NationStates Jolt Archive

Organic Agriculture Initiative

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: JMBland

Description: The nations of the world would agree to implement organic agricultural methods which shall include reducing their use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers by the following formula:

Year 0 (current year) - A survey shall be done in each country calculating the use of dangerous chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Year 1 - Each country shall reduce its use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to 75% of year 0 usage.

Year 2 - Each country shall reduce its use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to 50% of year 0 usage.

Year 3 - Each country shall reduce its use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to 25% of year 0 usage.

Year 4 - Each country shall reduce its use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to 1% of year 0 usage.

Year 5 and all future years - All chemical pesticides and fertilizers will be banned worldwide.

Every effort shall also be made by member nations to provide training in sustainable organic agricultural methods to farmers in each nation.

Your nation's support of this resolution would be much appreciated.

Nope. Although the use of dangerous chemicals on food is something to be concerned about, for the most part chemical pesticides and fertalizers ARE safer, and they are necessary as well. Ban DDT? OK. Ban ALL chemical pesticides and fertalizers? No way.

And anyway, how do you define 'chemical?'

The really big assumption being made here is "Why is this even necessary?" Not all ideas are self-explanatory. The actual reasons of "what constitutes a chemical fertilzer" and "why are they dangerous" need to be addressed, not just here, but in the text of the proposal.

Also, why does everyone want everything to happen essentially overnight? 100% change in how food is grown, for all nations, in just 4 years? It took mechanized agriculture several generations to take hold, just as it did for every significant innovation. You don't just wipe it out in four years by pulling a voting lever.

Also, what happens if food production per acre goes down as a result of this proposal? Are you willing to stand against the starving masses on behalf of your environmental legislation? This hasn't been tested, it hasn't been modelled, and you have made no allowances for repercussions or problems.

Sorry, good theory doesn't always make good law. Rethink this.