaker for the Environment
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

Dear Moronic Overlord Sorry. Demonic Overlord. Oops. I apologise that my proposal has obviously incensed your puny UN mind and is not up to standard to your usual hoity-toity tight-ass ideas.

This probably isn't the best way to garner support for your policy recommendations, especially in the face of the arguments raised by the eloquent speaker from Telidia. While I'm sure there's a good idea hiding somewhere in that tangled mass of irrelevance, calling names isn't going to help anyone find it.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Sorry about the multiple posts; the computer and I weren't playing nicely together yesterday.

Dear Moronic Overlord

Sorry. Demonic Overlord. Oops.

I apologise that my proposal has obviously incensed your puny UN mind and is not up to standard to your usual hoity-toity tight-ass ideas.

Gwarra Gwarra

:)

Such sophomoric name-calling says far more about the one who speaks than the one being spoken to.

As for not being "...up to standard to your usual hoity-toity tight-ass ideas", I can only say you know nothing of my standards or ideas, for I have not been around long enough nor posted often enough to have any "usual ideas" that would be known to anyone but myself.

Oh god no. People are using SPCC as a model now? Kill me.


what is this for i dont know. :lol: can u help me. if so email me at badboy182007@juno.com plz thanks

Oh god no. People are using SPCC as a model now? Kill me.

*crying*

But look on the bright side, at least the SPCC doesn't hold the honor of being the WORST proposal to hit the UN. Now we've got the OHS.
Before my nation heads on "vacation" I'm wondering if it should just leave the UN before too many of these other proposals hit the floors.

To the nations that make these proposals ... have any of you bothered to ONCE look around at resolutions from the (real) UN that have passed? Try visiting the UN's web page. Try it. Just once. Obviously you have time to type out these ... er whatever you want to call them.

One last point, using real world examples, like Shell Oil, is against the nationstates UN rules. Please drop the Shell Oil reference.

10kMichael

For the love of Elf-bashing, this UN is even worse than the real one! What's next, ban human cloning?

For the love of Elf-bashing, this UN is even worse than the real one! What's next, ban human cloning?

You always have such useful, well reasoned, warranted commentary. As a matter of fact, I think it may be a little too complex for us and is probably better for the likes of Forum 7. Perhaps you should visit there more often.

Now, as for this proposal.

DEAREST CHRIST IN HEAVEN WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE?! Quit referrencing the real world. Unless some nation in NationStates has started RPing that the Shell corporation has suddenly sprung corporate headquarter roots in one of its nation's cities, QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT! Moreover, unless someone's RPing a nation named Nigeria and they've RPed the happenings you're talking about, QUIT USING THEM! Blast it all! I can't believe people are writing things like this. Before I proposed "Reduce Black Market Arms Sales" a year ago, I looked up several UN proposals on the matter, exported some of the legalise, fashioned my proposal in the same way as theirs were written, and submitted it thusly. However, I made no mention of anything that wasn't a reality in the world of NationStates. This is a "role-playing" game. We have assumed the rolls of nations that do not exist, or if they share a name with ones we know in the real world, do not mirror their history unless role-played to have done so. Please base EVERY proposal off this assumption and go from there. And if you're going to try and garner support for your resolution, don't shoot comments off about another player that presume things about them to be true, including but not limited to their intellectual capacity and ideological sympathies. If you REALLY have to, sit down and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." The book's largely a load of crap but might give you a modicum of a clue as to how you actually persuade people to be interested in your aim.

At any rate, I would encourage UN members not to endorse proposals presented in this fashion, largely because they make it necessary to leech out vague objectives from the airy soap-boxing that is done throughout the essay--err proposal rather. They will continue to set poor precedence for the order of business in the UN and can only encourage mandateless proposals to flood the docket that do little more than preach instead of set goals for this body.

As to authors of proposals, give some thought to possible international issues that are a bit more inventive and a change from what's already been seen in the UN. The latest example of the 40 hour work week is fresh and new, and not long before that, my proposal on black market arms trading broached a subject not mentioned before. The UN has a body of resolution material regarding oil spills and the like, and we could likely do without another one. Diversify the goals of this body and take aim for a more proactive stance in forming foundations to alleviate ALL threats to humanity's wellbeing, not just expounding endlessly on a few.

It's times like this where I sit back and go "if only NS2 were around, by golly we'd be able to fix these kinds of problems. And then I remember, "gah, any moron at McDonalds can come up with the money to join it, we're all screwed."

In short, yes, I agree with the sentiments raised by Daldago. It seems that our moderator overlords have abandonded us in our time of need. Once upon a time, crap resolutions didn't make it to the floor because they were indeed crap. Remember, once upon a time, when a whole bunch of properly worded, non-real world resolutions came through? Yeah. I miss those days.

Maybe we can get all the intelligent, clear-thinking members together and form some kind of grassroots lobby against idiocy. Sure, that would require, well, working, but look at it this way: once we get over 40 hours, we start making more money! Either that, or someone up in moderatorville needs to hand the keys to one of us lovely folk so we can start policing the proposal queue and removing ones that blatantly break the rules.

Idea

To stop bad proposals from making it to a floor for a vote, we could attempt an organized method for seeking and weeding out bad proposals. Rather than telegram countless hundreds of delegates once the resolution is on the floor, it is far more effective to shut down the chaff before they make it. Just let them expire as they should. A better proposal will come along eventually.

I would be willing to start sifting through...but not tonight :)

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future Peoples of the Jovian Worlds

In short, yes, I agree with the sentiments raised by Daldago.

I'm hoping you meant Galdago. :lol:

Thank you for the criticism. It was well received actually. Especial thanks to Sophista and Telidia.

Sorry Overlord, it was a bad day and your criticism wasn't exactly particularly constructive. Just hit a nerve. :) Thank you for taking the time to criticise though.

:D Thank you all.

I'm hoping you meant Galdago.

Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. The world may never know.

Rather than telegram countless hundreds of delegates once the resolution is on the floor, it is far more effective to shut down the chaff before they make it. Just let them expire as they should. A better proposal will come along eventually.

We don't have the power to shut down proposals, and we can't really organize against the thousands of delegates who idly approve resolutions without ever reading the forums. They don't know the rules, so they don't help us at all.

I like the idea of an organized lobby, I'm just not sure how to pull it off.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Either that, or someone up in moderatorville needs to hand the keys to one of us lovely folk so we can start policing the proposal queue and removing ones that blatantly break the rules.

That is a tall task.

When Edonia was the mod, once or twice I messaged him with a proposal that was pretty clearly a violation.

This one fits the bill because of the Shell Oil reference. The rest of it just happens to be poorly written, but with minor edits to the form and content, I think most of us wouldn't have a problem with the proposal.

Granted, I seriously doubt that the author of these proposals has any science or engineering to back up this 2 foot / meter requirement (I can't recall which requirement was used ... we should be using meters here though). But that is the kind of thing that will certainly come out in debate should enough delegates endorse the proposal.

10kMichael