NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently requested that Resolution #23, 'Replanting Trees,' be repealed, in order to replace it with a stricter Resolution that would reduce the possibilty that an individual, group or corporation could circumvent the basic requirements of the Resolution.

Please read my request for repeal, and add your approval if you are in agreement.

Thankyou

word to the (un)wise: A) dont put replacement in the title, gives the wrong impression. b) copy/paste the proposal/repeal here. c) if you have the 'replacement' idea written up already, paste that too, so we can nut out whether it is a worthy replacement.

Let me know if you think I did anything wrong there.. I'm pretty new to this.

I propose that this resolution does not go far enough to protect the lungs of our great nations. Many corporations are buying land in 4 acre sections, and then one week later, another 4 acres is purchased and deforested.

By reducuing the number of acres required to be replanted, from 5 acres to 2, we can ensure that there are no significant reduction in the levels of tree numbers in any given nation.

Once again, the responsibilty of replanting those trees cut down will be held directly by the individual, group or corporation that cut them down.

Interesting. I was planning on introducting a repeal of the Replanting Trees Resolution altogther.

As you pretty much stated, the problem with the resolution is that it creates too many loopholes (the 4-acre timbersale) because it is too general, and in my opinion, not enforceable. Reducing the minimum, will not fix this problem.

You should approach it at an angle that UN Member Nations must set aside a certain percentage of their forests as "state forests." When trees are cut on State Forests, they must be replanted, regardless of the size of the timber-sale. (This is essentially what Oregon does in real life).

Sharmar, as it stands, that is an amendmant, thus illegal. you can make a repeal, then if it is successful, submit a new proposal. amendmants and proposals that repeal passed resolutions without actually being a repeal are illegal. read the rules, have a long think, come up with a seperate repeal and replacement proposal.

Great. Now instead of a few shell corporations, you want ALOT of shell corporations, and each will cut down 2 acres instead of 5... not a solution.

Great. Now instead of a few shell corporations, you want ALOT of shell corporations, and each will cut down 2 acres instead of 5... not a solution.
exactly. this is no more effecient, than the current one

As you pretty much stated, the problem with the resolution is that it creates too many loopholes (the 4-acre timbersale) because it is too general, and in my opinion, not enforceable. Reducing the minimum, will not fix this problem.
And what's wrong with UN resolutions having loopholes? Some of us like being able to technically abide by the resolution yet still get around the resolution.

The percentage proposal sounds good in theory, but what if a nation has no forests any more, or a nation is able to support forests, but has none? A percentage of 0 is 0...

Reducing the acerage of trees from 5 to 2 would have a big impact on the likelyhood of companies to remove the amount of trees they want in sections. They would only be able to remove >2 acres (most likely to be sold in single acres) at a time, which would be incredibly time consuming.

But what if the problem was also approached from a different direction? What if governements offered a tax rebate on the trees purchased, or some form of subsidisation for the scheme? If it's made cheaper for the companies to replace the trees, rather than work out a way around it, then surely our forests would be in no more danger.

You should approach it at an angle that UN Member Nations must set aside a certain percentage of their forests as "state forests." When trees are cut on State Forests, they must be replanted, regardless of the size of the timber-sale. (This is essentially what Oregon does in real life).

Having reviewed the resolution in question, and the debate thus far regarding its Repeal, I feel I must second Meshuggeners suggestion - but with a further suggestion that actually would be a hybrid of the existing proposal and Meshuggener's idea.

The resolution as it stands does little to protect our forests. It might slow deforestation down to some degree, but our forests will still disappear in 5 acre stages. It should be repealed.

A new resolution should be passed mandating that trees cut in any UN-protected forest (the term "state forest" is statist and may offend our provincial members) must be replanted within one year of being cut. It should then be up to the individual nations to decide how much of their forests they place under such protection. Nations who value freedom over regulation might protect a small amount of their forests, and nations who value regulation might place all of their forests under this protection. However, because this is a world-wide problem, all nations should be required to protect, at a minimum, 25% of their forests under this proposal.

Forests that are not placed under this protection should then be subject to a 5 acre rule similar to the existing resolution, where any cutting of over 5 acres must be replanted within 1 year.

Nations with less than 20 acres of forest would be required to place them all under this protection, as it would help them from making their forests disappear. This negates the earlier arguement regarding percentages being a problem when a nation has little or no forest. If they have none at all, then obivously there is nothing to protect.

This proposal would allow nations the freedom to set their own policies while still protecting our precious environment.

okay, this is the biggest problem in repealing this resolution: the time it takes, between repeal and the passing of a new proposal, if it is passed at all. quite a few nations are willing to let this stay as it is. if you successfully repeal it, you have to make sure that enough people agree to its contents. sounds easy? it isnt. you may get agreeance in here, but only a small number of the 37,818 member nations and 2,472 Regional Delegates (and growing) actually talk here. even then, there are quite a few that either look at the title, or skim read it and miss the details, so it might not pass at all. proof of that, in our honest opinion, is in the defeat of the DI proposal. also, they might look at the title 'repeal of Replanting Trees Resolution' and say no way and it gets nipped at the bud to begin with. the flip side, in the long time it takes to go between successful repeal to proposal at vote, many nations would take advantage of the lack of ressolution, not to mention the fact that they would be against the new proposal because they didnt want the old one anyway. also, i am not sure, but i belive this is another case of 'umpteenth time done, nothing new, move along', in that this isnt the first time, it has been done multiple times and failed every single time.

I've tried this before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388767&highlight=Repeal+Replanting+Trees), and even with an agressive PM campeign and support from several well known nations, I haven't been able to get it to quorum.

okay, this is the biggest problem in repealing this resolution: the time it takes, between repeal and the passing of a new proposal, if it is passed at all. quite a few nations are willing to let this stay as it is.

Yeah, but my experience is that a pro-active group in Nationstates (or in the world) will always win out over a static group. If the National Sovereignty crowd were pro-actively seeking to secure issues for national decision, then I think you'd see a lot bigger of a balance. Say "we want things to stay this way" is almost a concession of defeat here. You have to stand for some sort of change, even if it's codifying the national sovereingty on the issue into a resoltion.


it has been done multiple times and failed every single time.

Yes, probably, but so were my repeal of education for all and legalize prositution. A better question to ask than "has it been done before?" is "how was it done before, and why was it (in)effective?" I think that given the right campaign, this, as well, as about a dozen other generally accepted ole-resolution-repeals would both reach quorum and pass.

i think that first quote was taken out of context, PC. our meaning, that was explained then and again now, is that those nations know, like ourselves, that if it does get repealed, that it would be hard to get a replacment approved, if at all. the main reason being there is quite a few nations that, if this is repealed, would take advantage of the situation, making it even harder to get a replacement in, even if quite a few nations agree to it

Well, it appears that the opportunity to repeal an otherwise useless resolution has failed twice more in recent days. So much for trying to clean up the resolution list.

Anyway, my next course of action will to be to draft the replacement resolution and get that passed first. It won't be technically billed as the replacement resolution (since that is not legal) but will set down regulations that actually are enforcable, based on the suggestions in this thread.

Well, it appears that the opportunity to repeal an otherwise useless resolution has failed twice more in recent days. So much for trying to clean up the resolution list.

Don't give up.

I remember when repeals were originally allowed. There was this paranoid minority who feared that all the precious work they'd put into making the UN favor them would go right down the tube. They were afraid that resolution after resolution would be repealed. Players and attitudes like that, really held back the process of updating and/or replacing older resolutions. It was inconceivable at that point that anyone would actually be able to topple such paranoia and repeal resoltions that needed repealing.

Now, the day of their influence has primarily set. They are starting to find themselves on the short end of the argumentative plank defending resolutions which are one or two sentences, violate most modern proposal rules, or have little to no effect. There is now a changing of opinion. If I had tried to pass the repeal of "Education for All" (a redundant resolution) when repeals first came into effect, it would've most likely been disastrously defeated. Now, there's a repeal for "Required Basic Healthcare" (likewise redundant) almost at quorum. I have high hopes for it.

Don't give up, there're players out there, a growing majority, who want to fix the UN's past and elevate its quality of resolutions. I'm one of them. And with the right campaign at the right time, the repeal of #23 will come about, with the help of those that want the UN to be better. Don't give up.


Anyway, my next course of action will to be to draft the replacement resolution and get that passed first. It won't be technically billed as the replacement resolution (since that is not legal) but will set down regulations that actually are enforcable, based on the suggestions in this thread.
I like the idea of drafting replacements first, but I think that the repeal should really be the one to be passed first--unless, of course, there really is a way to avoid overlapping a prior resolution and replace the parts one finds objectionable. Which I'm skeptical of.

Oh, goody. More bad environmental legislation. A repeal would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN