NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/42196/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1


Enviromental Correction
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing
Proposed by: Gothic Stick Figures

Description: There has been a significant amount of damage done to earth from polution, factories, cars [note: recent cars do little if none damage]. A few examples are clouds of smog were formed off of the poisonous gasses from factories, the hole in the ozone layer which has raised chances of uv damage [damage done by UV rays] and has cause Global Warming which damages the whole world. I propose that we attempt to correct the errors we made by following theese articles.

ARTICLE I).

Weekly there must be people who patrol around the city picking up garbage. This may seem little but alot of little makes alot. This job could be done by people on community service, prisoners, or people who work for the city doing odd jobs.

ARTICLE II).

Find alternatives besides fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are little over 50% gone and we are using more of it each month. Please Consider that the majority of past years were before we were using fosil fuels so we have used over 50% of all fossil fuels in the time perioud of around 100 years.Already car companies are making cars which use less gassoline and are semi-powered by electricity.

ARTICLE III).

Hault the use of nuclear materials. Nuclear bombs not only do massive damage but severly damage the terrain making it harder to produce crops off of. When used for electricy it is used in large plants were if the slightest accident acured, the residents of the town/city could be killed due to nuclear poison. A chunk of uranium the size of a softball is enough to kill a whole city. We also just dispose of the used Nuclear Material (which is still radio-active for approxamitly 1,000 years) on un-inhabitted islands where it won't be found. I don't think I need to say that this is a huge hazard. Instead there should be an area completly sealed off from the earth until the waste is no longer radio-active and can be disposed off properly.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Sep 28 2004

No.

Global disarmament disguised as Environmental/Automotive? Garbage workers as Article 1, for no obvious or useful reason? Uranium confused with plutonium in terms of deadly powers? Real-world effects of fossil fuel usage as a cause? Not to mention the redundancy with several passed resolutions I can't be bothered to look up, or the fine and extensive array of typos and misspellings. Not only will we not approve, we may get around to reporting this for deletion.

No.

I echo many of Frisbeeteria's concerns: you need to be solid in your reasoning behind each clause and you need to make sure it isn't a redundant proposal, especially since it's environmental, one of the most legislated topics in UN history

I echo many of Frisbeeteria's concerns: you need to be solid in your reasoning behind each clause and you need to make sure it isn't a redundant proposal, especially since it's environmental, one of the most legislated topics in UN history

It looks at though 16 of the 17 resolutions in the UNA Archives (http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/PDFs/Environmental.pdf) passed. On page two you'll see that 11 of these 16 impacted "All Businesses".

There have been 32 out of 33 Human Rights resolutions in the same time frame.

I have it on good authority that the volunteers behind the UNA are working on the Free Trade category next. ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, dammit. If you can't guess why then you're seriously lacking in perceptive abilities.

No.

It disturbs me slightly that the generosity and tact given by members of the UN to other members of the UN in the forum has all but disappeared. Maybe we need an establishment like Goontopia to bring us back to being "nice" people (as one of their platform points is moral decency).

I mean, honestly, don't just say "no" to a proposal. The whole reason for Gothic Stick Figures to take this issue to the forum is to get feedback. Analog feedback. Not digital feedback. If you're going to disagree with someone or his or her proposal please give reasoning behind it, or plan to do so later (should you not have the time during the initial post). It's better if you don't post at all then give terse, inflammatory, deriding, or coarse response in the forum.

Say what you want this is my first proposal and I expected it to fizzle, but I am not confusing uranium with plutonium, I did my research.

Any U.N. proposal that puts garbage collection and nuclear weapons together I think is just a bit too broad in scope for my tastes, and that is putting it mildly. I have several issues with this proposal as written:

1. Garbage collection is obviously a local issue. If the streets of my nation aren't clean, it is certainly not a problem for your nation. However, if you are a nation doing nuclear testing, the consequences are global.

2. How on earth will nuclear disarmament impact the automotive industry?

3. Fossil fuels have already been addressed in several U.N. resolutions. One calls for a switch to cleaner fuel sources, while my own resolution passed that required a 10% reduction in fossil fuels over a 10 year period.

An admirable first try but your proposal covers either nation-level issues (trash) or issues that have already been passed as resolutions (Nuclear and clean air issues).

I have to echo most of the sentiments expressed already.

I would gladly support article 2, however article 3 is a sub-rosa call for nuclear disarmament, which has no place in a proposal such as this (in my view at least, but I might be wrong!) and article 1 would require me to mandate what people do for a living, or in their free time, in my nation, which is not something I believe the UN should have any power to do.

But really - article 2 is acceptable.

2. How on earth will nuclear disarmament impact the automotive industry?



It won't, Article 2 will. Gassoline is a fosil fuel, and if it isn't then when I was making this article I considered it to be one. I think the reason that it said the automotive industry will be effective is because I said car companies are now making Hybrid cars to use less gass.

It won't, Article 2 will.
Sorry, but you can't legally combine several UN proposal categories in any given proposal. As this one has aspects of both Environmental and Global Disarmament, the mods will most likely delete it.

It won't, Article 2 will. Gassoline is a fosil fuel, and if it isn't then when I was making this article I considered it to be one. I think the reason that it said the automotive industry will be effective is because I said car companies are now making Hybrid cars to use less gass.

This is already covered by my resolution and others=REDUNDANT.

You should check the passed resolutions page when writing a resolution to ensure that the things you cover have not already been dealt with.

And you're asking us to abandon both fossil fuels AND nuclear power? Nuclear power, if properly handled, is far safer than most people apparently believe, and with global warming such a pressing problem, we cannot wait for a full switch to renewables.