NationStates Jolt Archive

From President Brian:

We are voting against the current UN Resolution.

The United Nations has already forced the following environmental provisions on all of its member nations:

- Single-hulled oil tankers have been banned
- Required to recycle all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries
- Required to develop Hydrogen powered cars
- Required to replant trees cut down for logging
- Dumping of waste in oceans and rivers has been banned
- Dumping of waste not only is rebanned, but also has mandatory penalties assigned, which are required to be enforced by the member states' judicial systems
- Created a "World Heritage List" that enables ANY STATE to claim that an area in ANY OTHER STATE is a "protected environmental area" and cannot be mined, logged or converted into housing
- Required all automobile manufacturing companies (USBR's primary manufacturer and largest export) to devote 1% of their profits to alternative fuels research (which we assume is above and beyond the requirement to develop a hydrogen powered car)
- Forced the automatic reduction of the worldwide woodchipping industry for no apparent reason (as they're required to replant what they cut according to a previous UN resolution)
- Regulated the cycling of ballast water on commercial vessels engaged in transnational trade
- Rebanned single hulled tankers and mandated the use of "double hulled pipelines" (whatever these are) and mandated the clean up of oil spills
- Created a Worldwide Woodland Protection Team that would strictly regulate logging and ensure that the already UN reduced woodchipping industry face even further fines and damages if they illegaly log in any area they aren't supposed to (which I am sure includes the entire planet, which some of these states must have registered on the 'World Heritage List')
- Banned whaling, including the confiscation and destruction of whaling vessels
- Required UN member states to increase (again) the amount of money going into alternative fuel sources including mandating a 2% increase in the use of wind and solar power over the next five years.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The environmental lobby has already destroyed the logging industry worldwide, and has introduced so many competeing and complimentary environmental regulations that industry is flocking to non-UN member states where they don't require a team of 100 lawyers to operate.

If we do not take a stand against these crazed UN environmentalists, we will soon have no industry in our states whatsoever. This is not something that the USBR wants to see - merely feeding the 3.5 billion in our state requires significant industrialization.

And, for the record, the USBR has one of the most pristine environments in the region and in the world. Yet these decisions have been made by our state for our state - not as a result of mandated UN bilge.

You'll see that in the approaching 2-year history of the NS United Nations, that while there have been many Environmental resolutions, that the quality of many of them has slowly IMHO improved. (See the UNA Archive for text of the resolutions.)

Furthermore, I think (I've not completed my analysis yet) that there are many more Human Rights resolutions.

I don't think the Environmental resolutions are the problem, but rather the lack of interest of nations to put forth Free Trade, International Security, Furtherment of Democracy, Global Disarmament, etc. classified proposals. Note, these proposals do in fact exist, but UN Delegates really have stated that they like the Environmental ones. And numerically I think they are right.

Later today I'll generate a summary of pass ratio by category and count, but I think that the Environmental ones might be up there. Of course there have been some really "slam dunk" human rights resolutions as well.

While this resolution should have no bearing on my country, as it has converted mostly to renewable energy sources (or at least thats what the issues tell me), I was wondering whether this resolution has any bearing on the beef-related businesses.

I'm pretty sure that many are well aware that bovine byproducts are detrimental to the environment, namely the ozone layer, but the only solution that this resolution encompasses is fossil fuels.

Since many of my allies have beef-based economies, will they be effected by this ozone-protecting manuver by the left?

I don't think the Environmental resolutions are the problem, but rather the lack of interest of nations to put forth Free Trade, International Security, Furtherment of Democracy, Global Disarmament, etc. classified proposals. Note, these proposals do in fact exist, but UN Delegates really have stated that they like the Environmental ones. And numerically I think they are right.
You mean the 40-50 UN delegates that come to the UN Forum, not the 33,000+ UN delegates that vote for everything on the table, right?

Human Rights issues are a slam-dunk because they have no negtive effects except raising the bar for certain types of tyrannies. Environmental issues chop hell out of industry everytime they pass. As a Corporate State, We resent the hell out of all the environmental packages too, we just don't make a big fuss about it. But unless there is an economic incentive to take that hit, we vote against them every time.

Brian's Room is right. The environmental agenda is being pushed too hard. There is a lot of agreement among a dozen or so 'regulars' here, but that doesn't make it universal. I for one would appreciate it you guys backed off a bit.

You mean the 40-50 UN delegates that come to the UN Forum, not the 33,000+ UN delegates that vote for everything on the table, right?

Human Rights issues are a slam-dunk because they have no negtive effects except raising the bar for certain types of tyrannies. Environmental issues chop hell out of industry everytime they pass. As a Corporate State, We resent the hell out of all the environmental packages too, we just don't make a big fuss about it. But unless there is an economic incentive to take that hit, we vote against them every time.

Brian's Room is right. The environmental agenda is being pushed too hard. There is a lot of agreement among a dozen or so 'regulars' here, but that doesn't make it universal. I for one would appreciate it you guys backed off a bit.

Slow down there.

The majority of UN resolutions are being submitted by nations that haven't stepped foot in the forums. How they collect the endorsements and move proposals along is a mystery to me.

But UN Delegates *are* endorsing the hell out of environmental proposals. The current resolution had over 250 endorsements when I last looked. (Tracking Near Earth Objects beat that mark, but I telegrammed the hell out of that International Security proposal).

If this forum was to represent the vote outcomes on most resolutions, we should be seeing 4 positive statements for each negative one in what I'd call the slam dunk cases and then 2 positives to one negative for the close calls.

But before you continue to complain about what the "guys" (whomever the hell they are), here is an earth shattering idea ... get off your butts and push those Free Trade issues. They've passed before, and I think that you'll find many nations (including mine) just as happy to vote for those. Don't have ideas one Free Trade topics? Simply pick commodities and hit them up one issue at a time. You could FLOOD the UN and build a "Trade Block", and as an added bonus, each free trade item debated on the floor is one other item you won't have to get annoyed with.

The big "secret" is that there is no agenda, people build resolutions around ideas they are interested in. And many nations often agree with the UN Delegates ... meaning if a proposal can stand the test of 135+ endorsements, its chances of passing as a resolution are pretty good.

While I'm pushing a biodiversity and peaceful uses of outer space (environmental and global disarmament), my government will be releasing its own Free Trade and Gun Control issues in coming months. I also have a Furtherment of Democracy proposal I want to get rolling, before I really sit down and revisit HIV again. But *all* of my government's plans are subject to what else comes down the pipe line. If the "problems" I want to address are taken care of before I get a chance, then fine. In fact, there was a HIV proposal that I felt captured about 1/2 of what I wanted, and that frankly was good enough for me now.

BTW there are far fewer than 33,000 UN Delegates, and lately UN resolutions have had between 22,000 and 15,000 votes cast (including votes cast by UN Delegates ... i.e. double counted votes).

You mean the 40-50 UN delegates that come to the UN Forum, not the 33,000+ UN delegates that vote for everything on the table, right?

Human Rights issues are a slam-dunk because they have no negtive effects except raising the bar for certain types of tyrannies. Environmental issues chop hell out of industry everytime they pass. As a Corporate State, We resent the hell out of all the environmental packages too, we just don't make a big fuss about it. But unless there is an economic incentive to take that hit, we vote against them every time.

Brian's Room is right. The environmental agenda is being pushed too hard. There is a lot of agreement among a dozen or so 'regulars' here, but that doesn't make it universal. I for one would appreciate it you guys backed off a bit.

Hear Hear!

*applause from the Knootian corner*

EDIT: *makes pie chart to prove point*
EDIT2: linky to pie in question (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354337)

Too bad the rules don't allow resolutions to be passed that repeal previous resolutions... I'm pretty sure the real UN could do that if they wanted to.

"Repeal the UN Charter" in Alpha Centauri is fun. :P

However I do see some reason in not allowing it: it is difficult for the game code, and it would mean that many issues would be debated again, and again, and again, and again.

Too bad the rules don't allow resolutions to be passed that repeal previous resolutions... I'm pretty sure the real UN could do that if they wanted to.

From what I've heard, a UN Resolution Repeal mechanism is being developed.

From what I've heard, a UN Resolution Repeal mechanism is being developed.

I'm in favour of that, though I'd hope that like a proposal, that a high number of endorsements be required to repeal a resolution, and I also feel that a super majority (say 2/3 vote) should be required. It would be nice if we had to wait 6 months before repealing resolutions too, as I'd hate to see the UN get so tied up in sex based resolutions.

That said, there are a number of resolutions I'd actively *campaign* to have repealed.

On another note, I'm glad that the first pie chart confirmed my earlier opinion that Human Rights resolutions were more frequent than others. Though again, I'd like to point out to all ... if you are tired of Human Rights, Social Justice, or Environmental resolutions, it is simple to proposal Free Trade issues. I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been a Free Trade resolution with respect to oil yet.

What would there be to resolutionise about oil?

What would there be to resolutionise about oil?

I've heard that some nations only sell their oil to nations who sell oil band together and form cartels to set the prices of oil ... maybe your government might like that, my government is neutral (as the global sale of the spice Melange is much more important to the human race), but it is one of many ideas.

I hear that pharmacuticals (sp?) have a different problem. Nations like Bushatopia, have placed trade barriers on medicine supplies manufactured in other countries! They drive up their domestic costs of drugs (hurting their own citizens) and block companies like Stark International from bringing their synthentic substitutes into those markets. This is a barrier to free trade.

Of course, I've hinted that my government has other priorities and is actually happywith the current environmental resolutions. But if I were complaining about these things, my response would be to put together a free trade proposal and collect interested parties. Hell, maybe I'll just talk to my government about speeding up its plans for its Free Trade proposal.

That said, the International Democratic Union (link in my sig below) is open to all (vistors and new members). The current UN Delegate Cheney-Land is perhaps more economically focused than my government, and I'm pretty sure that a well prepared Free Trade resolution will receive an IDU endorsement.

Haven Energy Committee (http://s7.invisionfree.com/KIST/index.php?showforum=5)
In this closed forum, the nations in Haven producing oil, uranium and the like gather to discuss economic matters. All ongoing discussions here should be taken as secret-IC unless stated otherwise.

Note the admin on the board. Also note Global Hell Oil. (Anyway... the HEC subforum is fairly inactive due to all members being on IRC #nationstates. But the point stands.) My Oil stuff is already regulated in RP. :p

*shrug* Anyway, perhaps you missed the big "A pro-business resolution" thread? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950) What do you think I am trying to do there?

as the global sale of the spice Melange is much more important to the human race
Hang on.

Since when did Mikitivity have control of Arrakis?

Hang on.

Since when did Mikitivity have control of Arrakis?

;)

You think that Shai-Hulud only lives on Dune?

*points to his blue-within-blue Miervatian eyes*

The City States of Mikitivity were founded based on the Spice trade! Klaatu nomads have harvested the Plains of Despair long before Zensunni Wanderers even dreamed of space flight. And Miervatian merchants traded the water flowing down Mt. Delenn to the nomads and then saw to it that others could learn to appreciate the medicinal benefits of the spice Melange. Thus was born the confederation of communities. And soon too did the Barada and Nikto join in the trade.

This resolution would do immense damage to ITD's thermal depolymerization fuel plants. We have made oil a cheap and renewable source of energy, which complies with the "Sustainable Energy Sources" resolution.

If this resolution passes, ITD will have no choice but to move its oil production facilities to other nations in the empire.

We are also object to the fact that this is really 2 resolutions in 1 package.

Support world efforts to strengthen scientific capacities, particularly in developing countries, and to promote the exchange of data and analyses obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction;

This has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. Developing nations should not get a free ride when it comes to technology and science. We did our own scientific research, so should they. We also object to the preposterous idea of the free exchange of data.

Actually this raises an interesting point, and one that's been a bit of a pet of mine for a while now. The problem as I see it isn't that the environment is a popular subject, the problem is that protecting the environment, as far as the NS UN is concerned, necessarily harms industry. This idea is, frankly, absurd.

Biodiversity has many potential uses, including for our own human medical needs. It's not just some third grader's fantasy of maintaining what the 4H said was a balanced ecosystem that is for some mysterious reason deemed important, there is real potential in the field of biodiversity to improve human life and the medical industry.

Protected wilderness areas can be made just as economically rewarding as biodiversity, for the same reasons as biodiversity, and for other reasons such as tourism. Both fields can also boost our own scientific knowledge and thus our educational systems, which in turn (at least in reality) produces better workers and stronger economies.

I think instead of lobbying to shut up environmental protectionists, we should be lobbying to add options to make protection profitable instead of forcing it to be harmful when such a course isn't even the intuitive one to begin with.

;)

You think that Shai-Hulud only lives on Dune?

*points to his blue-within-blue Miervatian eyes*

The City States of Mikitivity were founded based on the Spice trade! Klaatu nomads have harvested the Plains of Despair long before Zensunni Wanderers even dreamed of space flight. And Miervatian merchants traded the water flowing down Mt. Delenn to the nomads and then saw to it that others could learn to appreciate the medicinal benefits of the spice Melange. Thus was born the confederation of communities. And soon too did the Barada and Nikto join in the trade.

ummmmmm. yeah, i'll be going now.

From what I've heard, a UN Resolution Repeal mechanism is being developed.Tis true (shudder), [violet] via email informed me when I requested validity of the rumours that she was busy quietly coding away on it.

I don't think the Environmental resolutions are the problem, but rather the lack of interest of nations to put forth Free Trade, International Security, Furtherment of Democracy, Global Disarmament, etc. classified proposals. Note, these proposals do in fact exist, but UN Delegates really have stated that they like the Environmental ones. And numerically I think they are right.

Actually I think that it's more the fact that the ones submitted are so badly written that no delegate in their right mind would approve them.

Someone should write a resolution banning further envirnmental intrusion in countries. That would stop anymore from passing.

Tis true (shudder), [violet] via email informed me when I requested validity of the rumours that she was busy quietly coding away on it.

Does that mean we can start work on repeals and amendments and even post them on the forum without the thread being locked, as long as we hold off submission? Because I've had something up my sleeve for a long time to straighten out the mess that was "Legalise Euthanasia".

From President Brian:

What I believe would be of the most usefulness would be a resolution that repeals all of the previous environmental regulations and instead replaces them with a coherent, cogent, and easily complied with set of regulations that protect the environment without destroying industry. As you can see from my brief cataloguing of the current resolutions we operate under, this has already gotten out of hand.

The resolution should cover the same ground, but only once.

Perhaps, if I can break myself away from hiring lawyers to prepare to comply with this latest resolution, I'll have the time to write it myself.

There's no way you could fit ALL the relevant regulations into one resolution - nor would the effect of that one resolution be great enough to reflect the extent of the legislation. Perhaps you could group them like this: biodiversity and endangered species (I don't think we have any of these passed yet, but we certainly need them); logging restrictions; waste dumping; oil transportation regulations; electricity generation; and cleaner transportation.

Does that mean we can start work on repeals and amendments and even post them on the forum without the thread being locked, as long as we hold off submission? Because I've had something up my sleeve for a long time to straighten out the mess that was "Legalise Euthanasia".

You certainly can post your ideas off-forum.

I'd highly recommend that you subscribe to each of the Pacific forums and post your idea there. My government does the same and would love to help getting something ready for repealing that UN Resolution the *second* that feature comes on-line.

The way to do it is to:

- Write the proposal now.
- Get international support soon.
- Wait.

If we get about 10 nations helping you, we could probably find a hundred UN Delegates willing to support us.

That said, on my regional groups forum, I'm building a list of "Do Not Call" delegates. These are people whom have either politely asked not to be included in telegram campaigns and *in the future* may include delegates whom are lost causes. Anyway, since this is different than telegramming at this point, I'm thinking I might contact that small list (currently one delegate) whom actually is very supportive of UN proposals, and his nation may in fact join us. :)

...biodiversity and endangered species (I don't think we have any of these passed yet, but we certainly need them)...

Just as a side note, I've been working on a biodiversity proposal for a while now. There's a thread in this forum about it started by Mikitivity (Thanks by the way, Miki!), and I'll be submitting it for the third time within the next few days.

Other commitments prevent me from telegramming on any useful scale, so it's taking a while to get it into queue just on word of mouth and Miki's efforts. If you know any delegates who would be interested, please feel free to direct them to that thread or to me or Miki.

The Commonwealth of the Kinsella Islands supports this resolution, as part of a firm committment to environmental protection and a progressive attitude toward sustainable development. Environmental regulations have actually *helped* us develop our auto industry, from an economy based on the dubious practice of exporting raw materials.


Frankly, the adjustment may be harder for more established industries, but for those who are interested in the free market, they're essentially saying that if the world moves to create a more sustainable lifestyle, that they won't be able to *compete.*

It can't be said that the regulations in place are *too much,* certainly. We have a choice: to be committed to protecting the environment for the future, or to live in a world where the effects of what we do today will make such corporate profits moot.

After all, we're *islands*. Sea level rise is not our friend. A brief consideration of statistics on how much of the world's population... not to mention cropland, and infrastructure, is found close to sea level, should be enough indication that it's no one else's friend, either. The econonmic losses involved would reduce the market for such goods as automobiles... threatening the industry to a far greater extent than investment into ecologically-sound technology ever could.

The environmental regulations may be extensive, and may require some small sacrifices, but we expect them to stand us in good stead in the long term as resources dwindle, compared to nations who resist change in the name of immediate profits.

tree hugger!!!!!!!!!

Well, at least we hug trees if caught out in a monsoon. :)

i approve of environmental issues mostly because they were already in effect here. then again, that's how we've started off, so it's less of a problem for us. older nations will probably find fossil fuels as hard to let go of as the south did slavery.
but in any case, that's my stance.

Kedcre's public loudspeakers will brainwash it's citizens into randomly commiting acts of insanity* on any nation that proposes an enivornmental bill. While we support the environment we need more resolutions that cause Capitalism to die!

*Acts of insanity include: HIJACKING OF CONSTRUCTION BULLDOZERS AND DRIVING THEM INTO HOSPITALS AND GAS STATIONS OF NATIONS THAT PROPOSE THESE RESOLUTIONS. Kedcre has banned cars and does not have gas stations and THEREFORE is immune to these type of attacks!

-Kedcre Department of Foreign Policy (KDFP)

The KDFP would like to say that it supports the current resolution.

Kedcre's public loudspeakers will brainwash it's citizens into randomly commiting acts of insanity* on any nation that proposes an enivornmental bill. While we support the environment we need more resolutions that cause Capitalism to die!

Er... that's what those Environmental resolutions are doing. How many times do you need to protect the trees with mandated 100% compliance?

Not like this current one would affect me anyway. I'm all solar powered, baby!

If you're tired of all these tree hugers hijacking the UN, while other excellent non ecological acts get ignored - I got a resolution for you.

Industrial Act.


Seriously, there have been hundreds of great proposals which just get ignored simply because it's not environmental. While poorly written, doublicate and triplicate environmental resolutions, get passed again and again and again.

Er... that's what those Environmental resolutions are doing. How many times do you need to protect the trees with mandated 100% compliance?

Not like this current one would affect me anyway. I'm all solar powered, baby!*The Rep of Komokom narrows his eyes ...

" Wait on, where is the Caloris Basin ? "

" Wait on, where is the Caloris Basin ? "
In the giant crater of the same name on the surface of Mercury.

The Kingdom of Tihland supports all protections of the environment. Most, if not all, protections of the environment help lengthen the time period an economy succeeds through the protection of endangered species (plants and animals--the industry effected won't suddenly lose its raw materials) and the reduction of air pollution (more people live longer to buy goods).

We support the nation of Kinsella Islands on this issue.

However, we do agree that proposals need to be well written. The best way for this to happen is for nations to voluntarily write well written proposals. At this point in time, I do not believe a computer will be able to write the proposal better.

--The People of Tihland and their King

From President Brian:

As I have stated before - it is not the mere presence of environmental resolutions that concerns us.

It is layering and layering of environmental regulations that are making it extremely difficult for industry to remain in UN member states.

The arrogance of the United Nations sometimes allows its states to forget that not every nation in the world is a UN member. Forcing all of these environmental regulations on us merely creates a burden for industry that non-UN states do not impose, thus giving them an incentive to leave our states and move to non-UN states without huge regulatory burdens. Membership in the United Nations is voluntary, and our resolutions are only binding on our own states, not non-members. Therefore, we only hurt ourselves when we voluntarily adopt severely stringent regulations that only serve their intended purpose (such as lessening greenhouse gasses) when there is universal compliance.

We do not need any further environmental regulation. I hope that this is the last environmental resolution we see for a long time.

I'd like to reiterate that we're not voluntarily harming our economies by protecting the environment, but rather are forced into doing such by the archaic and inaccurate idea that environmental protectionism necessarily harms the economy. Even the most poorly-conceived of environmental resolutions would create jobs on top of slightly increasing production costs in a particular industry, likely having a neutral net macroeconomic effect.

I'd also like to point out that, in the likely event that no moderators care enough to change this grossly unrealistic state of affairs, UN resolutions boosting the economy can be drafted if you're truly concerned about it. Social Justice, Free Trade, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use are all categories which lend themselves readily to such a proposal. I'm sure a little creativity could put a pro-economy resolution into just about any other category as well.

In the giant crater of the same name on the surface of Mercury.Oh, I knew as much, it was more asked so I could go :

" AH HA ! SO YOU HAVE NO TREES ! " ;)

Well, maybe you have charcoal ... mercurial melty charcoal / wood-chips ... maybe.

* Scratches head, looks confused.

Actually I think that it's more the fact that the ones submitted are so badly written that no delegate in their right mind would approve them.


If anyone is significantly concerned about repealing the environmental lobby, I have drafted a resolution using USBR's list to affirm that we should examine the environmental issues and their abundance in more detail, as well as finding a way to scale back their severity. Convieniently, it falls under the category of free trade.

Any support getting it off the ground and into the national voting spotlight would be quite appreciated.

Oh, I knew as much, it was more asked so I could go :

" AH HA ! SO YOU HAVE NO TREES ! " ;)

Well, maybe you have charcoal ... mercurial melty charcoal / wood-chips ... maybe.

* Scratches head, looks confused.
Yes, we have Mercurial Melty Woodchips! They're great for cooking your Mercurial Melty Trout on! And then you can wash your Mercurial Melty Trout down with a nice glass of Mercurial Melty Soda-Pop, The Pop You Can Breathe!(TM) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=324718)

* Follows link.

Bah, I deserved that. I've read it before and should know.

* The Rep of Komokom contemplates purchase ...

While poorly written, doublicate and triplicate environmental resolutions
Considering we took the language straight from a real U.N. document advocating environmental protection, we guess that means that Japan (who wrote it) and the rest of the U.N. (who voted yes on it) suck?

If you don't like the U.N. resolutions up for vote, draft your own. It was my first proposal--I had never drafted anything before--yet it got passed. If my nation can do it, so can yours.

There will always be room for another environmental resolution for as long as thier are environmental problems. The problem with many previous resolutions has been their astonishing lack of quality.

It is possible to have an environmental resolution that supports business. You just have to be creative in providing solutions for the problems at hand. The UN category could be 'Free Trade' and still be concerned with environmental protection.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Considering we took the language straight from a real U.N. document advocating environmental protection, we guess that means that Japan (who wrote it) and the rest of the U.N. (who voted yes on it) suck?

If you don't like the U.N. resolutions up for vote, draft your own. It was my first proposal--I had never drafted anything before--yet it got passed. If my nation can do it, so can yours.

Your resolution was good. Don't pay that much attention to the sour grapes. And you are right, very few of them have a leg to stand on, as they've not gone through the process of developing a solution to an international problem and seeing it become a resolution.

*grin*

OOC: Mind just posting the resolution name that it came from? I thought there were only a few of us devious enough to slide "real" UN resolution text through the process. Though I must admit I get a kick out of people bitching and complaining about how poor real text is and will go as far as to often say, "Nothing like this would realistically happen!" The irony is of course priceless. :) I personally appreciate it that you've only told us this *now* so as to not muddy the debate.

If anyone is significantly concerned about repealing the environmental lobby, I have drafted a resolution using USBR's list to affirm that we should examine the environmental issues and their abundance in more detail, as well as finding a way to scale back their severity. Convieniently, it falls under the category of free trade.

Any support getting it off the ground and into the national voting spotlight would be quite appreciated.

Mind posting your proposal text here so we can look at it? (In a new thread?)

Sure. I'll do it now.