NationStates Jolt Archive

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

The wording of the UN Resolution is terribly flawed. What that resolution means is that someone throwing a piece of paper away (not littering, nor burning their trash...just taking paper and putting it into a garbage can) is committing a crime.

It also means that all countries must have the capabilities to go over every single piece of trash with a fine tooth comb in order to insure that no aluminum foil has gone with it. The only countries that would be able to afford that are those with very low populations (obviously, the more people you have the more trash there will be) which are also very wealthy.

This is not to say that there should not be mandatory recycling of some sort. Yes, each country should have some way of recycling. Yes, the issue of conservation is important enough for the UN to rule on. But as the resolution is written it is absolutely impossible. It's a resolution that cannot be enforced.

My suggestion is to create a resolution that outlines the benchmarks for recycling programs in UN member nations.

The reason I bring this here and not directly for a vote is that I'm unclear as to the procedures for introducing a new resolution. Does a resolution have to be repealed before another one can take its place?

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

The wording of the UN Resolution is terribly flawed. What that resolution means is that someone throwing a piece of paper away (not littering, nor burning their trash...just taking paper and putting it into a garbage can) is committing a crime.

In a way, yes.

It also means that all countries must have the capabilities to go over every single piece of trash with a fine tooth comb in order to insure that no aluminum foil has gone with it. The only countries that would be able to afford that are those with very low populations (obviously, the more people you have the more trash there will be) which are also very wealthy.

Or those that are technologically advanced enough to do it with little expense.

This is not to say that there should not be mandatory recycling of some sort. Yes, each country should have some way of recycling. Yes, the issue of conservation is important enough for the UN to rule on. But as the resolution is written it is absolutely impossible. It's a resolution that cannot be enforced.

The UN Gnomes enforce it.

It can be enforced. You just have to sit back and think of how. In this case, it requires organization, people on the streets, etc. all devoted to it.

My suggestion is to create a resolution that outlines the benchmarks for recycling programs in UN member nations.

The problem is that UN nations vary in technology levels from using bows and arrows as primary weapons to having ships with cannons that can destroy entire worlds. Good luck.

The reason I bring this here and not directly for a vote is that I'm unclear as to the procedures for introducing a new resolution. Does a resolution have to be repealed before another one can take its place?

Yes.

Is it really worth the effort to repeal it?

The wording is vague enough to allow NationStates some wiggle room in interpretation and how to enforce it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'd oppose a resolution with explicit numbers.

The problem is that UN nations vary in technology levels from using bows and arrows as primary weapons to having ships with cannons that can destroy entire worlds. Good luck.


You're suggesting then that there are places with little or no technology, making it impossible to implement benchmarks. But there's no problem with making the entire thing mandatory. My point was that there are countries with little or no technology.

The wording is vague enough to allow NationStates some wiggle room in interpretation and how to enforce it.

No it's not vague. It specifically states that every reuseable resource must be recycled. There isn't wiggle room. And that's the problem.

You're suggesting then that there are places with little or no technology, making it impossible to implement benchmarks. But there's no problem with making the entire thing mandatory. My point was that there are countries with little or no technology.

By not using benchmarks, you leave it open to the nations on how they recycle it. Using benchmarks, you have to find a way to bridge more technology levels and types of technology than I care to think about. That's the problem.

By not using benchmarks, you leave it open to the nations on how they recycle it. Using benchmarks, you have to find a way to bridge more technology levels and types of technology than I care to think about. That's the problem.

What the ultimate problem is, is that the resolution states that all goods must be recycled. What you're saying is that it's somehow easier to have it that way, than to make it mandatory that there be state funded recycling centers on a per 1000 or 10,000 or whatever number of persons would be suitable basis.

Somehow it's better for the UN to waste time and money on having undercover agents follow citizens on the streets, making sure that nothing is thrown on the ground, than to make countries build more recylcing centers? I don't get it.

What the ultimate problem is, is that the resolution states that all goods must be recycled. What you're saying is that it's somehow easier to have it that way, than to make it mandatory that there be state funded recycling centers on a per 1000 or 10,000 or whatever number of persons would be suitable basis.

Somehow it's better for the UN to waste time and money on having undercover agents follow citizens on the streets, making sure that nothing is thrown on the ground, than to make countries build more recylcing centers? I don't get it.

The reason is simple: With how it is, it's universal and covers all technology levels equally. With a benchmark, you are overtaxing some while undertaxing others. In this case, everyone is equally taxed.

It's a weird idea, but about the only way to treat everyone equally.

But it's not fair. It's only something you can do if you have a ton of money. If you're a poor country it's going to take up a much larger percent of your GDP. It's like saying that everyone has to by a brand new Ferrari. Yes, the cost is the same. And if you make $500,000/year it's not going to break the bank. But if you make $25,000/year, you're in a lot of trouble.

And it's not the only way to be fair. If it's set at a rate of one center per so many people how is that unfair?

What DLE is trying to say is that the numbers are for the nations to determine.

Lets say that you implement a new resolution as you are trying to do that has all the numbers put right into it. That would put a lot of economic strain on nations of smaller statute while it puts little or no strain on nations that are huge.

Ok, so then lets think about if we keep the current resolution. The nation itslef figures the numbers on it's own to suit it's own economy. That way small nations don't break the bank and larger nations can get Recycling to all it's people without spending too little money. In my personal oppinion, it's just better this way than the way you want it.

I think it's absurd that any nation should be forced to do something a certain way regarding how they dispose of garbage.

You're forced to recycle it.

As a result, we have a booming business in "modern art sculpture", which we export at a high rate.