NationStates Jolt Archive

I am supporting a repeal for the UN Resolution requiring Mandatory Recycling by all Member Nations:

1) Recycling is costly, putting stress on developing nations' economies
2) Recycling can actually do more damage to the environment than simple landfill management, especially the recycling of paper, which creates many toxic byproducts (bleaches, etc)
3) The UN should not be able to tell its member nations that we -must- create an entire industry to satisfy misguided environmentalism.

--Emperor Epicedion
--Holy Dictator of the Armed Republic of Scaena

Resolution as follows:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #13

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Techno prisoners

Description: Be it hereby resolved that all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries be recycled by all UN member states.

Votes For: 17,211
Votes Against: 4,178

Implemented: Thu May 8 2003

Post a copy of the resolution you're repealing.

3) The UN should not be able to tell its member nations that we -must- create an entire industry to satisfy misguided environmentalism.
And yet.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Agreed. Requiring all member nations to have mandatory recycling programs is overstepping the bounds of the UN's power, especially when considering the dubious "merits" of such a program. We should not allow the UN to strongarm us into policies which essentially are agendas for radical environmentalists.

Agreed. Requiring all member nations to have mandatory recycling programs is overstepping the bounds of the UN's power, especially when considering the dubious "merits" of such a program. We should not allow the UN to strongarm us into policies which essentially are agendas for radical environmentalists.
This is not overstepping the bounds of the UN's power. It doesn’t break the rules and a majority of people voted for it. Expand on the dubious merits and maybe enough people will be against it to support the repeal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It is a violation of the UN's authority. They no more have the right to force my nation to create a recycling industry than do they have the right to force my nation to create a uranium strip-mining industry, or a PEZ-dispenser manufacturing industry.

Perhaps a revision of the resolution is warranted. But I agree with the spirit of the original resolution, that we must be very careful in managing the planet's resources.

It is a violation of the UN's authority. They no more have the right to force my nation to create a recycling industry than do they have the right to force my nation to create a uranium strip-mining industry, or a PEZ-dispenser manufacturing industry.

Here's the thing - someone in the UN proposed this resolution. It got to the floor and was voted on, and it won by (I think) a 3 to 1 vote in favour of it.

The resolution is not a violation of UN authority - it was voted on in accordance with the UN rules by the members of that time.

And by joining the UN your nation, and you, willingly agreed to submit to the previous and future resolutions that get voted in.

I think that it is one of the better resolutions. Masses and masses of litter and rubbish don't just affect the nation they are in - they have a detrimental affect on the rest of the world as well. And as such I belive that the UN member nations have the right to do something about it.

This is not overstepping the bounds of the UN's power. It doesn’t break the rules and a majority of people voted for it. Expand on the dubious merits and maybe enough people will be against it to support the repeal.


The UN is a mediating body used to broker compromises in disputes. It should not be used as a policy making body to enforce policies which force nations to create new industries and stifle existing ones without sufficient merit.

Recycling, by its nature, is substantially more costly than municipal solid waste (MSW from here on). It requires a seperate infasructure, a seperate department or other entity to run and oversee, seperate equipment, and seperate employees. This is a burden, especially on developing nations who do would be do better to invest that capital into other programs.

The nature of recycling requires the use and subsequent storage of dangerous, so-called "high octane" pollutants, both before and after the materials are recycled. Paper recycling, for instance, uses strong bleaches which are much more likely to cause evironmental harm than that paper being put into MSW. Often, these bleaches end up being released into the envronment, creating what is essentially worse pollution than would have been sustained using MSW. Thus, we believe that the benefit of a mandatory recycling program are not strong enough to be considered something which the entire world benefits from, such as, say, the ban on landmines.

The compulsary nature of this Resolution is, in the opinion of this nation, tantamount to eco-terrorism. It disrupts industry, demands changes be made to governmental and commercial policy, and threatens any who do not comply, presumably with sanctions against any who do not create mandatory recycling programs. If we, and our constituients, do not feel a mandatory recycling program is necessary, we should have our arms twisted until we change our opinions.

The UN is a mediating body used to broker compromises in disputes. It should not be used as a policy making body to enforce policies which force nations to create new industries and stifle existing ones without sufficient merit.
Better go re-read the UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/91693/page=faq#UN). "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest."

In short, the UN defines for itself what the UN wants to be. You must be confusing the NSUN with some similarly named organization.

The UN is a mediating body used to broker compromises in disputes.
Actually The UN can't do that at all. And according to the FAQ 'The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.'

It should not be used as a policy making body to enforce policies which force nations to create new industries and stifle existing ones without sufficient merit.
Should not? Debatable.
Can? of course, perfectly legal.

edit: damn I've been beaten.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Better go re-read the UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/91693/page=faq#UN). "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest."

In short, the UN defines for itself what the UN wants to be. You must be confusing the NSUN with some similarly named organization.

Indeed. Besides which, I believe it was ruled some time ago that it is illegal to limit the U.N.'s power. The irony of that being that making it illegal for a body to place limitations on itself is in fact placing a limitation on it. But who ever said these things were supposed to make sense, eh? ;)

Frisbeeteria and TilEnca, you need to quit dodging the issue -- the UN is forcing BAD POLICY on its member nations, yet the nations seem willing to kowtow to anything with the term 'environmentalism' attached. People need to realize the harm of blanket recycling policies -- blanket -anything- policies. Don't spout rhetoric of "oh, but the UN can enforce" because that is not relevent! You're arguing the semantics of the politics and not the substance! If you are against the repeal, state clearly and concisely why. Bringing up these side-points is not necessary, nor is it helpful.

Hear hear. I'm sure a lot of these member nations would agree to a proposal to "end the sufferage of women worldwide" without even reading it. Blanket proposals are bad policy and need to be treated as such.

Don't spout rhetoric of "oh, but the UN can enforce" because that is not relevant
It was relevant the second you brought it up.

Give us better reasons, like Cageville, and maybe more people will agree with you.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

...

I didn't bring it up, I was responding to you, Black New World.

My argument is that the UN -should- not have the authority to force the creation of harmful industry, not that it -can't-.

I believe, however, that it -is- a violation of the UN's authority to force us to do things that are bad for us because a majority of member nations leaders doesn't know how to read.

I agree with Cageville. Cageville's post quite nicely elaborates upon the necessarily concise elements in my proposal.

Bringing up these side-points is not necessary, nor is it helpful.
Thanks for the lesson in how the UN forum works. I guess my previous 1500 posts here were in error.

It's relevant because you've stated as a core element of your repeal that the UN has no right to pass such laws. You're wrong technically and wrong morally. This is a democratic body, and majority rules. Majority voted it in, and with reasonable arguments majority could vote it out. I'm still wating for the reasonable arguments, as opposed to your screaming invective.

Had Frisbeeteria been around at the time, we probably would have voted against this proposal. Since we weren't, we've adopted the policy and made it work for us. We now have a profitable recycling industry that would continue even after the repeal, so it doesn't matter one iota to us whether your efforts succeed or fail.

Frisbeeteria and TilEnca, you need to quit dodging the issue -- the UN is forcing BAD POLICY on its member nations, yet the nations seem willing to kowtow to anything with the term 'environmentalism' attached. People need to realize the harm of blanket recycling policies -- blanket -anything- policies. Don't spout rhetoric of "oh, but the UN can enforce" because that is not relevent! You're arguing the semantics of the politics and not the substance! If you are against the repeal, state clearly and concisely why. Bringing up these side-points is not necessary, nor is it helpful.

I think the proposal is quite good. It will do good for the environment and generally is something worthwhile that the UN has done.

And the UN is a democractic body, so if what you (or I) consider bad legislation is forced upon it's members, it must be because the majority of people who cared enough to vote on the matter voted for it.

Hear hear. I'm sure a lot of these member nations would agree to a proposal to "end the sufferage of women worldwide" without even reading it. Blanket proposals are bad policy and need to be treated as such.

Yeah!! And those proposals that outlaw slavery should go!! And as for "outlaw pedophillia" I don't know what they were thinking!!!

(/sarcasm)

Hear hear. I'm sure a lot of these member nations would agree to a proposal to "end the sufferage of women worldwide" without even reading it. Blanket proposals are bad policy and need to be treated as such.

Blanket statements are incorrect and should be treated as such.

(Yes, I do know that the above was a blanket statement. I actually rather enjoy irony.)

I think this thing (and a lot of other things before it) passed because people look at this issue as only a one line. They read "Recycling to be Mandatory" and they don't really understand what it takes to recycle, this is because their step ends at throwing their white paper into a special tub. But if they understood the facts, instead of acting on impulse then they would not have voted for it. Thank the tree-hugging-lets-all-get-along-hippies. :mad:

I think this thing (and a lot of other things before it) passed because people look at this issue as only a one line. They read "Recycling to be Mandatory" and they don't really understand what it takes to recycle, this is because their step ends at throwing their white paper into a special tub. But if they understood the facts, instead of acting on impulse then they would not have voted for it. Thank the tree-hugging-lets-all-get-along-hippies. :mad:

The entire nation of TilEnca wishes to thank the tree-hugging-lets-all-get-along-hippies for the diligent efforts in trying to make the world a better place :}

Thanks for the lesson in how the UN forum works. I guess my previous 1500 posts here were in error.

It's relevant because you've stated as a core element of your repeal that the UN has no right to pass such laws.


Well, there's at least one post in error. Posting often does not guard you against posting idiocy. A core element of my repeal is that the UN -should not- enforce harmful policy on its members. That it -can- do so is evident, due to the fact that it currently -is- doing so. Again, Black New World was the one that started talking about what the UN can and cannot do.

Therefore, it's still not relevent, and you're still avoiding the issues that have been presented. Therefore I shall list them, even though I fully expect the list will be ignored in favor of a rebuttal of the above paragraph.

Issues:

1) Recycling paper harms the environment. Recycled paper is typically processed and bleached with hazardous, toxic chemicals. What do we do with those chemicals? Bury them in drums and let them eventually seep into the ground water. Is this more harmful than burying paper in a landfill? Yes.

More recycled paper = less forests. The paper industry finds that it's much more profitable to plant at least as many trees as it cuts, due to the fact that it can come back after a few years and cut again. Paper recycling, however, just uses land for factories and waste storage, all of which harm the environment.

2) Recycling is NOT PROFITABLE, except in the case of aluminum and some other metals. If you claim otherwise, you are either completely ignorant of all facts in the matter, or lying -- neither of which is excusable. The real United States spends over $4 billion to support a recycling industry that loses money year after year.

Recycling aluminum is profitable (cheaper to recycle than to mine new), which is why you see people gathering bag after bag of aluminum cans to take to the recycling center for cash. Why do you think that the recycling centers don't pay out for glass, plastic, or paper? Answer: because they lose money on it already, and only remain in business due to massive government subsidizing.

Recycling plastic can be a good thing, since plastic does not biodegrade quickly. However, if properly stored in landfills, plastic (generally) does not pose an environmental hazard, thus the responsibility should be left to each nation to decide how and where to dispose of plastic waste.

3) We should bear in mind that the more dictatorial control we hand over to the UN, the less attractive it will look to non-member nations. The one true problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority -- we should all remember that today's crazy minority is tomorrow's ravening majority, and we should not maintain precedent that allows the majority of ignorant savages to micromanage policies in the member nations.

Posting often does not guard you against posting idiocy.
And being new does not grant a license to flame and insult other posters. Consider yourself and your proposal ignored.

And being new does not grant a license to flame and insult other posters. Consider yourself and your proposal ignored.


I'm sure I'll get over it. It's called 'rebuttal', and if you plan to bring your seniority credientials into a discussion, I suggest you get used to it.

---------------

Discuss the issues, people, all of this other stuff is just diversionary.

I had a whole response to this written, but my computer ate it. (Computers suck!). So this is a shortened version of it, that still covers the salient points.


1) Recycling paper harms the environment. Recycled paper is typically processed and bleached with hazardous, toxic chemicals. What do we do with those chemicals? Bury them in drums and let them eventually seep into the ground water. Is this more harmful than burying paper in a landfill? Yes.


Before we started recycling it was estimated that in ten years more than 20% of our nation would be landfill. So we decided instead of consigning a fifth of our nation to being a toxic wasteground we thought there was a better way. And since the earth belongs to all of us, not just those who occupy it at the moment, we believe it is in the best interest of the UN to do what it can to safeguard it for the future.


More recycled paper = less forests. The paper industry finds that it's much more profitable to plant at least as many trees as it cuts, due to the fact that it can come back after a few years and cut again. Paper recycling, however, just uses land for factories and waste storage, all of which harm the environment.


Strange. Cause we have found that not cutting down trees, instead using recycled paper, makes for more forrests than less.


2) Recycling is NOT PROFITABLE, except in the case of aluminum and some other metals. If you claim otherwise, you are either completely ignorant of all facts in the matter, or lying -- neither of which is excusable. The real United States spends over $4 billion to support a recycling industry that loses money year after year.


Then you aren't using the right processes. We have a pretty good economy, and we recycle.


Recycling aluminum is profitable (cheaper to recycle than to mine new), which is why you see people gathering bag after bag of aluminum cans to take to the recycling center for cash. Why do you think that the recycling centers don't pay out for glass, plastic, or paper? Answer: because they lose money on it already, and only remain in business due to massive government subsidizing.


You could say that about the army. It serves no purpose, it makes no money, and it is HUGELY subsidised by the government. And our industries are not subsidesed because - as I said - we have pretty good processes.

Plus having glass lying around is dangerous - it starts fires, causes cuts and so on. Plastic is a danger to wildlife (including birds that might not be from your nation, before you ask why this is international) and paper stops trees being destroyed.


Recycling plastic can be a good thing, since plastic does not biodegrade quickly. However, if properly stored in landfills, plastic (generally) does not pose an environmental hazard, thus the responsibility should be left to each nation to decide how and where to dispose of plastic waste.


Except for the land it takes up, and the risk it poses to the future people who occupy the land.


3) We should bear in mind that the more dictatorial control we hand over to the UN, the less attractive it will look to non-member nations. The one true problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority -- we should all remember that today's crazy minority is tomorrow's ravening majority, and we should not maintain precedent that allows the majority of ignorant savages to micromanage policies in the member nations.

I know it might seem like it, but up until now I have been pretty polite. But here is where you lose me completely.

The UN is a DEMOCRACTIC BODY!! No one nation has any more power than any other nation. Regional Delegate have a touch more influence, because they get to chose what comes to the floor and what doesn't. But after that it becomes one nation, one vote.

It might seem like one group has more power than the other, but that is because they make arguements, and talk people round to supporting or not supporting the vote. But ultimately it is still the choice of each nation to vote as they see fit.

And - just to give you some random statistics about the Mandatory Recycling resolution that made it to the floor and was passed :-

It was passed seventeen months ago, so some of these statistics will be inaccurate, but if they are the percentages will be lower now than they were then.

UN Membership : 36,253
Votes on the resolution : 21,339 (59% of the UN Membership)
Votes against : 4,178 (20% of the vote, 12% of the UN Membership)
Votes for : 17,211 (80% of the vote, 48% of the UN Membership)
50% of the UN : 18127 member states.
Membership required to 50% : 916

If you can honestly claim with a straight face that 48% of the UN are ignorant savages, then I will bow to your point.

But if the membership of the UN has grown by more than 916 states in the past seventeen months then this resolution was passed by not only a majority of people who voted, but an actual majority of the UN. Which I would say is a pretty good declaration of what the UN believed when it passed.

My point? The UN is democractic, and because of that sometimes it will pass laws you disapprove of, and other times it will pass laws you approve of. That does not make those who support proposals that you disapprove of "ignorant savages", nor does it make the UN dictatorial.

Before we started recycling it was estimated that in ten years more than 20% of our nation would be landfill.


Yet it's also been found that a properly-designed landfill 25 miles square would hold all of the (projected) solid waste for the next 1000 years.


Strange. Cause we have found that not cutting down trees, instead using recycled paper, makes for more forrests than less.


The paper industry buys and protects forests as a primary source of resources. If the paper industry doesn't need that forest, other businesses will certainly move in, clear-cut it, and build strip malls.


Then you aren't using the right processes. We have a pretty good economy, and we recycle.


The two aren't as closely related as you're implying. Since you have a good economy, you can afford to recycle. Nations that don't have a good economy can't afford to recycle.


You could say that about the army. It serves no purpose, it makes no money, and it is HUGELY subsidised by the government.


It serves no purpose, except to keep the citizenry protected from bad men with guns -- bad analogy.


Plus having glass lying around is dangerous - it starts fires, causes cuts and so on. Plastic is a danger to wildlife (including birds that might not be from your nation, before you ask why this is international)


The repeal is for mandatory recycling. If you'd like to propose an anti-littering resolution, that's fine. Littering is, indeed, bad. Properly maintained landfills, however, don't pose as much of a threat to the environment -- much less so than recycling.


Except for the land it takes up, and the risk it poses to the future people who occupy the land.


Unless you're planning on invading other UN Member Nations, what right do you have to enforce policy regarding this?


If you can honestly claim with a straight face that 48% of the UN are ignorant savages, then I will bow to your point.


Only 48%? I was estimating well over 50%.


That does not make those who support proposals that you disapprove of "ignorant savages", nor does it make the UN dictatorial.


The UN Member Nations have passed into law a resolution that is:

1) harmful to the environment
2) harmful to the economies of developing nations
3) misguided in its intent, and only passed in the name of 'the environment'.

If this resolution had left out references to recycling, it would have read like this:

Member Nations of the UN will immediately be required to build an industrial infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that will pollute the air, soil, and water unnecessarily. These facilities will be constructed at great cost to the Member Nations, and will require a constant expenditure of money to maintain, yielding no profit.

And no one would have voted for it. But cleverly use the terms 'recycling' and 'the environment', and suddenly everyone is up in arms to defend a resolution they don't understand. Ignorant. Savages.

Where do I start?

Vastiva is in Antarctica - no soil bacteria, no chance for anything to rot and replentish unless in some fashion we make it do so.

Some nut put Polar Bears in Antarctica. They also made a cold-resilient soil bacteria which fixes nitrogen and is happy to go dormant six months out of the year.

We recycle paper. We also recycle everything else we can. Why? Because if we didn't, there wouldn't be any space for anything else. Frozen tundra isn't exactly conductive to expansion.

Is it productive? Yep.
Does it make money? Hell yeah. Seeing as how efficient we have become, how long we have been at it, and the initial government subsidies to encourage research and technology to go after this problem - very much so.
We like plastics. So do the bacteria created just to break down petroleum-based products, such as oil spills and - you got it - plastics.

Broken down plastic makes soup, makes more plastics.

What can't be recycled or composted (naturally recycled?) or made into fish food, becomes artificial reefs, artwork, whatever we can make it into.

Are we at 100%? Heck no. But we're good at it.

What is the point of this?

The UN Mandate forced an industry upon us, true. However, Vastiva then used that mandate to enrich it's people and encourage the growth of it's own technology.

There are options besides "repeal".

Vastiva is in Antarctica - no soil bacteria... Some nut put Polar Bears in Antarctica. They also made a cold-resilient soil bacteria which fixes nitrogen and is happy to go dormant six months out of the year.

Wait, is this nut that created the soil bacteria and polar bears still around? AP would be interested in acquiring said nut to head our national Biotech University.

Vastiva is in Antarctica - no soil bacteria... Some nut put Polar Bears in Antarctica. They also made a cold-resilient soil bacteria which fixes nitrogen and is happy to go dormant six months out of the year.

Wait, is this nut that created the soil bacteria and polar bears still around? AP would be interested in acquiring said nut to head our national Biotech University.

The nut heads his own nation now. To acquire him, you'd have to go through his populace, who consider him something of a godsend.

However, we will gladly send you all the polar bears you want.

Yet it's also been found that a properly-designed landfill 25 miles square would hold all of the (projected) solid waste for the next 1000 years.


So we suck at designing land fills, but do recycling quite well. We can share our technology if you want it :}


The paper industry buys and protects forests as a primary source of resources. If the paper industry doesn't need that forest, other businesses will certainly move in, clear-cut it, and build strip malls.


Except where it is protected. Or used for specific purposes. Kind of like parts of our nation.


The two aren't as closely related as you're implying. Since you have a good economy, you can afford to recycle. Nations that don't have a good economy can't afford to recycle.


I would disagree. This resolution was passed before we joined the UN, and yet in that time we have only once had a rating below fair. And that was due to an issue that had little to do with recycling.



It serves no purpose, except to keep the citizenry protected from bad men with guns -- bad analogy.


The military is not permitted to engage in civilian police activities. And generally we tend to use diplomatic efforts to stop people attacking us, rather than trying to scare them in to submission with our huge army.
And even so - if the government can subsidise the army to 100% to protect the people, why can it not subsidise the recycling industry to a lot less to protect the people?



The repeal is for mandatory recycling. If you'd like to propose an anti-littering resolution, that's fine. Littering is, indeed, bad. Properly maintained landfills, however, don't pose as much of a threat to the environment -- much less so than recycling.


I would like to disagree. Putting lots and lots of rubbish in a confined space can not possibly be good.


Unless you're planning on invading other UN Member Nations, what right do you have to enforce policy regarding this?


Cause you are not going to be around forever. Neither am I. Can you say what will happen in 200 years? In 20? Also if the landfills are on the border of your nation they could easily affect the country next to you.
And, and this will be seen as tree-hugging-hippy-crap, we don't own this planet. We live for 60, 70 years (on average) and the planet will be around a lot, lot longer than that (one would hope!). We have a duty to it to make sure we don't screw it over and make it a toxic wasteland.


Only 48%? I was estimating well over 50%.


Then thank you for at least revealing the contempt in which you hold the majority of your fellow member nations. It should make life a lot easier.


The UN Member Nations have passed into law a resolution that is:


At least it's not "The UN" any more :}


1) harmful to the environment
2) harmful to the economies of developing nations
3) misguided in its intent, and only passed in the name of 'the environment'.


1) It does good.
2) Mentioned previously.
3) Which is a bad thing why?


If this resolution had left out references to recycling, it would have read like this:

Member Nations of the UN will immediately be required to build an industrial infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that will pollute the air, soil, and water unnecessarily. These facilities will be constructed at great cost to the Member Nations, and will require a constant expenditure of money to maintain, yielding no profit.


And if you read some of the other resolutions and take out key phrases we have passed laws that allow ritual child abuse, the possible destruction of law firms, a UN federal charter, an end to copyrighted materials, a free reign for terrorists and all sorts of other things.

If you take out words from something it changes it's intent and it's meaning and makes it something different.


And no one would have voted for it. But cleverly use the terms 'recycling' and 'the environment', and suddenly everyone is up in arms to defend a resolution they don't understand. Ignorant. Savages.

Have you ever met me? Have you read through my background? Have you carefully studied every part of my education? Have you met all my ministers, and read through all their educational history?

You are judging me and my government on the basis that you don't like it, so if someone disagrees with you, or your facts, then we must be ignorant and not worthy of your attention, and our view point must be considered wrong if it is considered at all.
So you would have no problem if I do the same to you?

Vastiva is in Antarctica - no soil bacteria, no chance for anything to rot and replentish unless in some fashion we make it do so.


What you are proposing is that what is good for you must be good for all, and should therefore be mandatory. It would be good for my nation if we allowed the Police to summarily execute suspects in all crime investigations. Therefore it logically follows that this would be a good policy for every nation of the UN.


So we suck at designing land fills, but do recycling quite well.


That's great for you. Really, it is. But why does this mean recycling should be -mandatory-? If it's a good thing for each nation, they'll do it on their own, and should be encouraged. Forcing the hands of each nation only stirs dissent.


And even so - if the government can subsidise the army to 100% to protect the people, why can it not subsidise the recycling industry to a lot less to protect the people?


Studies have shown that recycling of plastic and paper is more harmful to the environment than good. Why don't we force the governments of the world to subsidize a "plant landmines on all your major roads" project?


I would like to disagree. Putting lots and lots of rubbish in a confined space can not possibly be good.


Then you need to do some research on the issue.


We have a duty to it to make sure we don't screw it over and make it a toxic wasteland.


Your name goes on the next leaky barrel of paper-recycling-produced toxic sludge that gets dumped into the ocean.


And if you read some of the other resolutions and take out key phrases we have passed laws that allow ritual child abuse, the possible destruction of law firms, a UN federal charter, an end to copyrighted materials, a free reign for terrorists and all sorts of other things.


And these should be struck down. Starting here.


You are judging me and my government on the basis that you don't like it, so if someone disagrees with you, or your facts, then we must be ignorant and not worthy of your attention, and our view point must be considered wrong if it is considered at all.


I'm judging you on the basis that you're defending something that's harmful to you because you believe it's not harmful, and you're not willing to even consider the possibility that I might be telling the truth. You're obviously not doing any research on the subject, or else you would find that I am indeed telling the truth. Therefore, you are living in self-enforced ignorance. If you are representative of the intelligentsia of the United Nations, you're doing a poor job.

What you are proposing is that what is good for you must be good for all, and should therefore be mandatory. It would be good for my nation if we allowed the Police to summarily execute suspects in all crime investigations. Therefore it logically follows that this would be a good policy for every nation of the UN.


Propose it and see if other people agree :}


Studies have shown that recycling of plastic and paper is more harmful to the environment than good. Why don't we force the governments of the world to subsidize a "plant landmines on all your major roads" project?


Studies in TilEnca have shown it isn't.



Then you need to do some research on the issue.


That's what I have advisors for. See above.


Your name goes on the next leaky barrel of paper-recycling-produced toxic sludge that gets dumped into the ocean.


And your name goes on the next tombstone for animals killed by the contents of a toxic landfill.



And if you read some of the other resolutions and take out key phrases we have passed laws that allow ritual child abuse, the possible destruction of law firms, a UN federal charter, an end to copyrighted materials, a free reign for terrorists and all sorts of other things.

And these should be struck down. Starting here.


Why? They only legalise the said things if you ignore specific phrase. I am pretty sure that if I took out key phrases of your arguement you would come up supporting recycling with a passion not seen before anywhere in the world.
Once you remove a single word from a resolution it changes the intent of it, and it is not the resolution that was originally passed.



I'm judging you on the basis that you're defending something that's harmful to you because you believe it's not harmful, and you're not willing to even consider the possibility that I might be telling the truth. You're obviously not doing any research on the subject, or else you would find that I am indeed telling the truth. Therefore, you are living in self-enforced ignorance. If you are representative of the intelligentsia of the United Nations, you're doing a poor job.

Are you willing to believe I have had research done? That the scientists in TilEnca are telling me the truth? No. So why in the name of The Powers should I listen to you?

And stooping to person insults is absolutely the way to win my support. Go you!

I am done arguing about this. I am not going to convince you that this is a good thing, and you are not going to convince me it is a bad thing. And I have better things to do than continue to argue with someone who, while well meaning and sincere, isn't going to change their mind.

Vastiva is in Antarctica - no soil bacteria, no chance for anything to rot and replentish unless in some fashion we make it do so.
What you are proposing is that what is good for you must be good for all, and should therefore be mandatory. It would be good for my nation if we allowed the Police to summarily execute suspects in all crime investigations. Therefore it logically follows that this would be a good policy for every nation of the UN.

Nope, I am summing from where I am coming from, giving background. And put your fur down.


That's great for you. Really, it is. But why does this mean recycling should be -mandatory-? If it's a good thing for each nation, they'll do it on their own, and should be encouraged. Forcing the hands of each nation only stirs dissent.

The resolution passed.



Studies have shown that recycling of plastic and paper is more harmful to the environment than good. Why don't we force the governments of the world to subsidize a "plant landmines on all your major roads" project?

Your studies, perhaps. Ours on our environment says otherwise. We like recycling. And because of that, we found better ways to do it.

The straw man arguement is ignored.



I'm judging you on the basis that you're defending something that's harmful to you because you believe it's not harmful, and you're not willing to even consider the possibility that I might be telling the truth. You're obviously not doing any research on the subject, or else you would find that I am indeed telling the truth. Therefore, you are living in self-enforced ignorance. If you are representative of the intelligentsia of the United Nations, you're doing a poor job.

How much more research do I need to do then to live in my own nation? If you state it is so harmful, great and good for you.

However - it is not recycling which has been found harmful, but the methods by which recycling is performed in other nations.

BIG difference in the two, wouldn't you say?