NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal Resolution #23

I disagree with this resolution. I would not debate this, except that it affects our lives in Anna Karenina closely.

Firstly, the person who made the resolution lists no reasons why we should vote for this. People have been tricked into voting without knowing the facts. In addition he has neglected to say *when* the trees should be replanted. I will now assume that he meant "At the same time that these trees are being taken out, new ones must be planted elsewhere."
Secondly, this resolution will utterly annull the effects of industry. If an individual has to replant every tree that he cuts down, it is equivalent to his never cutting it down. Thus, industry will be brought to a total standstill. It's like writing something, and then rubbing it out.

But maybe Jacobstalia had another objective. Perhaps he was saying that the trees should be replanted *after* the owners had finished working in that particular spot. But what folly! Is a road that my country has made - is that to be used and then destroyed, for the trees? That will waste billions of philocoins! But even if that were not so, who is to say *when* if ever, the trees are to be replanted? 80 years hence? 100 years hence? Next millenium?

With these as my reasons, I propose that we should abolish Resolution 23 on the grounds, firstly, of inclarity, next of ineffectiveness, and thirdly of expense.

This is my proposal. What do you folks think? Do I prove my point? Is it legal? And, more importantly, what revisions would it take for me to get it through?

Do you have the text of your repeal proposal written yet? I think that the resolution under discussion could be more well-adapted to the necessities of modern industry (or scrapped entirely, it's not a strong prority for Krioval to replace it), but I'd need to see how a proposal would speak to this.

Well, I'm rather a newbie to this, but if you mean the reasons why the resolution should be repealed (the one that I would propose), then it's in my first post.

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

What, there are people who haven't memorized them all? Who are these freaks of nature :p

Repeal Resolution #23

I disagree with this resolution. I would not debate this, except that it affects our lives in Anna Karenina closely.

Don't say this. The very fact you're repealing it is because you disagree with it.

Firstly, the person who made the resolution lists no reasons why we should vote for this.

If the effects seem to be self-evident, people will vote for it anyways. Besides, this was 2 years ago when we had crap resolutions.

People have been tricked into voting without knowing the facts. In addition he has neglected to say *when* the trees should be replanted. I will now assume that he meant "At the same time that these trees are being taken out, new ones must be planted elsewhere."

Well, you kind of answered your own question

Secondly, this resolution will utterly annull the effects of industry. If an individual has to replant every tree that he cuts down, it is equivalent to his never cutting it down. Thus, industry will be brought to a total standstill. It's like writing something, and then rubbing it out.

Huh? The resolution requires you to replant as many trees as you cut - not the same trees that you cut down. If you grab a few seeds and plant them elsewhere, if you plant as many seeds as trees you cut down, you satisfy the resolution

But maybe Jacobstalia had another objective. Perhaps he was saying that the trees should be replanted *after* the owners had finished working in that particular spot.

Because no time frame is made, you can arbitrarily decide it means after. Additionally, it doesn't require it to be in that spot

But what folly! Is a road that my country has made - is that to be used and then destroyed, for the trees? That will waste billions of philocoins!

No, you have to turn your farmland 20 miles away into a forest - or maybe that meadow that a lot of people love to picnic at because of its great view. Hmm, the decisions that have to be made.....

But even if that were not so, who is to say *when* if ever, the trees are to be replanted? 80 years hence? 100 years hence? Next millenium?

A true flaw in the resolution

With these as my reasons, I propose that we should abolish Resolution 23 on the grounds, firstly, of inclarity, next of ineffectiveness, and thirdly of expense.

Don't even touch expense. Most environmental resolutions require that we have a bit of extra expense so we can have a better environment.

Also, change "of inclarity" to "for lack of clarity". Actually - change ALL those "of"s to "for"

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bumpity Bump Bump
Look at Bumpy go!

Secondly, this resolution will utterly annull the effects of industry. If an individual has to replant every tree that he cuts down, it is equivalent to his never cutting it down. Thus, industry will be brought to a total standstill. It's like writing something, and then rubbing it out.


I'd remove this entire segment.

You stated that the case for your repeal is that the resolution is vague and doesn't state the reason / justication for the action. This is true. However, while you are clearly talking about your industry and perhaps other nation's industries, this is not true for all nations -- it is a generalization, and will cost your motion to repeal resolution #23 some votes.

That said, I think that if you do two things:

1) Remove that section,
2) Begin to telegram delegates and ask if they'd support your repeal (and keep of list of those that say yes),

That you have a fair chance. :)

Good luck.

While I agree that the resolution in question is extremely weak, I am not minded to actively support a repeal. Why? The very weakness of the resolution renders it ineffectual and harmless.

Yes, purging the statute books of such inglorious resolutions is worthwhile, but I would rank this as a low priority.

Mathioeu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN