NationStates Jolt Archive

Mitigation of Large Reservoirs
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir, which has led to the decline in many native species' populations;

CONCERNED that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

This resolution has undergone a few changes in the month that it has been discussed.

The UN Draft proposal discussions can be found here:
Draft: Mitigation of Hydroelectric Power (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432401)

The proposal was originally introduced to the International Democratic Union under the title:
Anondromous Fish Protection (http://s10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=214)

Based on comments on both threads, the proposal was revised to its present form.

The poll was added to this thread in order to compare UN voting records with UN forum opinions. :) My government would like to see if the UN forum opinions are representative of the vote of the now proposal (soon to be resolution).


Many thanks go to the members of the International Democratic Union, Ecopoeia (whos government not only supported this proposal, but made many useful comments), _Mypoia_ who brought to my government's attention the issue of methane production of large reservoirs, all of the Delegates that have endorsed this proposa, and those nations that have already asked questions concerning the resolution. Your government's interest in the subject of environmental instream flows and habitat protection is impressive and promissing. :)

Q: What is hydroelectric power?

Hydroelectric power is typically described as any electrical power source that is generated via falling water, but it could also include other sources of power which use the energy associated in moving water to generate electricity. The most traditional and common use of the term is still for converting the energy of water released from a reservoir into electricity via a turbine.

Basically as the water falls from a height, referred to in hydrodynamics as an “elevation head” or simply just “head”, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The potential energy is directly related to the head, and thus a larger amount of kinetic energy is created by higher reservoirs. The speed of the falling water is then used to push the turbine blades, which are attached to a rotor that rotates within a large magnetic induction coil, known as a dynamo. As the magnets spin through the dynamo, it generates electricity.



Q: Isn’t hydroelectric power the cleanest form of power?

Despite the common misconception that hydroelectric power is “green” and “clean”, the generation of electricity from large reservoirs is fairly destructive to the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_concerns_with_electricity_generation#Hydroelectric_power

Negative impacts that most people never consider include:
 Methane (a greenhouse gas) production
 Coastal and riparian erosion
 Seasonal wetland and riparian Habitat loss
 Changes to natural stream flow temperatures
 Blockages to fish passage (very important to salmon)
 Decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations
 Decreases in sediments and soils loads used in farming
 Maintence costs associated with sedimentation of the reservoirs
 Eutrophication of the reservoir (which can spoil human drinking water supplies)

Each of these impacts is well known in the water community, but rarely are these impacts discussed in common circles. It is largely for this reason that this resolution seeks to mitigate these problems. All of these problems really stem from the alteration of natural



Q: But hydropower is described as being renewable, so why isn’t it clean?

Hydropower can be clean ... but sometimes it is not.

Renewable sources of energy aren’t always clean sources of energy. A non-renewable source of energy would be oil or coal. Once the energy is mined and burned (most oil and coal plants also use steam powered turbines to generate the electricity) it is lost. Water goes through a natural cycle, where it moves through the atmosphere, until it rains and then passes overland or underground, until it reaches a river and moves towards the oceans where it eventually evaporates.

Water has been used to harness energy back to the time of the water wheel, and when used in smaller scale operations it is actually fairly clean.

The problem is that large scale reservoirs have many other negative impacts. So while the source of energy (water) will continue to be around, many of the other positive things provided by the hydrologic cycle (fish populations, healthy soil for farming, beaches to swim at, etc.) will be eventually be lost if not properly managed.

This resolution is designed to promote smart “sustainable” ways to managing water. This is not a measure designed to completely eliminate hydropower, but to encourage nations to work together to protect the other valuable economic activities supported by water resources.


Q: What does mitigation mean?

Mitigation is the process of addressing a problem, by seeking an indirect solution to the problem. In this case, the problem is caused by creating large artificial lakes that alter the natural flow of water. The problem can naturally be addressed by removing reservoirs or reducing the need for reservoirs (i.e. decreasing electricity demand), but there are other options, which are promoted by the resolution’s activating clauses. These mitigation measures include:

 Restoration of natural wetland habitat
 Reduction of “flood pool” storage in large multi-purpose reservoirs
 Designing fish ladders to allow fish passage
 Building temperature control devices
 Moving sediment to continue through the reservoir via pulse releases
 Implementing pump back operations and reducing the need for hydroelectric power

Other mitigation measures that don’t impact hydropower specifically, but simply target electrical demand in general include:

 Promoting flexible work weeks for citizens
 Staggering the electricity demand so that more reliable sources of power such as nuclear plants can meet constant demands
 Pumping back water, so the same water can be used again and again to generate electricity when it is needed most


Q: Won’t this violate national sovereignty?

The truth of the matter is all UN resolutions violate national sovereignty.

However, if you look at the language used in this resolution its clauses actually provide nations a variety of options. Nothing dictates a specific law that you must impose on your people. Instead, this resolution firmly supports the “sovereign” idea that the best solutions to local problems are dealt with by creative and local solutions.

For example, a “fish ladder” might be necessary to mitigate for water flowing down the Risden River in Mikitivity because of the number of Sober Thought Winter Run salmon that pass by, but simply encouraging less electrical use via telecommuting in Datagenesis might work better in that country.

When your nation joined the UN, it agreed to allow resolutions to impact its national laws. Recognizing this, this resolution is specifically designed to encourage sustainable and sound environmental management, but it is not so foolish to believe that the UN can run your country better than you can.

The reason there is a resolution, is because this is an international problem. It might not matter to you that your neighbor’s fish population is declining, because your people might not farm salmon. However, it is minor conflicts like these that lead to international tensions, and some cases war. In this case the UN is involved, because it can promote and highlight the importance of this topic, and hopefully allow nations to understand that sometimes things that do not look like a problem to them, might be to their neighbors and small local changes can work out better for all nations.

Emperor, this resolution explicitly sets out methods to ameliorate environmental damage. And, no matter how much we would all like to live in harmony with the environment, we still need energy sources.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Um, I think I'll leave this one... :confused: :(

Now, I fully realise that I'm very late in saying this, but it seriously only occurred to me an hour ago.

What about places that depend on large reservoirs, not for power, but for drinking water? Your FAQ doesn't address this, Mik. And I'm not sure I can support until I know how this will affect such reservoirs.

(I haven't been very involved in the drafting process, so if this has been asked and answered before, please just post the link rather than answering again. But I'm pretty sure it hasn't been asked.)

Mitigation of Large Reservoirs
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir, which has led to the decline in many native species' populations;

CONCERNED that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

Compadria is interested in this resolution, but would like to pose the following questions.

1). What would be the economic impact of following the recommendations of the resolution and what financial aid might be offered in order to facillitate its implementation.

2). In dams where the surrounding areas are either urbanised or arable land, what should be done to follow the recommendations of 4.

Otherewise we support this proposition.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live Hydro-electric Compadria!

Canada6 Votes in favour of this proposal.

The UN resolution: Mitigation of Large Reservoirs is an unnecessary proposal, and dare I say it – unfair. Why should nations with to say the least, large industrial complexes and developing nations with a smaller industrial capacity endorse further regulations to their activities?

There are already several resolutions in place which safeguard the environment as a whole and it would be unwise to trade national prosperity for environmental safeguards. Contradictory as it might sound we of The Holy Empire of Dersaaded firmly believe that the environment should be protected as well as green industries, this new (and I use that term loosely) resolution proposal is quite frankly a sham, it would not benefit the environment in the long term nor would it help people in sovereign nations.

Those of you who may disagree can go and hug your trees and frolic with the animals but let me ask you this - isn’t the right to employment a human right? Why should we let our hard working, deserving citizens suffer because of some foreign meddling? We the citizens of The Holy Empire of Dersaaded strongly reject this proposal in its entirety and encourage other nations who wish to preserve their nation’s growth to reject this proposal too.

By my hand,

Civilus Maximus Pontificus
- Ambassador to Holy Empire of Dersaaded
:mad:

Ambassador Pontificus, I feel you are overstating the impact that this resolution will have. It is actually quite mild.

MV

This is rediculous. I my country cant afford to sacrifice stupid evironment for business!! Do deer running around in the grasslands make my country the dominant world power? I think NOT!! Training my workers in a factory to build nuclear bombs does!! But not this. This is crazy.

This is rediculous. I my country cant afford to sacrifice stupid evironment for business!! Do deer running around in the grasslands make my country the dominant world power? I think NOT!! Training my workers in a factory to build nuclear bombs does!! But not this. This is crazy.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand this subject 100%, but after reading the resolution through several times, and the authors explainations a couple of times, I do understand (I think) what the resolution is trying to achieve and the impact it will have on our nations.

Q: Won’t this violate national sovereignty?

The truth of the matter is all UN resolutions violate national sovereignty.

However, if you look at the language used in this resolution its clauses actually provide nations a variety of options. Nothing dictates a specific law that you must impose on your people. Instead, this resolution firmly supports the “sovereign” idea that the best solutions to local problems are dealt with by creative and local solutions.

For example, a “fish ladder” might be necessary to mitigate for water flowing down the Risden River in Mikitivity because of the number of Sober Thought Winter Run salmon that pass by, but simply encouraging less electrical use via telecommuting in Datagenesis might work better in that country.

When your nation joined the UN, it agreed to allow resolutions to impact its national laws. Recognizing this, this resolution is specifically designed to encourage sustainable and sound environmental management, but it is not so foolish to believe that the UN can run your country better than you can.

The reason there is a resolution, is because this is an international problem. It might not matter to you that your neighbor’s fish population is declining, because your people might not farm salmon. However, it is minor conflicts like these that lead to international tensions, and some cases war. In this case the UN is involved, because it can promote and highlight the importance of this topic, and hopefully allow nations to understand that sometimes things that do not look like a problem to them, might be to their neighbors and small local changes can work out better for all nations.
(Bolding by me)


The (what I call) activating words in the resolution are...

APPROVES

CALLS UPON

SUGGESTS

RECOMMENDS

FURTHER RECOMMENDS

EXPRESSES ITS HOPE

Nothing there demands anything or imposes the UNs will on your nation. This is a good resolution in my opinion and a lot of work has gone into it. I will be voting for when it gets to the floor.

Now, I fully realise that I'm very late in saying this, but it seriously only occurred to me an hour ago.

What about places that depend on large reservoirs, not for power, but for drinking water? Your FAQ doesn't address this, Mik. And I'm not sure I can support until I know how this will affect such reservoirs.

(I haven't been very involved in the drafting process, so if this has been asked and answered before, please just post the link rather than answering again. But I'm pretty sure it hasn't been asked.)

Simple answer: use a series of smaller reservoirs. :) Serious.

The problem with the large reservoirs include temperature impacts, nutrient loading changes, and the diversion of more water than is needed. It really is easier to operate a *series* of smaller reservoirs, because you gain operational flexibility.

Bear in mind that in the natural environmental *shallow* wetlands do produce some methanes, and tons of carbon ... this is what aquatic systems need. But *deep* wetlands don't really exist in nature, so the creatures that need sunlight at the bottom of the water column can't survive in deep reservoirs, thus plant matter dies in the larger reservoirs and undergoes a *different* process of decay than in a natural wetland or shallow reservoir.

Large multi-purpose reservoirs typically include "flood pools", these are storage "increments" that are used in the winter to just capture flood peaks, but the truth is those natural variances in flows are necessary for agriculture and shorelines, just as much as they are for certain fish species. The resolution suggests the _reconstruction_ of seasonal wetlands and flood bypasses to off-set (i.e. reduce) the need for flood pools. This then means that the existing reservoirs can be decreased in size.

Compadria is interested in this resolution, but would like to pose the following questions.

1). What would be the economic impact of following the recommendations of the resolution and what financial aid might be offered in order to facillitate its implementation.

2). In dams where the surrounding areas are either urbanised or arable land, what should be done to follow the recommendations of 4.


Well, a famous Mikitivitian engineering firm, Gletscher Engineering, has in the past worked on urban restoration programs in mountainous urban environments, where wetlands weren't feasible to construct "River Walks" (OOC: San Antonio's River Walk or Valencia, Spain's downtown park are two good examples of scenic water based "bypasses").

The basic idea is that you *know* from time to time that there will be a flood, if you tackle the flood storage pools in large reservoirs (not small reservoirs). So you simply hire a firm like Gletscher Eng. to build a pipe or above ground waterway just around urban areas.

I need to run, but tonight will be happy to answer other guestions (and this and Enn's were both very thoughtful about the problem and very encouraging). Thank both of your governments! :)

Excerpt from the "Thermidore University Channel" debate holding a panel discussion on the recent proposal "Mitigation of Large Reservoirs". As usual it's just preaching to the converted, with a few dissenters who are really just objecting to keep the discussion going....

"...Well as we know", says Arch-Primate Casmeer looking benevolently on his people, "the problem with a lot of elected leaders is that they have to appeal to people's wants and specifically people's short-term wants. This is because while they are in office, if they do something unpopular, by the next time the election comes up, they're out. Bringing in unpopular policies is really all about about education, especially in the case of environmental policies, what do you think Ms. Fansha?"

Ms. Fansha the Minister for Education for Sustainable development nods "I agree, Arch-Primate, there should be no such thing as an unpopular environmental policy. Also it seems that now, especially in some rogue nations, the need for education for a sustainable future has never been greater, however sustainability is no "buzz" word as some detractors would say. Our elders knew that if one used up all the natural resources of their area for the needs/wants of one generation, where would the next generation get their's? As they said "the frog does not drink up the pool it lives in."

Secondly, many other nations conveniently forget that intact ecosystems have values that are not taken into account by their rapacious economic calculations - such as regulation of natural cycles, prevention of floods, provision of crops and pollinators - one can easily value these by looking at how much it would cost if these functions weren't there (e.g. how much flood damages cost), or how much it would cost to replace these functions with manmade regulators (99% of the time it's far more expensive) and these are just mentioning a few values of intact nature."

"Thank you Ms. Fansha", the Primate smiled, "I think it's safe to say that Thermidore will be voting for this resolution..."

Compadria is interested in this resolution, but would like to pose the following questions.

1). What would be the economic impact of following the recommendations of the resolution and what financial aid might be offered in order to facillitate its implementation.


My apologies for not addressing this excellent question earlier ... the reason I'm still hestitant to address the question concerning the economic impacts of the resolution, is there are so many costs and benefits to both fisheries, like the Sober Thought Winter Run salmon that travel's from the ocean, through Sober Thought and then along the Risden River through Mikitivity and Flankia, as well as costs and benefits to rebuilding and managing a system of wetlands, by-passes, and smaller reservoirs.

Ultimately it would be guess work for me to really project what exact costs and benefits might be ...

But I'm more than happy to outline some potential costs of the provisions mentioned in the resolution.

The design and installation of a temperature control device in an existing large reservoir is probably (this is a crude number) going to cost in the 10s or 100s of millions of dollars. These aren't billion dollar solutions.

[OOC: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1515/febmar2001/salmon.htm

"The structure at Shasta, called a temperature control device (TCD), allows Reclamation's Central Valley Project operators to meet federal and state water temperature requirements for salmon habitat in a 60-mile reach of the Sacramento River. The river segment stretches from Shasta Dam to Reclamation's 75-MW Keswick Dam and Reservoir and then on downstream to Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

At Shasta, the intake structure consists of 9,000 tons of structural steel and metal work. Fletcher General Construction (Seattle, Washington) constructed the device. Oregon Iron Works fabricated the structural steel and associated hoists. Divers from Oceaneering International installed the device using underwater construction methods to prevent drawing down the reservoir. Construction cost $64 million; the project, $80 million."]

The cost of a flood bypass program is going to likely be much more variable ... the management of such a program could actually be a revenue generator *if* you can convert land into zoned agricultural use. Basically the government could *rent* the land to farmers, who in turn would sell more food for your nation. :)

However, if your government wanted to pipe water under a city (and there are plenty of cities that do have underground rivers), the costs will vary completely based upon how much of the flood flow you divert and where. One idea might be to construct a "Riparian" (i.e. river front) park, and just have businesses along the river build higher than normal. Then you'd allow the park to flood a few times during the year.

The goal with bypasses is to encourage natural flooding.

Thank you, we are now prepared to fully support the resolution and will assist in any way possible in its passing. The additional sources of revenue will be explored, I assure you.

Our otters are extremely pleased about this.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

My delegates,

My entire country relies on agriculture. If we have the rivers dammed up and human made lakes all over my country will starve as well as be ruined economicly. Our country cannot have hundreds of acres flooded over. Even with redirection of the water it only acts as a bandaid for it eventually spilling over. My country is lowlands mostly. One flood destroys millions of homes. If we had a countrywide flood the dominion of dey would be erased from the map. Are you truely willing to say that you want to kill 500 million people just to light the lamp on your desk? My country cannot afford this just to generate power. My delegates this is rediculous. I cannot allow my people to die.

I say we should look up alternative energy forms. Instead of allowing billions to die just to power the world.

I'm not voting for you. I'm voting for the livelyhood of my people.

Please delegates this is an outrage.

The UN resolution: Mitigation of Large Reservoirs is, and we strongly emphasise this point, an unnecessary proposal and one which will promote an unfair economic imbalance across developed and developing nation states.

We are not convinced with several points of the proposed resolution most notably paragraph 2 and 3, with regards to “anadromous fish populations”. Also such an indirect reference to bodies of water- shared or not is quite frankly irrelevant to what the proposal is supposed to be driving at, which rather contradicts the proposal to say the least. :confused:

The Holy Empire of Dersaaded is not promoting an anti environmental stance on broader issues but we are quite concerned that we are debating irrelevant issues which will have no large scale impact that will benefit all nations.

There have been resolutions passed which promote alternative energy resources such as Hydrogen Power as well as environmental safeguards , which we would be more willing to divert our nation’s GDP to promote such as causes which will not only be safe and abundant but cost effective :D , paragraphs 11 – 13 clarify this point quite clearly.

This resolution has no long-term effect which has not already have been proposed prior to it’s petition. Perhaps a more positive view on industry and helping industry find better ways of being environmentally friendly and developing environmental conscious production would be more appropriate.

Perhaps The Confederated City States of Mikitivity would like focus more on clean industries rather than their beloved Gambling Industry before they make any more ‘green leaning’ proposals. :eek:

By my hand,

Civilus Maximus Pontificus
- Ambassador to Holy Empire of Dersaaded

Given that my community does not use hydroelectric power nor electricity, I suspect we will abstain from voting on this proposal. We feel out of place dictating policy that we do not fully comprehend the technology of. I might note, however, that it is tempting to vote against if for no reason than to avoid adding an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and paying the potential costs of fund the resolution.

-Mark Heln
UN Delegate

Votes For: 1,720

Votes Against: 1,121Wow. For once we have a volatile vote on our hands. With all due apologies to Mikitivity, whom I know has worked very hard on this, our corporate sponsors have just instructed me to cast our region's votes AGAINST this proposal. We appreciate Waterana's attempts to lay this out in plain words:(Bolding by me)However, if you look at the language used in this resolution its clauses actually provide nations a variety of options. Nothing dictates a specific law that you must impose on your people. Instead, this resolution firmly supports the “sovereign” idea that the best solutions to local problems are dealt with by creative and local solutions. ... Recognizing this, this resolution is specifically designed to encourage sustainable and sound environmental management, but it is not so foolish to believe that the UN can run your country better than you can.The (what I call) activating words in the resolution are...

APPROVES

CALLS UPON

SUGGESTS

RECOMMENDS

FURTHER RECOMMENDS

EXPRESSES ITS HOPE

Nothing there demands anything or imposes the UNs will on your nation. This is a good resolution in my opinion and a lot of work has gone into it. I will be voting for when it gets to the floor.... At first glance, this proposal seems like just a finger-wagging at member states who aren't as environmentally sensitive as others, with no real substantive purpose. We are heartened the proposal probably does not infringe upon national sovereignty, but at the same time we feel that the one thing the proposal does approve, which is more research into technologies to make reservoirs more environmentally sound, is not something to which the United Nations should be devoting valuable time and resources.

The impact of irrigation technology on the migration of fish does not strike us as a pressing issue of global reach befitting the involvement of the United Nations.

Perhaps replies will follow which will endeavor to explain this measure more clearly, because right now, the proposal is so jammed and distorted with legalese (which to me probably warrants a "down" vote regardless of the proposal's actual content), it is not immediately undertstandable.

Wow. For once we have a volatile vote on our hands. With all due apologies to Mikitivity, whom I know has worked very hard on this, our corporate sponsors have just instructed me to cast our region's votes AGAINST this proposal.

We appreciate Waterana's attempts to lay this out in plain words:... At first glance, this proposal seems like just a finger-wagging at member states who aren't as environmentally sensitive as others, with no real substantive purpose. We are heartened the proposal probably does not infringe upon national sovereignty, but at the same time we feel that the one thing the proposal does approve, which is more research into technologies to make reservoirs more environmentally sound, is not something to which the United Nations should be devoting valuable time and resources.

The impact of irrigation technology on the migration of fish does not strike us as a pressing issue of global reach befitting the involvement of the United Nations.

Perhaps replies will follow which will endeavor to explain this measure more clearly, because right now, the proposal is so jammed and distorted with legalese (which to me probably warrants a "down" vote regardless of the proposal's actual content), it is not immediately undertstandable.

Naturally I'll try and convince you that fish and international water ways are important ... but let's look at something that clearly is a concern: coastal errosion.

Beaches are composed of fine material that is carried from mountains downstream via long rivers (many of which may cross international boundaries) to eventually deposit the fine gravels and sands on beaches.

Sediment is important, because wave action at the oceans results in coastal errosion. In a world where we are experiencing global warming, largely due to increases in anthropengenic (i.e. non-natural) sources of green house gases, sea level rise, threatens even coastal nations that might not be adjacent to international rivers, but whos sand is still carried to the ocean and then via ocean currents hundreds of kilometers for eventual deposition.

A classic example of a "hypothetical" (i.e. RL) river ...

more to come (sorry, co-workers asking questions) :)

... Europe's Rhine.

The Rhine river starts in Switzerland and travels along Austria, Liechtenstein, Germany, and the Netherlands. It also carries rock from the Swiss Alps downstream. This rock not only forms habitat for many aquatic species that are eaten by the Swiss, Germans, French, and Dutch, but eventually is the material that would become the soil on the very low farming terrorities.

The Dutch of course have spent tons of money building dikes and sea walls to prevent the ocean from claiming their land, but why this is of international importance is that is money that could be spent on other things. Furthermore, Dutch produce certainly is exported to other European countries, like Switzerland, which has little land to devote to farming (not to say the Swiss don't farm, but they are less able to produce as much and as cheap food as the Dutch).

In short, the RL Swiss have a financial interest $$$ in the Dutch beaches. :)

Basically, international waterways, especially when they are home to an important food and habitat source that moves between countries, are of vital economic importance.

Reposted from other thread:

As for my objections, they have largely gone unaddressed, so perhaps I need to clarify them further. First, I continue to take issue with the language and formatting of this resolution because both aspects cloud the discussion. Many national delegates are not versed in the latest in "fish terminology", and I see no reason why "anadromous fish populations" can't be written "fish that return upstream to breed". If the character limit is the issue, maybe cutting down on superfluous text about omega-3 fatty acids, which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand, would help. It shouldn't be up to everybody but the proposer to write a clear proposal.

Next, the resolution is unfocused. I see sentences dealing with hydroelectric power plants, breeding salmon, methane, and reservoirs. Could it at least pick a topic and run with it? The resolution, as written, appears to be designed to showcase the proposing nation's base of knowledge rather than to introduce a specific issue. To add insult to injury, the resolution can be interpreted two ways, ostensibly with the intent of allowing an "out" to nations otherwise against the proposed projects. If a nation is forced to fund any and all UN resolutions, it seems to be entirely self-serving for a nation to weaken the operative clauses so as to reduce or eliminate objections.

What this resolution does is to increase bureaucracy without having any tangible effects. "Investigating", "suggesting", and "recommending" things using Krioval's money to do so, regardless of how Krioval would otherwise allocate its funds, is silly and a waste of time. In fact, it's quite possible that we have already investigated Mikitivity's proposed methods and rejected them. Why should we be forced to reopen that avenue of investigation just so a few nations' leaders can sleep a bit easier at night?

OOC:

Arguments that this resolution will raise money for nations are unfounded. The category and strength of the UN resolution are the only direct impacts on members. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.

Implying that I don't understand the resolution is equally improper. I understand it just fine, and I reject it all the same. I prefer to use in-character means to illustrate this, however, rather than resorting to out-of-character sniping (not that it's happened yet, but the potential exists).

Finally, the entirely too long resolution and the mountains of information heaped upon us by Mikitivity are enough to drown in. I have plenty of real-life commitments that require that I not spend hours trying to assimilate all that data just to vote on a game resolution. If he is incapable of explaining himself in a few paragraphs in plain English (as another poster requested), then the resolution should be defeated for reasons of general incomprehensibility. I don't dump my thesis project on the NSUN as a proposal and then expect everybody else to figure out what I'm talking about, and I feel that we're owed the same courtesy, both IC and OOC.

Q: Why did you include a reference to omega-3 fatty acids?

The original draft of this proposal was focused on fish protection. A benefit / and cost savings of environmental protection was something I felt should be included as a justification, so I used the unique example of salmon because large-scale (not small-scale) reservoirs have killed most of their population. Omega-3 is why they are important.


Q: Why did you use the word "anadromous" instead of saying "fish that return upstream to breed"?

Simple: nobody suggested that amendment when the draft proposal was debated. I would have loved to use it, because it isn't too long. But I'm a bit sad to see it being the subject of debate -- it sounds like sour grapes to me.


Q: Why does this resolution offer a wide array of possible solutions instead of focusing on a single solution?

This resolution does offer a wide array of possible solutions. The reason I've done that is temperature control devices, wetland restorations, electricity demand reduction management, etc. are just options.

Time and time again, I've watched many a resolution author personally flamed for resolutions that didn't include a variety of options. The truth is, resolutions can be general (like the United Nations Security Act) or very specific (like the Freedom of Conscience). I believe there is room for both in our UN.

My governments (mine included) believe that flexibility is the strength to an international proposal. In this case, had I focused just on temperature control devices, somebody would point out that they don't have that option. Had I focused purely on wetland restoration, somebody ELSE would say they don't have that option.

The text of the resolution is designed to encourage nations to think about what they need to address not only their water quality with respect to a very specific problem: large-reservoirs, but the impacts these large-reservoirs will have on others.

It might be that if my government were to only use a series of small reservoirs, that we'd have few negative impacts on Sober Thought, but it also could be that Goobergunchia might find a better solution to the problem in their nation.


Q: But my nation has no environmental problem with its reservoirs?

Did you vote for the Freedom of Conscience? If so, did your nation have a problem about locking up individuals that that resolution fixed?

Did you vote for Definition of Marriage? Is so, was it illegal for homosexuals to be married in your country before that resolution?

We've all voted on plenty of "Human Rights" resolutions even though our nations already had laws protecting those rights. It is hypocritical to advocate that one should not support a global environmental statement because "my nation doesn't have that problem", but then to vote in favor of a human rights statement when you can say, "I'll vote for this, but my nation doesn't have that problem".

My nation views resolutions as international statements. We wouldn't have made the recommendations in this resolution, if we've not worked with Sober Thought, Keeslandia, and Flankia to solve our combined environmental problems. This resolution is just a statement that nations should work together to solve *possible* problems related to large-scale reservoirs. If you don't have the problems, then just like "freebie" Human Rights resolutions, please don't stand in the way of nations that would like an international statement to help encourage their poluting neighbor to at least *talk* about the problem.

This resolution calls upon nations to look into the problem of large-scale reservoirs. It doesn't tell you EXACTLY how to solve the problem. That is a loop hole I left in the resolution on purpose, because if you don't feel you have an environmental problem, then the resolution shouldn't hurt you.

For example, California has many environmental standards (such as ballast water regulations) that are much more stringent than the USEPA regulations for protecting the environment. In California, the more stringent regulations always take place, but that does not mean that California Senators do not promote and encourage neighboring states like Nevada or Oregon to adopt high environmental standards.

If my neigbhor complains that the water released from a reservoir in Mikitivity was killing fish that travel between our countries, my government should in good faith at least address the concern. This resolution offered a few methods, but the first clause:

"1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures ..."

... is a way that my government hopes nations will reduce tensions between nations that share international waterways. If there is a conflict, the solution to this international problem is to find a few good ways to solve the problem. The key is in having options.

Had I left the clause at just that, I'd have been flamed right and left by people saying, 'But you've not told us what to research???' Vaque resolutions have a place, but environmental problems are actually pretty difficult to solve ... so I wanted to first convince nations that they have a few options but that in some cases this is important.

<Stat-wank>

Fass has left the UN to evade the statistical repercussions of this particular resolution, should it come to pass. The economy simply cannot sustain another resolution bound to lower our economic level (environmental - all businesses affected), since the last resolution bumped us down to "thriving" from "powerhouse" without anything being done by the local legislature. So, do what you will - we'll be temporarily sitting this one out. :p

</stat-wank>

<Stat-wank>

Fass has left the UN to evade the statistical repercussions of this particular resolution, should it come to pass. The economy simply cannot sustain another resolution bound to lower our economic level (environmental - all businesses affected), since the last resolution bumped us down to "thriving" from "powerhouse" without anything being done by the local legislature. So, do what you will - we'll be temporarily sitting this one out. :p

</stat-wank>

OOC:
:) I just wanted to say I actually appreciate this. The temptation for some players trying to hit their sweet spot would be to vote no, and if I had a category: Environmental: Water Resources or Environmental: Electricity, or something a bit more focused, I would have used that category.

I have no idea how the vote will turn out, but it looks as if one feeder region is going to cast several hundred no votes -- the UN Delegate has already hinted he doesn't like this resolution, ironically because of its "weak" language.

In other words, there was no pressing reason why omega-3 fatty acids were mentioned except for historical ones. Good to know.

As for the wording, I did comment earlier that the language was too legalistic. I still wonder why it was decided to use words that a large majority of educated people don't fully understand. Naturally, these wonderings tend toward darker purposes than are likely to be the case, but while they may leave a sourness to those left scrambling for dictionaries, I wouldn't characterize it as reminiscent of grape.

I return to my objection that either this resolution usurps national sovereignty to an unnecessary and dangerous degree or it lacks teeth entirely. In any case, it drains money from Krioval's tax base to fund itself. In the wake of several measures passed by this body to redistribute wealth, enough is really enough. While I appreciate the criticism of several recent resolutions, especially environmental ones, why not first work to repeal the crappy ones before proposing new ones rather than simply heaping more and more resolutions on top of the bad ones?

Right. That'd be real work. Personally, the most satisfying time I've spent in the NSUN took place during the drafting of the repeal and replacement for the Global Library. Krioval was involved in many planning stages of both proposals, and yet we weren't mentioned explicitly in either. But that wasn't why I was involved (for recognition), but rather to produce an innovative and interesting piece of legislation by first removing one that was ill-fitting for the UN. Now, the dynamic has shifted back toward the "throw a proposal on the list, TG to hell and back, and then watch the sheep pass my resolution" method. Heck, even with my repeal of Humanitarian Intervention, which I abandoned due to RL concerns, I didn't start the telegram campaign during the draft stage.

So it's for a variety of reasons that I oppose now, and will continue to vigorously oppose, this resolution. And really, if the "problem" isn't a problem in most nations, we don't need a spiffy new resolution to force us to fund something we're already doing, or something we've tried and rejected. "Freedom of Conscience" didn't redirect funding, so that's a strawman.

So it's for a variety of reasons that I oppose now, and will continue to vigorously oppose, this resolution. And really, if the "problem" isn't a problem in most nations, we don't need a spiffy new resolution to force us to fund something we're already doing, or something we've tried and rejected. "Freedom of Conscience" didn't redirect funding, so that's a strawman.

Not true.

Hack and Cog have many times pointed out that all resolutions represent a trade-off. An increase in civil freedoms via a Human Rights resolution result in an increase in a few other minor game stats. They've never said exactly what game stats were altered precisely to prevent this type of stat-wanking. My guess: tax rates and crime rate are significantly increased via the passage of Human Rights, and am guessing these are the hidden daggers for each Human Rights resolution based on the fact that many CONSERVATIVE UN players have pointed out that their tax rates and crime increase after staying in the UN for a long time.


Therefore, it remains:

If you voted for Freedom of Conscience but claimed it was not a problem in your nation, but vote against another resolution on the grounds it is not a problem in your nation, you are practicing a double standard.


So I state again, if "Freedom of Conscience" wasn't a problem in a majority of nations, was it a bad resolution? I think not. I happen to believe 100% in the goals and ideal behind the "Freedom of Conscience" resolution, and therefore logically I will back other resolutions if they are based on a serious international problem and convey a possible solution.

Resolutions are a statement of international opinion. Fass indicated that they'll leave the UN and return later, meaning that they are basically choosing to not comply with this resolution should it pass. While non-compliance undermines the point of a UN resolution, I think the opportunity to pressure neighboring states into agreements over potential conflicts of interest are still valid reasons to adopt "statements".

Here is what I was explaining to Loop (who is leaning against, because the resolution doesn't FORCE compliance via its language -- and for the record, I greatly respect Loop and the East Pacific for basing their vote on the resolution on its language and their belief in how international law should work -- as communists, they are doing a beautiful job, and they ain't stat-wanking):

In RL the Colorado River passes through California, Arizona, and Mexico. It is truly a shared resource. Since California has a larger population, is essentially drinkds the Colorado River dry. The US Supreme Court has ruled over law suits between Arizona and California about the amount of water that California is entitled to ... but when California drinks more than its fair share, Arizona still has a REALISTIC legal recourse: it can sue California again in the US Supreme Court. And it has, many times ... and it typically wins. :)

Now, if Mexico were to ask California to stop using so much Colorado River water, it too might attempt to ask the US Supreme Court to get California to divert less water ... but being that California is part of the US and Mexico is not, the US Supreme Court is less inclined to even hear the case. In fact, all of the promises for California to use less of Mexico's _treaty_ bound entitlements to the water have been modified by the Executive and Legislative branches, but not the Judicial branch. However, Arizona has been able to use *all* three branches and more effectively.

Today Mexico still gets piss poor (literally in this case, as downstream water is effuelent based) from California and the rest of the US. However, instead of relying upon US mechanisms to seek water quality protection for the Colorado River, it still has *international courts*.

The point behind no UN resolution is to FORCE a policy against a nation's will. But as a statement of policy on an international issue: be it protecting human rights (at the cost of tax dollars and crime rates) or be it protecting the quality of our environment (at the cost of dollars to businesses ... via a tax placed on them), UN resolutions have been used in neogitations betwen nations.

In the RL example, Mexico could cite this UN resolution and appeal to a World Court asking the United States to allow more clean water down the Colorado River. The Netherlands could do the same of Germany for the Rhine, etc. etc.

If the two parties could sit down and talk about a resolution, they might see that since it has flexible options, that there actually is room for compromise. That is what politics is all about, and the UN (with its optional membership) really is about bringing attention to problems.

I mean come on, who here had Slavery in their nation in 2003? Who outlawed Gay Marriage? etc. etc. In fact, I can list 114 resolutions that have problems that don't exist everywhere. Er, make that 112 ... the Rights and Duties and United Nations Security Act, actually didn't address problems, but rather the rights of nations with respect to other nations. But I highly encourage nations to read the other 112 resolutions and ask yourself, "Was slavery really a problem in my nation?" "Was freedom of speech really a problem in my nation?" Then ask yourself, "If not, why do I advocate a double standard when it comes to other issues?"

OOC:

Like the term from which it is derived, stat wanking is going to depend on an individual being "turned on" by certain kinds of stats over others. Mine are the economic ones. While I understand that it bothers someone that I'd argue against a resolution based on the stat effects, I point out the laundry list of crappy resolutions that have negative (from my perspective) impacts on my stats. Let's not delude ourselves into the thinking that everybody carefully considers the implications of the NSUN resolutions. NS is a game, and I have seen nothing to indicate that people are critically evaluating a resolution before voting on it, or if they are, that their criteria are anywhere near as stringent as mine.

As for human rights resolutions, I really didn't think that "Freedom of Conscience" was critical. That might explain why I wasn't posting frequently on it (did I post about it at all?). I voted in favor of the resolution primarily because Krioval likes Ecopoeia and the text was solid. With you, Mikitivity, Krioval has no real relations with your nation, and I (and by extension, Krioval) feel that the text of your resolution is fragmented, dissolute, and purposely designed to serve two ends at the same time, namely to reassure people already doing what you suggest that you're compelling others to do so while telling nations not doing those things that they really don't have to, if they don't want to.

Taxes tend to drop in Krioval after human rights resolutions pass, anyway, so I'm fairly well convinced that rising taxes would be due to the social justice, international security, and environmental resolutions that pass. Finally, I telegrammed over 900 delegates to attempt a repeal on a human rights: strong resolution. Try to understand where I'm coming from on some of this - I'm tired of unnecessary resolutions altogether, and while my opposition is lessened when the categories favor me, I tend to disdain the trend toward having something, anything, to vote on.

EDIT: Of those "112" resolutions, many are repeals of earlier resolutions, passed specifically because enough people saw major flaws in them. If anything, your argument serves to bolster my point - there's been a lot of crap passed, and it takes energy and time to rid the UN of it. Hence my objection to putting up yet another useless resolution.

In fact, it's quite possible that we have already investigated Mikitivity's proposed methods and rejected them.

Now, the dynamic has shifted back toward the "throw a proposal on the list, TG to hell and back, and then watch the sheep pass my resolution" method.


Now I ask you, how do you know that those that have voted for this proposal are "sheep"??? Isn't it possible that if you can form your own opinions that others can too?




I've exchanged telegrams with many nations, and thus far I've replied to some thoughtful and polite comments about the text of the resolution. I've also had two "DIE MIKE DIE" telegrams (harmless, but still ... *sigh*). I would not characterize any of these players as sheep, as each of them has bothered to take the time to TELEGRAM and engage in some sort of conservation.

I hope you will look at what you are doing here: First you tell the Powerhungry Chipmunks that you have many reasons for your position, and then you claim that those that support this are just sheep. :(

For the record, the first draft of this proposal was started on July 2, 2005. I hardly would classify this as a rushed resolution. And it is wrong to think that I'm counting on the sheep vote. The length of the resolution and the detail with which I'm answering questions or responding to your continued personal attacks on my motive (not the resolution, but you continue to attack me), should really show that I'm interested in an environmental discussion!!!

My nation's resolution has been called poorly written. Personally this is coming from a *PLAYER* who had publically admitted he doesn't like me, and I tend to find that claim that this resolution is poorly written just another personal attack on me, but I'd like to defend the organization of the resolution itself ...

I've always been taught and believe that resolutions should (1) state why this is an international issue, (2) provide a few examples of the importance of the issue, (3) define the context of the problem, (4) make a recommendation on how to address the problem.

(1) International Scope?
The first clause introduces the international character of waterways.
The second clause reaffirms there is an international benefit to fish.

(2) Examples of Importance?
The third clause takes about dietary importance.

(3) Context of the problem
The fourth clause highlights that electricity is important.
The fifth clause shows that it is tied to large reservoirs, small ones are not mentioned -- problem refined.
The sixth clause lists a few examples of the problems from large reservoirs.
The seventh clause ties this into the international scope: fish are impacted by the problems from the sixth clause.
The eight clause (Myopia's amendement) is another problem related to climate change.

(4) Recommendation / Solution
The ninth clause (preamble still) talks about balance ... this is a justification for having several solutions advocated for.
CLAUSE 1: solution is to look for local solutions to on by addressing the large-reservoirs themselves or their downstream impacts.
CLAUSE 2: solution is to reduce the need for large-reservoirs, indirectly be tackling electricity demand.
CLAUSE 3: solution is to investigate trade off between power and wildlife and try to optimize the above CLAUSE 1 and CLAUSE 2, to hopefully find something that is a win-win solution for both.
CLAUSE 4: solution is to again look downstream and fix other things.
CLAUSE 5: additional direction on CLAUSE 4.
CLAUSE 6: solution is to look into other power sources.


I think this is a pretty well written and logically constructed document. I'll let you decide if this makes structural sense. CLAUSES 4 and 5 could stand to be bumped up, but I wanted #3 after #1 and #2. *shrug*

While we folks o' the SH o' Dolfor appreciate an effort to re-cog-nize havin' healthy streams for healthy fish and the like, we must say we find ourselves a bit puzzled.

What does this resolution DO?

It "suggests, recommends, hopes" but by itself, it don't change nothin'. Now that's real purty but if we're lookin' for change shouldn't we give this here write-up a bit o' spine?

[Edit, OOC]: I didn't really read the poll, and indicated "yes", my country has voted, rather than my country has voted "in favor." Eh.

This should be an issue, not a Resolution. some countries would watch and study how nature has lasted so long while we destroy ourselves, while others would prefer keeping their power sources to fuel their technology research.

I have voted against this resolution

This should be an issue, not a Resolution. some countries would watch and study how nature has lasted so long while we destroy ourselves, while others would prefer keeping their power sources to fuel their technology research.

I have voted against this resolution

Hello,

I'd like to just state that while my own government has in fact voted against other resolutions for a similar reason, we feel the difference between domestic issues and UN resolutions is when the problem / issue crosses international borders and when nations can cooperate for solutions.

In this case, what if a river passes through three countries. If two of the countries are willing to work together, say one country would sell electricity to the one that wanted smaller dams, the third country might want a piece of the action to. By having the UN adopt a resolution, it at least brings all three countries to the table to talk -- and in this case, *if* the resolution is adopted, they could all agree that this is something that other countries are also worried about.

It is my government's hope that nation's will share ideas on how to mitigate or reduce negative impacts of large reservoirs. :)

I hope that helps explain why my government feels this is international in focus.

OOC:

Try reading what I post. I said that some people tend to vote for resolutions simply because they're resolutions. Those are the "sheep" to whom I am referring. People may vote for your resolution for as many reasons as others may vote against it. Strangely enough, the phenomenon in question has more to do with resolutions in general than yours in particular, though it is directly relevant to your resolution in that I strongly feel we don't need another environmental resolution on top of the stuff we already have. It really has little to do with individual players at the end of the day, and more to do with the quality of what's been coming down the pike.

Considering that I've been slammed for valuing certain statistics, I think it's equally questionable how some people read the word "environmental" and knee-jerk vote "yes". At least opposition on this basis can be RP'd reasonably: "Another environmental resolution?! Vote against it immediately!" Nations (in RL) can and do adopt similar positions regularly.

Any issues I have with Mikitivity, the player would be related to the lack of skill in addressing the points I've raised, namely that:

the resolution costs money
it either crushes national sovereignty OR does nothing
it's another in a long line of unnecessary environmental resolutions
it deals with everything from diet to power generation - let's face it, your resolution just isn't that important

In fact, I'm surprised to not see a clause saying how your suggestions will end all armed conflict, prevent the deaths of kittens, and grant all adults their choice of sexual partner for the rest of their natural lives.

OOC:
:) I just wanted to say I actually appreciate this. The temptation for some players trying to hit their sweet spot would be to vote no, and if I had a category: Environmental: Water Resources or Environmental: Electricity, or something a bit more focused, I would have used that category.

I have no idea how the vote will turn out, but it looks as if one feeder region is going to cast several hundred no votes -- the UN Delegate has already hinted he doesn't like this resolution, ironically because of its "weak" language.

OOC: I would stay if I felt the resolution did all that much - I'm not opposed to environmental resolutions on principle, but it seems to do stuff while sort of not doing them anyway, and I don't think the subject is worthy of UN control at all, so there really is nothing that would compell me to take the brunt of this resolution at all. There isn't anything except the annoyance over "yet another does-nothing-really-but-affects-stats resolution" to make me vote against it, so I'm sitting it out. If it works as I hope it will, I will apply this strategy in the future with similar resolutions as well. No point in fussing, really.

Good luck to you in getting this through, though.

About the resolution at vote, it is saying that in order to make the hydroelectric plants do more good to nations than harm they must be managed in a thoughtful way. Since hydroelectric plants are not that great for the environment it is suggesting that we invest some money to make the ones in use safer while also encouraging us to find a better way to harness power.

Thus if this passes:
- Better water quality for fish species, many of which are harvested and eaten by human populations (and some fish are proven to be very important to the human diet). :)
- Less coastal / shoreline erosion, which longer term means less damage to coastal communities.
- Less methane production from reservoirs means less global warming.
- Energy reduction was talked about, and in time could reduce the need for power.

It will likely mean you'll want to invest in other forms of power supply / generation (though here, I think long-term power supplies like nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal power are all safe and cost effective alternatives).

Because the hydroelectric plants are unsafe it will if passed be required by all UN nations to manage their hydroelectric plants so that they pose no threat. Thus it encourages us to look for cheaper and more beneficial was to get our power.

By changing the way you operate a reservoir, you can reduce the bad aspects and get plenty of benefit.

If you are worried about floods you can still build small to mid sized reservoirs, and as many as you like. Floods are seasonal, so at worst case, they take out crops for a few weeks ... and even then you can plant food that can survive a flood or two. Floods aren't that regular in climates where you'd be eating something that naturally can't survive in say a "rice field" anyway.

So I am for this resolution at vote for it will most definitely help the environment and the world now and in the long run.

Sincerely,

M

Mothy
The Emperor of The Empire of Mothy, Region of Nirn

Waiting for her previous colleague to complete their speech Lydia rose to address the assembled delegates, nodding politely at the Mikitivity delegation.

Firstly the government of Telidia wish to express its high regard for the Mikitivity delegation. We find their proposals/resolutions well researched and always enjoy debating the topics at hand.

Secondly, we also wish to apologise for not having taken part in the drafting process unfortunately other duties precluded me from doing so, that said it still does fall on me to offer the official position of Telidian government to the assembly.

In principal the Telidian government agrees with the recommendations as outlined in this resolution. Though in order to fully implement all the recommendations we would have to undergo large-scale infrastructure changes, which to say the least will be costly and will require very careful planning. Furthermore we are not convinced about the effects of methane upon global warming. While we agree the gas has the potential to add to global warming, we must also look at natural reservoirs having existed on our planet for many thousands of years, some of which are extremely large.

With this in mind we feel it becomes almost impossible to calculate the net effect on global warming since we do not fully understand the impact of naturally occurring reservoirs on the environment compared to the addition of those man made. We feel therefore the preamble paragraph warning that reservoirs could ‘substantially’ increase global warming to be a little overstated.

Finally considering the very real threat from CO2 emissions, in our humble opinion the reduction of these must remain our first priority before we even consider reducing our alternatives and remove hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power will remain at least for the foreseeable future, an important part of our energy portfolio as our government strive to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and regrettably we must therefore abstain from this vote.

We do however wish the honourable member from Mikitivity every success and though we cannot offer our full support in favour we do hope they will recognise by abstaining we do agree with some of the articles. Certainly Telidia has always been in favour of environmental proposals and that will not change in the future, however in this case it is a matter of priorities for us.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

My government whole heartely agrees with the proposal and would like to invite all UN Members to come and enjoy are new leisure facilities we are currently constructing around are new lakes and reservoirs.

I will approve this resolution, not just because I'm the Delegate of Mikitivity's region, but also because this is a well-written, well-thought-over resolution. It serves not simply to put down law on all UN members, but to provoke thought about an issue, to balance interests, and to improve the environment.

I am aware that there is a chance this resolution will fail; unfortunately, most NS countries seem more at home with resolution giving equal rights to hedgehog fetishists, or allowing mass-murdering biochemical weapons (or forbidding them). But personally, I am more than glad that finally a resolution has come up which seeks to go a bit deeper than "we should, you know, like do this". The main aim of this resolution is to improve the environment by pointing out that hydroelectric power may be a good energy source, but it has its disadvantages. It's the best for all of us if we try to take away those disadvantages so we're left with a clean energy source with a low impact on the environment. I know that for mountaineous countries like Mikitivity this is an important issue, but also for Groot Gouda which depends mountain ranges outside the country, feeding our rivers, our wetlands, part of our wildlife.

Unfortunately, some nations kneejerk into reflexes that makes one doubt why they even joined the UN, or run a country (running a country costs money, you know!)

* the resolution costs money
* it either crushes national sovereignty OR does nothing
* it's another in a long line of unnecessary environmental resolutions
* it deals with everything from diet to power generation - let's face it, your resolution just isn't that important

This resolution costs money, but on a national budget, it's probably not a lot. In return, the improvements of the environment generate money - ecotourism springs to mind, but also remember that a polluted environment and a non-functioning ecological system costs money. If there ain't no fish, what are your fishermen going to do?

As for national souvereignity, well, "sigh". This resolution may not say "you MUST", but it's certainly wise to follow the advise. Also, neighbouring countries who are suffering the negative effects of a nation's large reservoirs can use this resolution when negotiating about water management.

Environmental resolutions are never unnessecary, because the environment is a common good and therefor nobody takes responsibility for it, resulting in degradation of the environment to the point where action has to be taken because it's really threatening the lives of people, and then it's too late. Resolutions like this help to create awareness of the issue.

The resolution deals with a lot of issues, because they are all connected. Fish is healthty food and endangered by large reservoirs; wetlands are fragile environments, endangered by those same reservoirs; etc. It's time that someone points this out, so national governments (or companies) get aware of the dangers and take action.

It's not too late yet. Vote For.

Simple answer: use a series of smaller reservoirs. :)
The problem with the large reservoirs include temperature impacts, nutrient loading changes, and the diversion of more water than is needed. It really is easier to operate a *series* of smaller reservoirs, because you gain operational flexibility.

Bear in mind that in the natural environmental *shallow* wetlands do produce some methanes, and tons of carbon ... this is what aquatic systems need. But *deep* wetlands don't really exist in nature, so the creatures that need sunlight at the bottom of the water column can't survive in deep reservoirs, thus plant matter dies in the larger reservoirs and undergoes a *different* process of decay than in a natural wetland or shallow reservoir.


How would we classify the Aral Sea or the Caspian Sea, then? Or are these bodies of water just so large and *deep* that they can no longer be classified as "wetlands" and so we shouldn't be concerned with the life at the bottom of these bodies of water?

Rex Populi,
Consul of the Republic of the Jats

;')

I thing that this resolution should be ban because every country must decide similar things on their own. That should be a debate in the goverment, not in the UN parlament. The question is how the goverment have to solve this problems with solutions good for the other country.

So my opinion is that this is not a real UN resolution. This is a public or domestic issue, a debate which is very topical in this days but should be resolved in every country individually.

How would we classify the Aral Sea or the Caspian Sea, then? Or are these bodies of water just so large and *deep* that they can no longer be classified as "wetlands" and so we shouldn't be concerned with the life at the bottom of these bodies of water?

OOC: These bodies of water have life adapted to their deeper environements and have natural cycles of influx and discharge. It is funny that you mention those lakes because they are both suffering from unwise and monolithic reservoirs.

IC: I come to you as a Speaker of the Federal Apparat. It is a great matter of prestige because titles such as Speaker are not given for small matters.

We, the Federal Apparat, governing organ of the People's Republic, affirm this resolution as a great benefit to both the economy and the environment. There will be small costs associated with conforming our People's many hydroelectric plants, but we also recognize the great chances for ecotourism and of course, Aquaculture and Fishing. We hope that many UN nations will support us in our conclusions.

Despite claims to the contrary, the author of this proposal sets the bar for all future UN proposals. It tackles all the facets of the problem instead of suggesting one narrow and inefficient solution. He shows a great understanding of the problems associated with hydroelectricity and somehow this is decried against. He affirms national sovereignety by offering nations to make the choice for which policy would support their nation best and there are still naysayers. Also, unlike many, he watches the thread to help answer any questions on the proposal. To this I say, joining the UN imparted upon you a certain loss of national sovereignety to be replaced with internatioonal solidarity. You knew that upon entering the hallowed halls of this organization.

Considering that I've been slammed for valuing certain statistics, I think it's equally questionable how some people read the word "environmental" and knee-jerk vote "yes". At least opposition on this basis can be RP'd reasonably: "Another environmental resolution?! Vote against it immediately!" Nations (in RL) can and do adopt similar positions regularly.
Well, there might be just as many who knee-jerk "no" to an environmental resolution. To suggest that one ignorant perspective is better than the other can be attributed to Social Psychology: Us vs. Them. In other words, it's human tendency to think "When I get a raise, it's because I'm a good worker. When Fred gets a raise, it's because the boss's stupid, or because Fred's sleeping with her." We know the reasoning behind our lives, and attribute success to it (and we attribute failures in our lives to external circumstances). We don't know the reasoning behind others' lives and tend to contribute successes to external circumstances and failures to internal inadequacy. It's a form of bias.

And, in all my studies in UN affairs, I have found little evidence to suggest that votes are determined largely, or even substantially by this "lemming" phenomenon you're describing. I'd be very interested in hearing what the data are that make you believe the UN is full of lemmings.
it either crushes national sovereignty OR does nothing

Ha! Krioval, you really shouldn't tip your hand so much. This one line could be pointed to in an effort to discredit your entire argument past, present, and future, against his resolution.

Essentially, what this line is saying is that you're opposed to this resolution for the sake of opposing it. You've decided that it's bad, likely without intense investigation, and are simply writing out the filler to naysay. "Crushing national sovereignty” and "doing nothing" are bad spins on opposite effects (giving the UN power, and giving nations power). The only reason you'd put both up, is because you haven't decided which side the resolution is on (whether it restrains the UN or gives it free reign), but know it's bad, and that it must have a bad spin put on it. This is a lot like the following exchange

ME: That dog you have is a mangy mutt.

MY FRIEND: It's a cat, actually.

ME: Like I said, cats are such ungrateful loners.

I'm sorry, but this makes it really hard for me to lend credence to your other arguments regarding the resolution. Especially since this isn't the first resolution you seem to have dismissed somewhat arbitrarily.

This is after all what this resolution is about. Sure, we'll save some fish, but the only alternative energy source RIGHT NOW is nuclear or fossil fuels. Sure, someday we'll have a better way of generating power for all the computers and X boxes we ABSOLUTELY NEED, but, until then, Hydroelectric is still the cleanest.

I think this needs to be voted down in order to keep all of the UN members from having to switch to nuclear in order to provide all the power that their citizens demand.

Web Guy

Getting Rid of Dams

This is after all what this resolution is about. Sure, we'll save some fish, but the only alternative energy source RIGHT NOW is nuclear or fossil fuels. Sure, someday we'll have a better way of generating power for all the computers and X boxes we ABSOLUTELY NEED, but, until then, Hydroelectric is still the cleanest.

No, it is not about getting rid of dams. It instead suggests that more environmentally-friendly dam designs be encouraged and supported. They would be of little ill-economic effect and this could be compensated in other areas such as ecotourism, aquaculture and fishing

How would we classify the Aral Sea or the Caspian Sea, then? Or are these bodies of water just so large and *deep* that they can no longer be classified as "wetlands" and so we shouldn't be concerned with the life at the bottom of these bodies of water?

Rex Populi,
Consul of the Republic of the Jats

;')

:) This is a good and thoughtful comment! They are deep and large, but they and many other deep lakes are often the home to their own unique eco-systems.

When talking about environmental pollutants (be it water or air), anything that is added to the environment from man-made activities would be considered an anthropogenic source. For the purposes of NationStates, I'd suggest we include pollutants from dancing penguins, crab-men, and elves too.

That said, I'm really trying to focus on large-scale artifical things. However, I think what flows down rivers is important to what eventually end sup in deep lakes.

I notice some nations are worried about the consequences of the act upon industry; agriculture and habitation (through flooding, or expansion of the reservoirs, wetlands, etc).

I would propose that the U.N. set up a panal to assist nations with the implementation of the act and offer support to lessen the potential negative impacts it might have in some countries.

I am open to elaborations on this proposal and/or constructive criticism.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I thing that this resolution should be ban because every country must decide similar things on their own. That should be a debate in the goverment, not in the UN parlament. The question is how the goverment have to solve this problems with solutions good for the other country.

But water issues like this one don't stop at a national border; the effects can often be noticed in multiple countries, which is exactly why this is a UN issue.

OOC:
Try reading what I post.


I have, and frankly most of it is OOC, frankly rude, and hasn't addressed the topic at hand. I'm ignoring most of your mild digs -- don't expect me to respond to flame bait. While they aren't standard nationstates forum flames, they are mild insults directed at me and just because I'm not responding to flame bait, doesn't mean I'm not reading it.




Any issues I have with Mikitivity, the player would be related to the lack of skill in addressing the points I've raised, namely that:

the resolution costs money
it either crushes national sovereignty OR does nothing
it's another in a long line of unnecessary environmental resolutions
it deals with everything from diet to power generation - let's face it, your resolution just isn't that important

In fact, I'm surprised to not see a clause saying how your suggestions will end all armed conflict, prevent the deaths of kittens, and grant all adults their choice of sexual partner for the rest of their natural lives.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You make a few statements that are really general complaints about all resolutions, but apply them in situtations that only benefit you. Then you including in your long posts mild flame baiting. Of course I'm going to try to ignore it!

As for two of your points:

* All resolutions cost money, even Human Rights resolutions
* All resolutions can be said to either crush national sovereignty or do nothing

I'm sure this resolution will be passed, just like every other resolution that comes to the UN (which I find rediculous). Nevertheless, consider that this resolution does absolutely no good for agriculture and poses a significant environmental threat. There's no sense in listing the reasons why, as there have already been several posts which clearly reflect my opinion and that go into much greater detail.

VOTE NO!

I'm sure this resolution will be passed, just like every other resolution that comes to the UN (which I find rediculous). Nevertheless, consider that this resolution does absolutely no good for agriculture and poses a significant environmental threat. There's no sense in listing the reasons why, as there have already been several posts which clearly reflect my opinion and that go into much greater detail.

VOTE NO!

I'd actually love to debate actual reasons, as the point here is to discuss the issue itself.

You stated that this resolution does absolutely no good for agriculture, my government disagrees with that opinion.

First, I think it is important to note that fisheries (like the salmon industry) is a form of agriculture and vital to many nation's economies. I think it is clear that this resolution seeks to improve habitat for fish. In fact, the resolultion has been called a "red salmon". ;)

Surprisingly it is hard to find international Real Life quotes for the amount of income fisheries bring to nations, but I did find some of the following:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth481/sal/orrev.html

What is interesting with the State of Oregon data is two points:

- The revenue for one US state ranges between $100 to $50 million per year.
- The amount of salmon income dropped from $40 million to less than $5 million in a 30-year period.

My government believes that if in this case, salmon habitat was protected (i.e. better water quality conditions and breeding grounds for the fish) that the revenue for Oregon would increase from $75 million back up to the $100 million mark again. :)


Now to put an international perspective on the value of fisheries, let's look at the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/fisheries/incom.htm

The fisheries sector, including aquaculture, is an important source of employment and income in the developing world. World aquaculture production, for example, is dominated by low-income, food-deficit countries (LIFDCs). Artisanal fishers increase family food security not only through their earnings, but also with the discards they put on the family table. Fishing is often a part-time or seasonal occupation, peaking when coastal and offshore resources are most abundant.

The FAO has a much more detailed paper on the subject:
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/w9900e/w9900e00.htm

What is good about this article is it lists fisheries by tonnes and shows a steady increase in the amount of fish captured and farmed (i.e. aquaculture).

If you skip to the end of the FAO document you can start to find some cost estimates of the benefits and importance of fisheries, under the section "TRADE IN FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS". :)

In 1996, the export sector earned US$52.5 billion, representing 11 percent of the value of agricultural exports and about 1 percent of total merchandise trade. The share of trade in fish and fishery products in all agricultural trade has increased somewhat over the last decade.

Going on a bit further:

In terms of value, fishery exports are almost entirely (95 percent) composed of food products, although, in terms of volume, fishmeal and fish oil account for a much greater share (Figure 19). In value terms, more than half of the fishery export trade originates in developing economies and consists largely of imports into developed economies.

In short, in the Real World (tm), not NationStates, fish are a billion dollar industry and important!

We need unhindered water for growth !

But water issues like this one don't stop at a national border; the effects can often be noticed in multiple countries, which is exactly why this is a UN issue.
I agree with your point but... UN can't tell to your country what to do with your water suply, with your water sources. You should decide how to use the water: to transform it into energy or save the fauna and flora.
See my point. When we are talking about international waters like the atlantic then UN have rigth to interfere with the goverment of one country.
But they can't tell exactly what the goverment have to do. Just to show their opinion or vote. Because this broke the freedom of this goverment.
I thing my topic wouldn't be understand by everybody.
But this resolution need to be repair. It's rigth on time but not in this aspect

Read it carefully, all it says is "Sorry that dams can be a pain in the neck, but lets make them bigger and maybe, just maybe they won't cause as much trouble. Sound like something that we really want to implement??? You've got to be kidding me.

The Theocracy of Bema wishes that the hippies running the UN would please stick to conversing with Dolphins or chaining yourselves to trees. Leave the area of industry to people who know what they are doing.

This resolution is not bold enough, it doesnt enforce any nation to do anything. If its going to affect the business, than it should demand some actions to be taken.
I dont see the purpose of only "urging" or "recommanding."

And what does "calling upon" really mean? It doesnt seem like there will be an obligation for nations to listen or implement anything. The U.N can talk all it wants but no result will happen.

in vote in favour.... gives something useful for aid recipients to spend the money on

From the right-wing:
The Theocracy of Bema wishes that the hippies running the UN would please stick to conversing with Dolphins or chaining yourselves to trees. Leave the area of industry to people who know what they are doing.

From the left-wing:
This resolution is not bold enough, it doesnt enforce any nation to do anything. If its going to affect the business, than it should demand some actions to be taken.
I dont see the purpose of only "urging" or "recommanding."

And what does "calling upon" really mean? It doesnt seem like there will be an obligation for nations to listen or implement anything. The U.N can talk all it wants but no result will happen.



My question for those who feel this doesn't do enough, what should I say to those nations that feel this resolution goes too far?

My question for those who feel this violates your sovereignty and goes way too far, what should I tell those nations that are demanding more stringent regulations and oversight of your nations?

Interestingly enough, these two sorts of ideas are actually contradicting each other.

We can't do this, it will destroy the enviroment of thousands of animals and different spices, and even some that we havn't discoverd yet. we shuld shoo t this idea down. IDEA :sniper:



VOTE AGAINAST IT!!!!!

I vote no on this resolution - by law, all electrical power generation in my nation is done by nuclear power.

I vote no on this resolution - by law, all electrical power generation in my nation is done by nuclear power.

Then it effects you not, why vote no on somthing just becaus it does not effect you when it effects others?


M

Emperor Mothy
Emperor of The Empire of Mothy, Region of Nirn

While We understand the importance of balancing the needs of agriculture, industry and society for water, and the importance of preserving Nature and its bounty of fish and other aquatic life, We believe this resolution fails to address a key point:

Has anyone stopped to ask the rivers if they wish to be dammed?

In the Eternal Kawaii, any time a water diversion project like the ones this resolution discusses is contemplated, the first thing to be done is to invoke a Conclave of Discernment. Its commission is to seek out the feelings of the Manifestation inherit in the river system, whether it would mind its home being altered, and what if any propitiations need to be done to ensure its happiness and the continued harmony of Our land.

Really, if these simple steps were followed, there would be no need for such lengthy and stormy debate. The rivers would be happy, the people would be happy, and all'd be right with the world.

Now, I fully realise that I'm very late in saying this, but it seriously only occurred to me an hour ago.

What about places that depend on large reservoirs, not for power, but for drinking water? Your FAQ doesn't address this, Mik. And I'm not sure I can support until I know how this will affect such reservoirs.

(I haven't been very involved in the drafting process, so if this has been asked and answered before, please just post the link rather than answering again. But I'm pretty sure it hasn't been asked.)


If the 20th century taught us anything, it was that an open body of stagnate water should never be used for drinking.


There's not only a plethora of waste product issues (air pollution, Industrial waste, lawn fertilizer) that are completely unavoidable...unless of course it NEVER rains in your Nation.

But there are also natural, non-man made issues.


Mosquito larva for starters. Bird droppings. Amoeba/algue issues.

Not to mention the infrastructure problems (soil. It will clog up your piping and subject your people to any hazards that might have accumulated on the bottom of the reservoir.



And on top of that, it's the least efficient way to store water.


It's kitchen common sense. If you want to keep water, you close it up, you put it somewhere dark, and you keep it cool.

If the 20th century taught us anything, it was that an open body of stagnate water should never be used for drinking.

:)

OOC: Today while at a water quality meeting, in real life, I'm a water quality engineer, I was asked point blank if I felt comfortable about one very specific part of my water quality model.

My honest reply was, "If this were communist Russia, and if I had just designed a bridge, this would be the one part of that bridge I'd ask for a clean shot to the head." Naturally everybody laughed, and we spent the next 15-minutes talking about how to improve that particular part of my model.

With that in mind, as a water quality guy, I have and will drink *running* water out of taps and if absolutely necessary something where the water undergoes natural aeration. But you are 100% right, I have a hard time justifying even sticking my foot in reservoir water, and want the stuff treated long before I put my mouth to it.

What is really troubling for drinking water quality are tiny spores that pass through filters at treatment plants and can't be chemically neutralized.

The nasty bug one of my co-workers focuses on:

Cryptosporidium : A microorganism commonly found in lakes and rivers which is highly resistant to disinfection. Cryptosporidium has caused several large outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness, with symptoms that include diarrhea, nausea, and/or stomach cramps. People with severely weakened immune systems (that is, severely immuno-compromised) are likely to have more severe and more persistent symptoms than healthy individuals.

She also tends to do a significant amount of work related to studying:

Giardia lamblia : A microorganism frequently found in rivers and lakes, which, if not treated properly, may cause diarrhea, fatigue, and cramps after ingestion.

But this resolution does nothing to address this aspect of drinking water quality. It has to really be handled at the point of treatment, and *after* you've conveyed (moved) it.

i supose this proposition is good, but well...

Omega-3 fatty acids???? PCBs???? anadromous fish???? riparian???? Dioxin???
i'm not sure these terms have anything to do in a UN proposition

is ain't possible to rewrite a clearer, easier to understand resolution, please?

i'm very sorry, but i have voted against even if i think this proposition is good, for the reason it's two much technical,
i think UN resolution must be written in a way that they can be easily understand by every citizen of every nation

Thnks a lot
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

I have to agree with LOVE on this one.

To be honest, I didnt even know what Mitigation means. :(

i'm very sorry, but i have voted against even if i think this proposition is good, for the reason it's two much technical,
i think UN resolution must be written in a way that they can be easily understand by every citizen of every nation

It's two much technical. Would you have preferred it said "Moderns dams is teh suck. It pwns the fishies. Power to teh fishies!" I think it shows how a complex issues should be dealth with. They are multifasceted and he gave a clear concise explanation and it was obvious why he mentione the fatty acids. Fish are a large part of most people's diets all over the world.

look you guys why do we need the stupid enviroment i mean :headbang: come on :headbang: why :headbang: how :headbang: :mad: you guys need power thats what we all need so **** the enviroment!!!

(i abstained) :p

To be honest, I didnt even know what Mitigation means. :(

Personally, I respect nations that aren't afraid to admit they don't know something and just ask a question. :)

Mitigation means to off-set something bad with something good.

For example, let's pretend that instead of being an ambassador that you are a 3rd grade teacher. Being a great teacher, the principle assigns you many problem students ... because unlike the other teachers, you are capable of dealing with say aggressive children. However, this also means that you have to work harder than the other teachers in the 3rd grade. You feel this is unfair ... so when you ask the principal, she tells you that she also is giving you the best classroom in the school. This makes you feel better. :)

Something bad has been off-set with something good.

In this resolution the problem isn't with all reservoirs. It is with large ones. So one solution is to build several smaller reservoirs. Another solution would be to offset the damages caused by the large reservoir ... by building new habitat for the fish or installing a device that will allow them to pass by the large reservoir.

Since you know more about your country than I do, I designed a resolution that would protect your sovereignty (right to choose), but at the same time would also protect the water quality of other nations that might share your international water way or fish resources.

The resolution is a compromise, which is why extremists from both sides are claiming the resolution goes too far the other way. The irony is they've effectively continue to attack the other side's argument.

The analogy might be how Republicans and Democratics treat each other. Both sides claim the other are stupid. They always do, and many American voters are sick of it. Republicans always claim that taxes are way too high and Democratics claim that there isn't enough money. And they'll say this about the same thing. They both can't be right, because if they were then their claims that the others are stupid would mean both sides are stupid.

is ain't possible to rewrite a clearer, easier to understand resolution, please?


Hello,

I posted this resolution up as a draft on July 2 on several regional boards and later brought the draft to the UN. A few nations were kind enough to suggest ways to write the resolution in different ways, and all of those ideas were adopted with the exception of two words that Ecopoeia asked be removed:

anadromous
riparian

While I would have been happy to replace anadromous (which is just a type of fish) with a word talking about what type of fish they are, nobody offered a suggestion. The rules of the game are you can't amend resolutions ... but I've voted in favour of many resolutions that I felt could have had a minor word change or not. As the author, I'll be honest and will admit I'd like others to be as kind to my idea and not vote it down just because there is a new word included in it. :)

Riparian actually is the correct common English language term for "environment near or part of a river". Riparian is used in environmental topics all the time.

[OOC: I know this is a game, but as a political game it should use some real life political terms. As a real life environmental engineer, I promise anybody who plans to get active any real life environmental politics that the word riparian will be used. If people want to play a political game, they are going to have to expect some new terms. If you like to vote down anything you don't understand, that is of course your right ... but it seems to me that if you play a political game, part of the fun is seeing something new.

For example, in my home state of California, we are allowed to directly vote on propositions. A few years ago we voted on a Proposition 50. It is ironically where my salary comes from and I voted against it. Most voters approved it because it passed a bond to be used to study and solve environmental and water resources problems ... like my work in water quality. However, I voted against it, because I actually read the full legal text of any real life environmental law and noticed that Prop. 50 actually granted the city of San Francisco money through a very sneak means ... the Proposition had a clause that gave a city with a certain population located above a certain latitude and that had a certain park of a very detailed size tons of money. Basically the only city in the world that had that park, was San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, and the city took millions of California dollars that should have gone to the environment. However, if people would have read the arguments in the pro / con statements, I vaguely remember the word riparian being used there and in the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee (two newspapers which I read around election time). These are newspapers, which are written for people with a few years of high school, so I don't feel terribly bad here.

Besides, there is enough context to piece that word together, since it first appears next to coastal, i.e. "rivers .. cross international boundaries ... riparian and coastal nations".

As a few proponents have pointed out, the point of the resolution is to highlight the complex issues around one environmental problem. Most people hear that hydro power is completely clean. That is incredibly misleading, and I honestly took Max's advice on the NationStates FAQ when he told us to use the UN to bring forth issues important to our people literally ... and I wanted NationStates players to at least see that hydro power is not 100% clean.]

I agree with your point but... UN can't tell to your country what to do with your water suply, with your water sources. You should decide how to use the water: to transform it into energy or save the fauna and flora. See my point. When we are talking about international waters like the atlantic then UN have rigth to interfere with the goverment of one country.

But that has effects on other countries. And they can, with this resolution, come up to you (or you to them) saying "your dam is bad for our fishing industry, we need to negotiate how you're operating that". And that's why the UN needs to be involved - to offer a bit of protection to the countries downstream. Whether we're talking about "international waters like the atlantic" or rivers and lakes doesn't matter - what matters is that it is not an issue for one single country.

And the UN has all the rights to interfere with a country regardless of what the issue is about. That's how the UN works. All that matters is a majority.

But they can't tell exactly what the goverment have to do. Just to show their opinion or vote. Because this broke the freedom of this goverment.
I thing my topic wouldn't be understand by everybody.
But this resolution need to be repair. It's rigth on time but not in this aspect

If you're so keen on not letting anyone tell your government what to do, why did you join the UN? That's a guarantee that you'll be told what to do, and you probably won't like it. Aside from that, you can't defend national souvereignity in cases like this, where it's a matter of international cooperation on issues that transcend national borders. And this does. When Nieuwe Munchkinland decided to dam the River Gow, it's my fisheries that are out of a job, it's my wetlands that get damaged. Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a say what happens in that river?

Mikitivity thanks for your answer,

anadromous fish = fish breed in fresh water who later migrate to the sea

anyway your resolution will pass, i'm not that angry about because as i have said i think its a good one, (i was just worried for next times to put some more easily understandable text)

PS: for the word "riparian" i must aknowledge that this was my own lack of knowledge

Riparian actually is the correct common English language term for "environment near or part of a river". Riparian is used in environmental topics all the time.

[OOC: I know this is a game, but as a political game it should use some real life political terms. As a real life environmental engineer, I promise anybody who plans to get active any real life environmental politics that the word riparian will be used. If people want to play a political game, they are going to have to expect some new terms. If you like to vote down anything you don't understand, that is of course your right ... but it seems to me that if you play a political game, part of the fun is seeing something new]

Yeah when I went to college I had to learn riparian and lacustrine ("Of or relating to lakes" or "Living or growing in or along the edges of lakes.") and I was baffled by what i thought was complicated jargon, but now they're just other words (and I don't go near that area in my studies - can't stand freshwater ecology)

I completely agree with you about how aversion to new words is something that should be challenged - I mean c'mon people - if there's a word you don't know that's what wiki or dictionary.com are there for. Take a bit more initiative and the game will also be educational! Such as yesterday I had no idea what Microcredits were but now I do!

Also I debated this measure on my regional forum and now I think the delegate vote is definitely in our favout (our nations vote on how the delegate should vote). This is what I said and it might be useful to some nations who haven't made up their mind or don't know the importance of sustainable measures such as this one.

...here it is... (ps if I'm making a faux pas by transferring one argument from one thread to another let me know).....






Ok y'all I'm going to have to bang a few heads together cause obviously some people are skimming the resolution and going - "oh no facts! I'm scared - lets vote "no" in ignorance rather than actually think for ourselves" - Read on if you're brave enough

What we have here is a resolution expressing guidelines for UN nations as to how they should mitigate their use of large reservoirs for hydro-electric power (HEP) and/or other uses e.g. drinking water.

People seem to think that there's no environmental impact from HEP, which is wrong. You severely change the ecosystem of a river by damming it.

But this also recognises that people need to dam rivers to obtain clean fresh water, to get HEP, to have aquaculture, etc.

Ergo it's not saying
"BAD PEOPLE STOP LIVING RANT RANT RANT"
- like some scary environmentalists do

rather it's going
"Ok lets reach a compromise and have it so people still get all their needs met without permanently damaging the environment"

- and then it gives these recommendations



1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

It stays as a guideline and leaves it's national implementation up to each individual nation as it recognises (see 2 & 3) that local solutions work best rather than top-down governance - this is a founding premise of sustainable development and all of these recommendations have a firm backing in conservation and sustainability policies (in Real Life this stuff is the fodder of the UN Rio convention, the UN Johannesburg declaration, the IUCN, the OECD and countless other international organisations - this is what real UN resolutions are about, it doesn't get more real than this, otherwise they'd have to copy and paste Local agenda 21 to do so)

The author clearly knows what the word sustainability means, and I love the fact that they wrote

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way


here's my rant to another nation expressing my distaste at his obvious dismissal of the resolution from the messageboard - it should get across the concept of what sustainability is:

Oh please, so you're saying that you should keep inflating your economy to unreasonable levels by ignoring the effects of the unregulated growth on your environment. That'll just come back to bite you in the ass in the long run, when your environment gets knackered out and all the regulatory and scientific functions (e.g. flood control, carbon reservoirs, nutrient cycling, pollination, genetic resources) you never factored into your economic equation stop working. Such crass short-term thinking! This resolution is promoting sustainable economic growth while making sure that the environment of nations isn't destroyed while doing so.
I mean, have you ever heard of local agenda 21?
It called using your head, so there's a world for future generations to enjoy.

Here I'll put it in your economic terms - think of the world and its resources as a capital deposit in a bank, on which every year there's interest made. We can live happily on the interest, but some nations choose to take more out and splash out with the capital money also. Therefore there's less interest made the next year, and this will just continue to decrease if the nations don't check themselves and quit their thinking in short term views. But ignore it if you want, go and be happy as your short term wants are met, which you pay for by spending your next generation's capital
[/rant]

The Brundtland report
defines sustainable development as "meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the needs of future generations"

Thermidore votes a resounding YEA






...and that's the end of it....


hope your resolution gets through - it's looking very hopeful :D

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, had read the diferents arguments exposed by Thermidore and Mikitivity
we have been convinced, that the technical aspect of a proposition can be an important point to focus on
and we must said, humbly, we had changed our mind
and then we vote FOR this resolution

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to thnks Mikitivity for their explanation works on this subject

A lot of nations seem to be raising financial concerns and worries about the impact of this act upon agriculture, industry and habitation, particularly in regard to cost. Perhaps a fund should be established to assist nations in making the adjustments necessary to comply with the resolution (if passed).

I'm open to comments/ constructive criticism/ ideas/ deranged rants, on this suggestion.

Leonard Otterby

I'm opposed to this, however, I ticked the 'yes' box. When tallying final votes, deduct one from 'yes' and add one to 'no'.

Signed

President Jason Curtis

Ruler of 'The Majin Ideal'

I'm opposed to this, however, I ticked the 'yes' box. When tallying final votes, deduct one from 'yes' and add one to 'no'.

Signed

President Jason Curtis

Ruler of 'The Majin Ideal'
You can alwats recast your vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You can alwats recast your vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How do I do that?

Go to the U.N. section, where the text of the resolution will be displayed. At the bottom is the area where you can cast your vote. It says yes/no, click one and if you reconsider, just press the 'withdraw vote' button.

Then re-cast your vote accordingly.

Leonard Otterby

this may not be a great thing. y do it by timing? we sometimes may not be able to let go of the water when we want to. its senseless. :sniper: :mp5: :eek: :gundge: :headbang:

I'm opposed to this, however, I ticked the 'yes' box. When tallying final votes, deduct one from 'yes' and add one to 'no'.

Signed

President Jason Curtis

Ruler of 'The Majin Ideal'You can alwats recast your vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I think they meant that they had voted "yes" in the poll, not that they had voted "for" the resolution.

this may not be a great thing. y do it by timing? we sometimes may not be able to let go of the water when we want to. its senseless. :sniper: :mp5: :eek: :gundge: :headbang:

Timing releases, this is a key operational / management practice that is actually relatively new.

In nature flood events have very short time-scales. It rains, the water moves across the land to a river channel, and then so much water "stacks up" increasing the stage (water height). This all happens in a few hours.

As the water moves down the river, it gets deeper and deeper, often overtopping the banks (or levees) around a river -- this is what we think of as a flood.

When the flood waters travel down the river, they carry many rocks and sediment from upstream "headwater" regions. The energy of the water is amazing, and breaks larger rocks into very fine particles we call sediment ... and when the flood water moves outside of a river bank, it drops the sediment on farm land. The important thing is that food / agriculture require soils rich in minerals (which come from mountains), and the deposition of mineral rich soils in farmlands is a HUGE economic benefit to farmers.

When we build large-scale reservoirs, we slow down the speed of floods and in many cases completely eliminate them.

Now many riparian (adjacent to river) farmers wait for high flows in human controlled rivers like California's San Joaquin, to flood their lands. They do this hoping they'll: (1) recharge the ground water a bit and (2) mix up the minerals in the soil while flushing a bit of salt (which is bad) from their fields.

However, it is hard for them to do this with low flows, which is what we have.

Fish too require high flood flows to basically "surf" or travel along the flood wave. This is particularly important for salmon species. Juvenile salmon aren't nearly the same swimmers that adult salmon are, but they can basically "surf". So natural winter time flood events along rivers like the San Joaquin would carry teen-aged fish out to the ocean and away from preditors.

As we've farmed more and more fish and spoiled their habitat, their populations in many regions have completely died out. Being an important source of omega-3 (they are one of the few natural sources of this critical fatty acid), there is some value in keeping them around (so we can slowly eat them). ;)

So what California has done is implemented a period in the Spring when snowmelt would have created a huge "flood" every year, and just releases water. The water moves the fish to the ocean (where they are safe), it allows farmers to clean their lands, and it also changes the river beds, which also is a critical and important natural process. The floods also break down larger rocks into finer sediments which eventually help to form beach sand near San Francisco and Northern California!

We call this timed pulse flow the:

Vernalis Adpative Management Plan (VAMP)

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kimmerer/stratpla.htm
http://www.sjrg.org/nop.htm

It is a joint venture between the US Federal Government and State of California. It is one of many examples of how important it is to actually plan out when to "time" reservoir operations. :)

Q: So are fish important?

The United States Congress (including many Republicans) thought so:

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/overview.asp

Why? There is big time money involved in fish. They are and will remain an important source of food for nations. But like many resources, it is possible to use too much ...

This isn't some crazy assed tree-hugging shit. Make no mistake about it, this is a government speared project designed to prevent a valuable human resource from disappearing, so that future generations may continue to have a natural source of food.

Many of the biologists that work for government agencies are "sport-fishermen". They are some of the strongest advocates of __sustainable__ environments, because they'd watched their ability to have fun decline because of poor management. They love their hobbies so much that they spend their lives trying to protect their activites ... but they are also the first to gut open a fish and eat it.

Most good hunters practice the idea that you only kill want you *need*. Not what you want, but exactly what you need. The idea of sustainable hunting dates back to the native Americans in the United States, and frankly it is nothing more than a logical business model.

The world built many large dams in the 19th and 20th centuries, not having a fraking clue what they'd do to the environment. And the results have been fish populations have completely disappeared in some places, floods have become more costly (because when the dam breaks, it breaks BIG TIME), and our beaches and rivers are disappearing ... they are becoming unsuitable for human recreation.

I don't know how many of you have been to the wetlands in New York near JFK airport, but you've probably flown over those wetlands. Today they are just muddy water with a few low islands ... that wasn't the case 10 years ago. The upstream sediments that replenish the land in those wetlands (which people could duck hunt in at one time) have stopped flowing down New York rivers because of dams.

In that particular case the solution isn't to get rid of the dams, but find a way to get the dirt and sediments moving down the rivers again. In this case, those temperature control devices I talked about might not work.

Anyways, my point is this is a complex issue. A single approach using simple language isn't going to work. We've already tried that an failed. If we repeat history, we might as well just kill ourselves. But if we try new and different management approaches, we can find a solution, because in some places we have made some positive gains.

Hey, I'm new to the Nation States UN, but quite familiar with the UN process. I wanted to voice my approval to this resolution, and also pose some questions.

1. Is hydroelectricity our biggest enemy in the energy industry? n Yes, hydroelectricity has its short commings (ie overconsumption, oxygen depletion, thermal polution, and irreversable damage to local fauna), but it is not as universally destructive as many fossil fuels that scar the land, air, and sea from the time they are sucked from the ground. In short, it is far from the worst option.

2. On a more positive tone, should we focus on better alternatives like WIND POWER? Wind power is fantastic for costal regions which fortunately house most of the world's population. I ave to write resolutions for MUN, and I wanted to throw this idea out there.

which NY rivers have dams? isn't development to blame there, and not damming?

which NY rivers have dams? isn't development to blame there, and not damming?

The short answer is that post-9/11 the exact location of the dams might not be googlable. I work for the California Department of Water Resources, we ended up "classifying" all our aerial photos (we had most every water structure in California captured in beautiful photos) days after 9/11. We also restrict access to most water convenyance facilities now to Department personnel only. I got to travel to the Fed's Shasta dam after the government did a background check on me post 9/11 -- security isn't unbearable, but information is certainly in a lock down.

That said, there are numerous small dams. We can at least assume this given:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/bprfp/ds/index.htm

Based on the level of activity, somebody is doing something. Now it is possible that these dams are located upstate, which it has been years since I've been through Buffalo (to visit Niagra Falls of course ... I did get to visit Niagra Mohawk though, the benefit of having a nerd for a granddad, he'd take me to every power plant, dam, lock, and shipyard in the US -- as a kid I even got to operate one of the locks on Pennsylvania's Allegeny River after tresspassing, as the guys working the dam thought it was cool seeing a little kid and his granddad breaking into the dam just to see it) ... anyways, I actually think you are right: New York's problem has a lot to do with overdevelopment in the watersheds themselves. There is less sediment, because it is locked away under buildings and roads. :(

A question for Mikitivity: In reference to my (tentative) suggestion at the top of page 6, what do you think of it? Is it practicle? Relevant? Criticisms?

Just wanted to know.

Leonard Otterby

Thanks, Mikitivity. like i said, i do support your res., but i wanted to play devil's advocate in this stiuation. keep on fighting.

A question for Mikitivity: In reference to my (tentative) suggestion at the top of page 6, what do you think of it? Is it practicle? Relevant? Criticisms?

Just wanted to know.

Leonard Otterby

That a fund should be established ... my government would support that. But given that the vote is close right now, it might be a hard sell. :/

My original thought was that should this resolution pass, then nations that share an international water resource: be it deep sea salmon fisheries or an international river like the Rhine, would contact each other and based on the text of this resolution work out regional solutions.

For example, the International Democratic Union has been working on a regional map. We have also been building our geography, and Mikitivity, Keeslandia, Flankia, and Sober Thought have a river "the Risden" that passes from the mountains in my nation to the border of Mikitivity and Keeslandia (I'll have to double check that) and to the border of Flankia (I'm pretty sure about this one), and then to a lake between Mikitivity and Sober Thought (which I informally call Lac Leman, in honor of the fact that Sober Thought is part French, and Mikitivity is part German ... making our border Swiss). :)

So if Sober Thought wanted better downstream protection from things my government does on the Risden, they can now say, "According to the Mitigation of Large Reservoirs resolution we'd like you to control your releases from Limmatsee (a lake on the Risden) to minimize negative impacts to my nation. How can we help you?"

So yes, I honestly think there is merit in the idea of a UN fund to protect and establish regional development funds for shared water resources. The only problem is, there are some really ultra conservative nations ... they will come in here on a resolution that is ultimately designed to promote a stable fishing industry and claim it is tree hugging crap. It is frankly ignorant to say that (though for the record, there are other reasons to vote against this and I'm not saying people who vote against this are wrong, but I am saying that anybody who labels this as tree hugging or hippie inspired is full of you know what).

For your idea, a better solution might be to just focus on regional shared water resources in general, with dam mitigation being one of the justifications. :) General water quality improvements, including design of better waste water facilities, is something I would think would fit in nicely with your idea. Though we had the UNWWC (sp?) (i.e. Sunteria's resolution), perhaps your fund could be managed by the committee Sunteria created???

While I agree in principle that it is important to protect the ecosytems that we share, it is vital that we understand how our actions to repair can cause more harm than the original damage. As an example I raise the restructuring of the Florida Everglades. In the early 20th century, construction overran the glades and dumped toxins into the water. As an attempt to prevent the toxic runoff from damaging the ecosystem, a series of channels were built to send the water into Lake Okeechobee. This ended up poisoning the lake and drying up the glades, causeing far more extinctions and habitat loss than the original polition did. This resolution will have the saame effect, as it creates action without first judging the possible reprocussions. Because of this, this resolition must be voted down until a proper plan of action can be instituted.

While I agree in principle that it is important to protect the ecosytems that we share, it is vital that we understand how our actions to repair can cause more harm than the original damage.

First, I want to thank you for your comment, clearly you are thinking carefully about this and that is always respected. :)

Now I share your opinion ... environmental mitigation is not something to be entered into lightly. In fact, any change to the natural environment will have impacts, many of which will be negative.

However, I think that is a reason to vote for this resolution and not against it.

First, the activating clause 1 states "approves of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures".

It doesn't say immediate construction. Please trust me that my government's intention here was that nations and the international community would honestly begin to research the problems with large-reservoirs and try to find new solutions, with one key goal in mind: mitigation. :)

Second, the resolution provided a host of suggestions, but it did not attempt to place greater value on one approach over another. Environmental problems are best solved with unique solutions suited to the LOCATION. In your Florida example, a temperature control device isn't going to do squat ... but an operational management practice such as mimicing natural storm events might work.

Third, mitigation sometimes means trading off something for another thing. In the case of environmental mitigation, it could mean that there will sadly be loss of habitat in one location, but the point is for habitat lost, habitat should be restored elsewhere. Again, in the Florida case, perhaps those wetlands can't be easily restored, but others can, and the benefits of the hydro project in Florida could be shared with the people in another place where a wetland is restored. California shares water across the state, the North *gives* to the South, and in turn the South *pays* the North.

I do appreciate your comment and ultimately I agree with your main point: let's not rush to judgement. But this resolution is about research and cooperation, and I actually had situations like the one you mentioned in mind. :)

While I agree in principle that it is important to protect the ecosytems that we share, it is vital that we understand how our actions to repair can cause more harm than the original damage. As an example I raise the restructuring of the Florida Everglades. In the early 20th century, construction overran the glades and dumped toxins into the water. As an attempt to prevent the toxic runoff from damaging the ecosystem, a series of channels were built to send the water into Lake Okeechobee. This ended up poisoning the lake and drying up the glades, causeing far more extinctions and habitat loss than the original polition did. This resolution will have the saame effect, as it creates action without first judging the possible reprocussions. Because of this, this resolition must be voted down until a proper plan of action can be instituted.

This resolution is causing your government to make action yes but its entirly your choice as to what you do. May i suggest that once its passed then research the area and choose the better scheme/s, may i suggest soft schemes as these cause less problems.

I must agree with my esteemed regional delegate Ohmygodtheykilledkenny. This legislation does have good points. However, just once can we have a resolution wrote in clear concise terms. In one of the grand-master Robert A. Heinlein' s(RAH rules :) ), he proposes a law called the plain english law. The purpose is simple, any law or regulation proposed that cannot be undestood clearly by a person with a sixth grade education should be rendered null and void. To make your point y'all dont need to sound like a lawyer,or write like one. All the excessive jargon and terminology usually triggers an inate reponse in me to become suspicious. As in what is being hidden. Thus even a resolution I could agree with, will get a no vote. Sorry. :(

Excelsior,
Emperor Captian Spaulding I
Holy Empire of the Palentine
"Cry Hanok! and let slip the Dogs of War!"

The UN resolution: Mitigation of Large Reservoirs is an unnecessary proposal, and dare I say it – unfair. Why should nations with to say the least, large industrial complexes and developing nations with a smaller industrial capacity endorse further regulations to their activities?

There are already several resolutions in place which safeguard the environment as a whole and it would be unwise to trade national prosperity for environmental safeguards. Contradictory as it might sound we of The Holy Empire of Dersaaded firmly believe that the environment should be protected as well as green industries, this new (and I use that term loosely) resolution proposal is quite frankly a sham, it would not benefit the environment in the long term nor would it help people in sovereign nations.

Those of you who may disagree can go and hug your trees and frolic with the animals but let me ask you this - isn’t the right to employment a human right? Why should we let our hard working, deserving citizens suffer because of some foreign meddling? We the citizens of The Holy Empire of Dersaaded strongly reject this proposal in its entirety and encourage other nations who wish to preserve their nation’s growth to reject this proposal too.

By my hand,

Civilus Maximus Pontificus
- Ambassador to Holy Empire of Dersaaded
:mad:

vote no on wtvr this issue is! :mp5: :sniper: :headbang:

One of the delegates asked about using Wind power insted of Hydro power. Can't do that, mate.! Wind farms kills raptors. Seems like the winged buggers fly right into the blades of the tower. Can't have that. Surely there is some Regulation protecting them. Good gravy man! If you can protect the dolphin surely the noble raptor is protected. And if it is not, as surely as my goverment idol is Lucius Corneilius Sulla, someone reading this will make a proposal protecting them.<sigh! me and my big mouth> :rolleyes:

Emperor Captian Spaulding I

"Cry Havok! and let slip the Dogs of War!"

All the excessive jargon and terminology usually triggers an inate reponse in me to become suspicious. As in what is being hidden.

Let me ask you this, if there are parts of the resolution you aren't clear about and have suspicions about, did you ever consider asking questions?

I'm sure there are nations in favour and opposed to the resolution that both would be happy to answer questions. As the author of the resolution, I'll be happy to tell you that there isn't anything hidden in the resolution.

Here is what it does:
- It shows that water and fish are an international resource.
- That large (not small) reservoirs have environmental problems.
- It asks nations to research ways to fight those problems.
- It gives a few examples of possible ways to start.

Had I written and submitted something like the five lines above, I can promise you that I'd have been flamed right and left. It happens all the time. A recent example is the opposition arguments that DemonLordEnigma and Vastiva tried to use against Reformentia's UN Biological Weapons Ban proposal/resolution ... they complained that Reformentia's text wasn't detailed enough and restorted to some arguments that ended up sidetracking the debate.

Given that NationStates is a political game and given that the terminology used in this resolution is frequently used in all real-world environmental political debates, I honestly would rather not intentionally play "Monopoly Jr." when we've got a good "Monopoly" game board sitting right here.

The easiest way to understand this resolution is to read it several times, use a dictionary (as I did), read the whole thread, and as the author said, ask if anything is still unclear. I can't understand why people vote no on a resolution they say is unclear. That seems as silly to me as voting yes on a resolution that they think is unclear.

One of the delegates asked about using Wind power insted of Hydro power. Can't do that, mate.! Wind farms kills raptors. Seems like the winged buggers fly right into the blades of the tower.

That might be true in your country, but let's think about this some more ...

In the Real World we can find the following information on Wind Power:

http://www.cogreenpower.org/Wind.htm

On the positive side:
Wind power is one of the most promising and cost-effective renewable energy technologies available today. Worldwide there are more than 13,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed.

On the negative side:
In the early 1980s, three major wind farms were built in passes in California. At the Altamont Pass site, deaths of birds, particularly raptors, prompted a number of studies which have subsequently influenced both the design of newer wind turbines and the siting of wind farms.

OOC NOTE: I live near the Altamont Pass site, and if you are interested, I even have some digital images of the turbines at work. The California Aqueduct is at the base of the pass, so I end up there a few times each year. :)

Now the article talks about how to reduce bird losses:
Current wind turbine technology offers solid tubular towers to prevent birds from perching on them, and turbine blades rotate more slowly than those of earlier design. Correct selection of appropriate sites for wind farms must take environmental factors into account. Sites should be relatively free of ground prey and bodies of water that attract birds, and should not be within hunting range of raptor nests or located on bird migratory routes.

But let's just see how true the idea that "the birds are dying" really is. :)


The bird deaths at the Altamont Pass site should be considered in context. There were 183 bird deaths there over a two year period and not all of those were attributable to the wind turbines. In contrast, automobiles are responsible for some 57 million bird deaths a year, more than 97 million birds die by flying into plate glass each year, and about 1.5 million birds die from collisions with structures (towers, stacks, bridges, and buildings) every year. A Department of Energy report cites 800 to 1400 birds killed every season for five years in collision with a radio tower in North Dakota.(On the other hand, any bird deaths from wind turbines are a problem both from a moral standpoint and from the legal standpoint of injuring or killing a protected bird such as a red-tailed hawk or golden eagle.

In summary, the Altamont Pass site killed 183 birds in 2 years, and yet 57,000,000 birds die each year from hitting cars and another 1,500,000 simply hit stationary buildings??!!

Here is another article, that we should critically think about here before just spouting off wild ideas:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

Birds live a tenuous existence. There are any number of things that can cause their individual deaths or collective demise. For example, bird collisions with objects in nature are a rather common occurrence, and young birds are quite clumsy when it comes to landing on a perch after flight. As a result, about 30% of total first-year bird deaths are attributed to natural collisions.

A 1986 study found that 69 million birds flew though the San Gorgonio Pass during the Spring and Fall migrations. During both migrating seasons, only 38 dead birds were found during that typical year, representing only 0.00006% of the migrating population.

0.00006%!

That is very small.

Wind, Solar, Nuclear are several alternatives. Not to mention *small* reservoirs in series.

If you can generate a fixed amount of electricity from one large reservoir, why not break that reservoir into three smaller ones and get the same electricity output? Or even better, why not find ways to reduce the electricity demand itself and reduce the need for so much electricity.

People often focus on the supply problems in demand-supply economics conflicts. They do this in market based applications and environmental problems alike, and this isn't always the best way to solve a problem. For example, if my country had a food shortage, one solution that we wouldn't even consider would be killing the people ... most governments would instead look for ways to buy more food ... but sometimes the solution is to change what you eat. During the Second World War the United States instituted a number of rationing programs, and my parents remember that the types of food they could buy changed. They still had plenty of food, but learned to make more with a bit less and make different things.

In any event, my government still views wind power is a great alternative energy source, but not the only solution. Complex problems require complex solutions.

Even if hydoelectic power is used the positives weigh out the negatives.
You who not have the energy to run buisnesses and still be able to preserve the fish population, even if it is not perfect for the fish and wild life. my nation could use more buissness. :)

just a thought... does the UN ever not pass a law?

Yep, the UN peace prize not too many months ago. I understand the UN has also not passed 2 attempts to ban nuclear weapons. There are no doubt other resolutions defeated in the past as well.

THIS IS WRONG!


We all lose money, and for what? :headbang: Protecting the good-for-nothing environment? F*** that!!! :mp5:

:confused: :sniper:

just a thought... does the UN ever not pass a law?
If you're interested in finding out how many resolutions failed, I suggest you check out this page. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline)

Oh, and before I forget, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is against this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

In light of the fact that this resolution has now passed by a clear majority, may I be the first to congratulate Mikitivity on their excellent work and say 'keep up the good work sir'!

The Strangers Bar beckons dare I say?

Leonard Otterby

Now that this resolution debate is finished, I've gone ahead and created a NSWiki entry summarizing the entry history of the resolution (from proposal idea through a comparison of the forum vote to UN vote). :)

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mitigation_of_Large_Reservoirs

As Wiki entries are made for other related topics (namely the nations that were key participants in the "In Character" discussions), I hope to link to their entries as well. [NOTE: I'm also updating the UN Wiki info on many other topics.]


But I wanted to pass along my government's thanks to a few other individual nations, whos participation is truely what makes it worthwhile having to endure many of the other sorts of posts. (OOC: You are the reason I'm still playing NationStates!)

First, Grosseschnauzer, Ecopoeia, Myopia, and Yelda all provided timely and constructive amendments. :) I'm actually still finding the methane-reservoir relationship interesting reading and greatly appreciate your pointing this out to me, as my background wasn't in the atmospheric impacts as much.

Next, Airicon-UN, Compadira, Dersaaded, Darth Mall, Agnostic Deeishpeople, Menachos, Telidia, and most importantly Mothy all had some really thoughtful comments (some in favour, some against) ... and I really wanted your nations to know that I have enjoyed talking with your ambassadors. Telegrams or posts are fun, and I hope you all continue to be active in the UN!

Finally, I'd like to thank some nations my government has grown accustomed to thinking of as political allies (i.e. voices that we tend to agree with), namely Groot Gouda, Powerhungry Chipmunks, Texan Hotrodders, Thermidore, Waterana, Marxist Rhetoric, and Markodonia.

I enjoyed this experience. About 10 months ago when repeals were legalized and the proposal queue was starting to slow down, a number of players suggested that the NationStates UN was past its prime. I think they were wrong, as I've seen a number of interesting *new* topics brought to us and I've also enjoyed some of the refinements that we've seen (including Reformentia's and Powerhungry Chipmunk's repeal / replace resolutions). This is an exciting time for the NationStates UN, and I plan to keep busy archiving as much of our collective work in NSWiki as possible! :)

Danke!