NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #23

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Jacobstalia

Description: If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.



Votes For: 10,301
Votes Against: 4,638

Implemented: Wed Jul 23 2003


RECOGNIZING that keeping large forests as natural habitats and recreational areas is importand.

EMPHASIZING that resolution 23 is too strict and unfair on developing nations of the UN.

While replanting trees is good for the enviroment, this resolution imposes unfair regulations on nations. Consider a new nation which is heavily forested. It would be impossible for them to expand cities if there are no open areas to plant trees. This also adversly affects the lumber industry which is vital for low tech construction, and the furniture industry by increasing the costs of wood because of the cost of replanting. It restricts agriculture by limiting the amount of clear land in a nation indefinately. Most farms are at least 20 acres. It limits space for housing. Under this resolution, ANY building project that requires clearing 5 or more acres of trees must have an equal amount of land and the rights to plant trees on that land available.

Instead of Repealing Resolution #23, why don't you just Propose a new Resolution that merely clarifies more exactly what you feel Resolution #23 stands for?

I like Resolution #23. Looking after our environment is important.

Sorry, no vote from Sol Sector.

You can't amend a resolution. It has to be repealed first. Personally, I think requireing that 20% of the nation must be forested unless there was no forests to begin with or something simular to that, but it can't happen untill the resolution has been repealed.

Unfortunatly Stankystan is highly deforestated and therefore we know the importance of having and abundant forest.

Stankystan ackowledges the fact that prices may rise, in fact they already did, but this is a trade off. What do you prefer - run to a world where things are cheaper and risk (high risk, i might add) the extinction of our specie at mid/long term OR pay a little more and secure to our children and grand-children a better and cleaner environment?

We would like to also note that over-population is not the way to go. It exponentially increases disease, famine, war and polution.

Stankystan doesnt approve this repeal.

What I question about the current repeal is the "5 acres" part, where businesses could stop short of 5 acres, skip an acre, build again...kind of leapfrog. Or does this mean that ANYTIME a business exceeds 5 acres, it must replant? Well okay then, but while I adore the environment, I can see where this resolution would be illogical as far as sharing space/time when it does come to heavily forested areas and nation states. For this thought alone I would recommend a repeal and new resolution in its stead, indicating perhaps a PROPORTION of trees to be replanted for those cut down.

Oh, and additionally, nation states may encompass an array of biomes, not all suited for tree growth. I think it would be rediculous to request a nation replant trees in places that cannot grow them.

I always interperated it as "At any one time". Therefore, cut down 4.9 acres, stop for a coffee break then cut down another 4.9

Really, this is a very poorly written proposal that only passed because it's Environmental.

You can't amend a resolution.

Proposing a new resolution in order to clarify a previous one is not the same as amending the original one.

I always interperated it as "At any one time". Therefore, cut down 4.9 acres, stop for a coffee break then cut down another 4.9

Really, this is a very poorly written proposal that only passed because it's Environmental.

I thought it was ever. So if you cut down ten arces in the lifetime of your business, you have to replant them.

While Resolution 23 is weak on numerous levels, i.e. it doesn't specify a timeframe for replanting, nor does it specify that the replanting should be true to the original species makeup, something is better than nothing. Until such time as a better resolution is enacted, the DOSRM will continue to support the existing resolution.

We have to get rid of this one first. I can come up with one to replace this.

We have to get rid of this one first. I can come up with one to replace this.

Just propose a new resolution that expands on the existing Resolution #23

I could add to the requirements by doing what you say, but that's not what I want to do. My concern is with the restriction it gives on having to replant all the trees you cut down, and simply expanding on that wouldn't be able to accomplish that. Only an amendment would and those aren't leagal. How about if I run a proposal at the same time as the repeal that would effectivly replace the original?

The Forest Protection Act

RECOGNIZING that there is both an environmental and economic need for standing forests in most member nations of the UN.

EMPHASIZING that forests of all types are a limited resource that are often exploited without consideration of the damage to natural ecosystems.

REALISING that regulations that are too stringent can be unpractical to heavily forested and or developing nations.

This act places restrictions on the total amount of forest that can be cut down in a single nation. From the point in time that this proposal is passed, all nations must set aside 20% of their total land as protected forests. If there is already less than that, this act does not require a nation to replant trees to meet 20%. Only areas that are forested are protected by this act. This protected area may include land that is privately owned. In any nation that has exactly 20% or less forest, at least the same number of trees of the same species must be replanted whenever trees are cleared out of an area. This may be in another location.

So how would this affect a multiplanetary nation which has a planet pretty much covered in forests?

This protected area may include land that is privately owned.

Get off my Private Land...

Salemwin will support the repeal of resolution 23.

S.G. Shiruda - Ruler of Salemwin
Gatesville

the original only applies to cutting down trees.

we uproot and burn them whole, like Saruman.

You would need 1 nearly completely forested planet for every 4 barren ones. Or any combination inbetween, as long as 20% of your entire nation is forrested, it dosn't matter. And this applies to any willful destruction of trees,
sometimes accidents happen, but that will not be used as a loophole.

Get off my Private Land...

It would be unrealistic to make the government buy 20% of the land in their nation. This isn't trying to infringe on the rights of the owner as much as it's trying to make things easier on the nation. If the nation has more than 20% forest, the private owners don't have to worry about it.

I agree that there should be some kind of growth room for new nations but if they get to cut down a sertan amount of trees they should make an area of the forrest of the same size into a protected area.

If the nation has more than 20% forest, the private owners don't have to worry about it.

If the nation has less than 20% forest, then private land owners DO have to worry about it.

*looks out on Antarctic tundra and permafrost*

Alright, explain why.

If the nation has less than 20% forest, then private land owners DO have to worry about it.Yes they do, but isn't the entire reason behind this to stop too many forests from being cut down? This proposal is far less restrictive than the one currently on the books anyways. And if for some reason they HAVE to have that area cleared off, it still gives them the option to replant elsewhere.

I've posted the repeal. I'm still willing to debate the replacement and make changes if they're warrented.

I disagree and say don't repeal the tree planting.

Why? Please state your reasoning. I'd like to resolve as many problems that people have with it as possible.

hmmm..the chainsaw act....

Trees are the root of all evil.

The original resolution was a prime example of idealists from the developed world legislating the developing world into continuing poverty, and is morally bankrupt.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta are doing their best to remove all trees from our territory, and will fully support the repeal of that ridiculous resolution.

Uh, after the coup tonight. When we regain the delegacy.
Remind us in the morning when we're sober.

I always interperated it as "At any one time". Therefore, cut down 4.9 acres, stop for a coffee break then cut down another 4.9

Really, this is a very poorly written proposal that only passed because it's Environmental.

I assumed a bit different way, thinking it meant per project. But you could still nickle or dime your way out of following the resolution.

And I agree. The Yoopers are correct that we'd need to repeal this resolution if we wanted to come up with a better resolution, and I think it is a reasonable goal to want to clean house with the old resolutions. :)

It sounds like The Most Glorious Hack has already provided a very strong argument in favour of repeal with that loophole above, the question is how do we also create a better replacement (to be submitted after repeal)?

The Forest Protection Act

RECOGNIZING that there is both an environmental and economic need for standing forests in most member nations of the UN.

EMPHASIZING that forests of all types are a limited resource that are often exploited without consideration of the damage to natural ecosystems.

REALISING that regulations that are too stringent can be unpractical to heavily forested and or developing nations.

This act places restrictions on the total amount of forest that can be cut down in a single nation. From the point in time that this proposal is passed, all nations must set aside 20% of their total land as protected forests. If there is already less than that, this act does not require a nation to replant trees to meet 20%. Only areas that are forested are protected by this act. This protected area may include land that is privately owned. In any nation that has exactly 20% or less forest, at least the same number of trees of the same species must be replanted whenever trees are cleared out of an area. This may be in another location.


This is I think a good start. I am going to suggest an approach similar to the original resolution, but not rule out the idea of nature perserves.

In real life US environmental law, when an endangered habitat is altered by a government agency (Federal or State), I believe it is the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) that requires that a EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) include a biological mitigation measure to account for this loss. Since the destruction of habitat often is *land* based, the resonsible Federal agency for the EIS will often seek a biological opinion. Traditionally mitigation has been to create new habitat elsewhere.

So for example, if the US Buearu of Reclamation were to want to build a new damn and reservoir, its EIS would offset the destruction of a bunch of trees by plantining new ones elsewhere.

What is important here is that seedlings don't all survive, so biologists often recommend that for every tree destroyed, that multiple trees be planted in its place, with the idea being that if one of those trees survives that there will be a "balance".

That was at least the idea the original author was trying hard to convey. I think it kinda got lost in the original resolution.

It would take me a while to see how we could clearly word something like this for a new resolution, but environmental mitigation often does require more than a 100% replacement -- leaning often towards an improvement in environmental quality.

Perhaps instead of focusing on percentages or areas, we can take the easy way out and require that mitigation for the destruction of any environmentally sensitive areas be offset pursuant to a domestic governmental biological opinion? That too might be subject to domestic level abuse when a government is dead set on just stripping out resources. :/

This really is a hard issue, but perhaps we can work something out. :) I'll see if I can ask some work friends at lunch what they would do. Sometimes they have provided me some good ideas ... and other times they've feeded me some real stinkers!

I don't want to give up on this as I feel it is importand. I'll resubmit it and would appreciate any help telegramming delagates or any suggestions to improve it.

Allright, the repeal didn't go to vote the first time, it's been a while now and I plan to resubmit it. Please take a look over it and let me know if you have any new concerns or suggestions

yea though it's a bit too tough.... but this is for the world...
sorry i can't vote for good :p

I do plan on replaceing it with a less strict and better thought through resolution.

The Forest Protection Act

RECOGNIZING that there is both an environmental and economic need for standing forests in most member nations of the UN.

EMPHASIZING that forests of all types are a limited resource that are often exploited without consideration of the damage to natural ecosystems.

REALIZING that the current resolution is very vague and poorly written, however,
I have met strong resistance to repealing it until a better replacement is enforced.

This act places restrictions on the total amount of forest that can be cleared in a single nation.

From the point in time that this proposal is passed, all nations must set aside 20% of their total land as protected forests. If there is already less than that, this act does not require a nation to replant trees to meet 20%.

Only areas that are forested are protected by this act.

This protected area may include land that is privately owned, although it is encouraged that government land be used.

In any nation that has exactly 20% or less forest, two trees of the same species as those cleared must be replanted whenever trees are cleared out of an area.

The trees may be replanted in another location as long as it is suitable for their growth.
This is the most current version of the replacement proposal that I plan on trying to pass. Please, if you have any suggestions or questions, I'll welcome them.