NationStates Jolt Archive

Please consider endorsing the following resolution to a vote. Its text is below. I am also happy to answer questions regarding this resolution in the forums.

A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT REASONABLE ENVIRONMENTALISM IN UN MEMBER NATIONS


WHEREAS The United Nations has already forced the following environmental provisions on all of its member nations(List created by North American UN Delegate United States of Brian's Room):

- 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;

WHEREAS many of these resolutions are often redundant and occasionally contradictory to one another;

WHEREAS industries including but not limited to woodchipping and automobile manufacture are crippled in all UN nations by the redundancy in expenses of these resolutions;

and WHEREAS non-UN nations are able to ignore the strict and expensive limitations on industry required by UN membership, thus giving them a substantial advantage when competing in a worldwide market;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE UNITED NATIONS

RECOGNIZES that its environmental policies have become overly punitive in several areas;

AFFIRMS that further environmental UN resolutions should only be supported after undergoing careful scrutiny for redundancy with previous resolutions;

and SUPPORTS a resonable scaling-back of redundant environmental policies in the industries of Automobile Manufacturing and Woodchipping, ensuring each industry's ability to remain competitive in a world market.

I guess the first question would have to be "How is this a resolution that does anything?" Anyone can access the list of past resolutions and resolution redundancy is already against the rules to the best of my knowledge.

As simply put by the resolved clauses in the measure, this resolution acknowledges that there is a problem with the series of stringent environmental measures in the UN, that in the future, back-checking previous resolutions is something that the UN would like proposals to do, and finally, that the UN would like to see action taken that supports the industries and scales back redundancy in environmentalism. The primary purpose of this resolution is to get the UN to recognize and acknowledge that the stringent environmentalism they enforce in their countries has reached the point of doing more harm than good, and to encourage prevention of redundancy in the future.

If resolution redundancy is still against the rules, it's not our place to pass resolutions against it, and doing so would be redundant in and of itself. What's wrong with reporting redundant resolutions?

As far as whether or not economic regulations do more harm than good, I don't agree but you're more than welcome to try and get that idea past a vote. I don't think it has much hope in its current form that pretends to enforce pre-existing rules though.

First off, do you really want to see your nations name in the list of adopted resolutions when you have included text like:


(which I am sure includes the entire planet, which some of these states must have registered on the 'World Heritage List')


Resolutions should be a bit more formal, IMHO, and I can assure you that unless the entire resolution undergoes a massive clean up, that my government will vote against this resolution. Currently that entire first section looks more like a shopping list than an objective analysis.

But this doesn't mean that the idea should be abandoned. Rather the opposite, as I'd like to encourage you to continue.

Axis Nova hereby places the ENTIRE PLANET on the World Heritage List.

Yay loopholes. Now he can remove the "I am sure" bit, and the document will be legal.

Axis Nova

All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

I'm going to request that you justifiy each individual site in the world as being one of environmental significance.

If you can, I'm going to lodge a complaint against you for your apparent willingness to apply UN regulations to UN non-members.

I don't have to justify anything under the terms of the resolution :p

Relax, this is just a maneuver to push this resolution forwards. I have no intention of attempting to actually enforce it.

Axis Nova

I don't have to justify anything under the terms of the resolution :p

Relax, this is just a maneuver to push this resolution forwards. I have no intention of attempting to actually enforce it.


So what?

Stripping naked in a football staduim and writing, "I am a dork" on your rear end and then running across the field is another "maneuver" to get attention too. That doesn't mean that it is wise to do it.

NOTE: When I say "football" I mean the sport that Americans call soccer.

What category is this in? If it's Environmental, it'll damage business. I assume you're trying to wedge it in under Free Trade?

Stripping naked in a football staduim and writing, "I am a dork" on your rear end and then running across the field is another "maneuver" to get attention too. That doesn't mean that it is wise to do it.

NOTE: When I say "football" I mean the sport that Americans call soccer.

Not that doing that would be a good idea in an american football stadium either. :D

What category is this in? If it's Environmental, it'll damage business. I assume you're trying to wedge it in under Free Trade?

At this time, the resolution is in the Free Trade category, yes.

Not that doing that would be a good idea in an american football stadium either. :D

But having already been done so many times, US TV crews don't even air it. You wouldn't even get attention! :)

I don't have to justify anything under the terms of the resolution :p

Relax, this is just a maneuver to push this resolution forwards. I have no intention of attempting to actually enforce it.

Axis Nova

Fair enough. I can't help but concede that the resolution in question is poorly written. I really tried to find a redeeming quality in it and I couldn't. I have no idea how it passed and I can assure you I would have voted against it had I been in the UN at that time. There are also plenty of other poorly written or conceived resolutions, some of which violate the UN rules. They don't all fall under environmental protection, and I think instead of this proposal limiting future environmental submissions, we should be petitioning the mods for a little spring cleaning.

This proposal itself essentially reiterates the rules and makes a suggestion that we could just as easily make as individual proposals are brought up. I think it would be a lot more successful as a coordinated forum movement than as a resolution, but whatever floats your boat.

we should be petitioning the mods for a little spring cleaning.

This is a wonderful idea, and if I've read correctly ... the mods are looking into this.

While I find Brian's repeal list (which is what the above proposal really is) a bit too broadly based, I don't begrudge his nation from wanting to basically overturn every single environmental resolution. I just wish that his nation would actually do so one resolution at a time ... because what he has proposed sounds more like curing the diesease by killing the patient. Surely we could do this piece-meal ... because some of the nations that voted in those resolutions had good (but surely different) reasons for doing so and they should be allowed to restated their support instead of having all of the work they fought hard for erased just because a bunch of johnny-come-latelies like us weren't around to listen to the debates. :)

What I'd like to see is a rule that requires every proposal to be reviewed by a mod before submission. That way all the crappy ones and all the redundant/useless ones can be choked at the root.

Of course, I'd also like to see all current UN resolutions repealed and their effects reversed... basically a reset to the UN. That would get rid of all these badly written resolutions.

Axis Nova

But having already been done so many times, US TV crews don't even air it. You wouldn't even get attention! :)

I don't know, Janet Jackson sure got a lot of attention from her "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl. :)

I don't know, Janet Jackson sure got a lot of attention from her "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl. :)

Doh! Of course she missed her opportunity to sell her message ... wouldn't it have been great if she had, "But the Sultan Loves Me!" written on her chest? ;)

What I'd like to see is a rule that requires every proposal to be reviewed by a mod before submission. That way all the crappy ones and all the redundant/useless ones can be choked at the root.

Of course, I'd also like to see all current UN resolutions repealed and their effects reversed... basically a reset to the UN. That would get rid of all these badly written resolutions.

Axis Nova

Question: if you want ~all~ resolutions repealed, why are you in the UN? Have you been in the UN since any resolution passed?

Bear in mind when the pay version of NationStates (NS2) comes out, you'll likely get your wish.

Bear in mind when the pay version of NationStates (NS2) comes out, you'll likely get your wish.When? When??

Ooh, 10KM, you are funny! :D

I, too, would like to see a body of resolutions free of redundancy, a proposal list unchoked by dozens of gambling and drug (il)legalization rants, and generally a UN conducted with logic and proportion. The odds of this happening without having a mod on salary, however, are mighty long.

Passing a resolution requiring back-checking on proposals is particularly senseless, simply because people who wouldn't back-check without the resolution won't read the resolution requiring them to back-check. The only way I can think of to get through to that sort involves game mechanics that we're not supposed to discuss in this forum.

Question: if you want ~all~ resolutions repealed, why are you in the UN? Have you been in the UN since any resolution passed?

Bear in mind when the pay version of NationStates (NS2) comes out, you'll likely get your wish.

Who ever said I was in the UN?

:p

Hello! I cannot support the intent to repeal environmental protections. However, I understand there are redundancies that need to be consolidated.

By preserving the forest, we preserve the logging industry. By conserving energy, we preserve the energy industry. When non-U.N. members who do not follow environmental regulations run out of such resources, it would be a wealthy day for those that have protected their environment with worldwide quantities of supply down.