NationStates Jolt Archive

This is subject to editing. Suggestions welcome.


NOTING the extensive amount of trees in various nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING that these trees are a healthy source of oxygen for all peoples in all nations,

STATING that businesses may be discouraged from developing, and a nation's economy may fall into depression because of this,

This act seeks to REPEAL Resolution #23, which states that any enterprise cutting down more than five acres of trees shall be required to replace all the trees. It is understood that the environment benefits from the planting of trees.

HOWEVER, it is noted that any environmentalist program or a nature-lover who wishes to see that these trees are not cut down may independently buy a forest so that NO public or private enterprise may cut it down.

It is not the responsibility of any nation's government to watch over the planting or cutting down of numerous trees. It is the job of a private company or individual to take up an environmental protection stance, if they wish to do so.

Revision. Once again, suggestions welcome and needed.

The General Assembly,


NOTING that many member nations contain trees which are of great significance to their ecological and economic systems,

ACKNOWLEDGING that these trees are a healthy and vital source of oxygen for many peoples;

I. CONSIDERS that as a consequence of Resolution #23, businesses which are necessary for the prosperity and comfort of citizens may be discouraged from developing, and that the economy of many member nations may fall into depression due to the restrictions put into effect by Resolution #23,

II. REMINDS member nations that they can protect their forests through the efforts of their own national government, and that in many nations private citizens can purchase land to protect it from deforestation,

III. REPEALS United Nations Resolution #23 “Replanting of Trees,” which states that any enterprise cutting down more than five acres of trees shall be required to replace all the trees.

You could replant bonsai trees as a protest.

Yours Helpfully,
Bahgum

I wish to devide the topic with you. Although I have only recently joined the UN, I agree to the Reseolution.



STATING that businesses may be discouraged from developing, and a nation's economy may fall into depression because of this,

This act seeks to REPEAL Resolution #23, which states that any enterprise cutting down more than five acres of trees shall be required to replace all the trees. It is understood that the environment benefits from the planting of trees.
HOWEVER, it is noted that any environmentalist program or a nature-lover who wishes to see that these trees are not cut down may independently buy a forest so that NO public or private enterprise may cut it down.

That is slightly crazy, as acres become expensive. Non-Profit Enviromental Organizations may not be able to afford this.

It is not the responsibility of any nation's government to watch over the planting or cutting down of numerous trees. It is the job of a private company or individual to take up an environmental protection stance, if they wish to do so.

As private companies tend to cut corners, there is no gurantee they will do as they are asked, unless the Government is inforcing

I prpopse to you, instead of Repealling this, divied the question. Or re-write the resolution. (If possible, I'm still new here :) )

Just so you know, my proposal and yours were both considered and discussed heavily during dinner by my whole family. I take this sort of thing seriously.

First of all, if you would like me to even consider your claims:

A. Learn to spell. There are four incorrect spellings that I have noted in your short sentences.
B. Think about the contradiction you are making; i.e. yes private enterprises cut corners. It's human nature. However, is government any different just because it has the power to create laws?

Also, I would like you to think about this: I really could not care less about what happens to the environment. However, I do care about writing. It is my passion. Yet I still would not want to government to give money to starving writers. Why? Because I don't want government in my life!

I hope you can understand what I've said.

BUMPed for a last chance at revision.

Is this a repeal that should go through or not? Would enough people support this to make it worth proposing in the first place? Those are the main questions.

BUMPed for a last chance at revision.

Is this a repeal that should go through or not? Would enough people support this to make it worth proposing in the first place? Those are the main questions.

I think this is a repeal that should go through, but I doubt you'll be able to get enough support to get it passed. If, in the unlikely event that it did get passed, I'm betting it would be by a very small margin.