NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Delegates:

Please support me in my proposal to repeal Resolution #23 "Replanting Trees."

I believe this resolution is poorly worded and cannot be enforced. In addition, it hurts the member nations that actually do follow it and not attempt to circumvent it with the "4.9 Acre Timber Sale."

Better post the repeal proposal up here. If it's anything like your argumentation I will promptly ignore it.

Fair enough. Hear it is:

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

Description: UN Resolution #23: Replanting Trees (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We humbly APPEAL to the Members of the UN:

OBSERVING that this Resolution #23 "Replanting Trees" is not specific enough to be enforced and is fraught with loopholes.

OBSERVING FURTHER that the Resolution does not establish a governing body to enforce the regulation or oversee UN Member timber sales, leaving Nations to police themselves.

NOTING WITH REGRET that the Resolution has spawned the idea of the "4.9 Acre Sale" widely used in the timber industry to avoid the replanting requirement.

EMPHASIZING that the wholesale requirement of replanting trees, without exception, does not allow for situations where human life or economic prosperity may be at risk.

REQUESTS that this Resolution be immediately Repealed.

we will state our position being against, on the basis of being tired of the 'not specific enough' argument. the whole idea is to have guidelines for international issues, whilst giving the ability of nations to enforce it. also, under current rules, the establishment of committies is being restricted, thus if it is repealed, it would take a lot to replace it. in the mean time, there is nothing stopping nation's forrests from being devistated while we nut out a replacement. its called 'compromise', people.

being tired of the 'not specific enough' argument.

Just because you are tired of the 'not specific enough argument,' does not mean that it is not a valid argument.

if it is repealed, it would take a lot to replace it.

It would not take a lot to replace it. Another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416630) is currently working on ways to replace it. I myself suggested setting aside a percentage of forests in each nation that must be replanted when cut regardless of the number of acres cut.

we know that other thread is running, but looking at the proportion of those takling in these UN forums, compared to the amount that are memebers and actually vote, nothing is guarenteed. the DI proposal had solid backing in the forum... till it came to vote, and it is the same as many otheres to.