NationStates Jolt Archive

The current resolution at vote in the UN reads:

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.

Now, honestly, anyone, isn't this text way too long and too complicated a read? Did anyone really understand what the author is trying to tell us here?

Yes :p

Not complex at all, a bit wordy, and the Omega-3 fatty acids is a red herring, if not a red salmon. :D

It only takes a minute or so to read!

You could always try heading over to the other threads on this resolution, where the author has been more than happy to explain the intentions and importance of various parts of the resolution.

It only takes a minute or so to read!

You could always try heading over to the other threads on this resolution, where the author has been more than happy to explain the intentions and importance of various parts of the resolution.

You didn't really understand it as well, did you? At least, your post doesn't explain anything, except that you like reading fast ...

Its simple really.

He wants to dam up all the rivers in the world.

Thus causing worldwide flooding. Though he says redirect it. That means ocean levels will rise and destroy those who are trying to fish in the first place. As well as having hundreds of millions of people to be killed in the name of progress.

:D

Thats about it.

Quickly, Cally, not fast. For example, I believe that this proposal should be scrapped quickly.

You didn't really understand it as well, did you? At least, your post doesn't explain anything, except that you like reading fast ...

I understand it perfectly - I just can't be bothered to repeat explainations that have already been made!

...and perhaps I'm a fast reader (ok, scrap that, I *am* a fast reader) but it's not going to take that long for anyone else to read!

Hundreds of Millions of people killed in the name of progress doesn't sound half bad, really.

Honestly, the scepticism here is depressing. Even countries that aren't interested in environmental protection or clean energy ought to vote for this. Why?

Well firstly consider the revenue that could be collected from the construction and modifications required in this resolution. This would involve lots of contracts, boosting the economy and providing healthy..err...donations to these governments to obtain said contracts.

Secondly, think of the extra productivity you will obtain from the new energy and the benefits of extra wildlife to hunt and use. The same applies for agriculture.

Thirdly, what about the international standing you'll accrue. Think, if you become known for championing clean energy, then people will probably pay less attention to your indiscriminate imprisonning of dissidents (not that we endrose such a thing).

So there, it makes sense, honest.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

How will this affect Multi-planet nations?

How can it help agriculture!?

You are going to kill off all of the farms! HOW IS THIS GOING TO HELP?

YOU might not care because you live off the otter population in your country. But you are going to flood over your own country in the process. Hmm so your are destroying your people in order to help them.


"How will this affect Multi-planet nations? "
They will want you to flood over your planets and kill off all your people.

Thats about it.

This resolution, while nicely written and possibly important in some nations does little to address the real concerns of many UN members, Krioval included. For instance, not every nation uses large-scale reservoirs to begin with, and those nations shouldn't be shackled with yet another layer of bureaucracy that effectively charges their national government to do nothing. For those nations who do use them, the solutions offered by this resolution's sponsor are, in many cases, intractable. Terran Krioval, for example, consists of many islands spread across the Pacific Ocean. Fresh water is already limiting in such a case, and redirecting the flow of that water may very well lead to increased evaporation, and thus causing a shortfall of water, or it may cause currently populated areas to become routinely flooded, which is bad for a number of reasons, foremost being Krioval's insistence that private property be protected from unreasonable intrusion from the government.

Also, the government of Krioval is put off by the overly pedantic tone of the resolution, including jargon and technical terms that have sent many scurrying for a dictionary. Frankly, if a resolution can't explain itself in plain language, Krioval is forced to wonder if there is some ulterior motive behind the more difficult terms, be it to intimidate others based on level of education or to conceal the true impact of the resolution by using unclear terminology.

Finally, if the resolution has binding force, Krioval believes that it is far too intrusive into a nation's control over its own industrial regulations, and if the resolution merely "suggests" changes, then it is not worth the money that our government will have to pay to listen to some paper-pusher make "suggestions". Krioval operates from a premise of efficiency and openness, and as such we find this resolution lacking in both qualities.

Yuri Sokolev
Director of Diplomacy
Armed Republic of Krioval

The current resolution at vote in the UN reads:



Now, honestly, anyone, isn't this text way too long and too complicated a read? Did anyone really understand what the author is trying to tell us here?

Exactly this, I'll probably vote against unless someone explains in English!

Also, the government of Krioval is put off by the overly pedantic tone of the resolution, including jargon and technical terms that have sent many scurrying for a dictionary. Frankly, if a resolution can't explain itself in plain language, Krioval is forced to wonder if there is some ulterior motive behind the more difficult terms, be it to intimidate others based on level of education or to conceal the true impact of the resolution by using unclear terminology.
Wonder about ulterior motives what you will Krioval, I'll not don your tin foil hats in fear of some conspiracy to make me look a fool for not understanding things.

Quite frankly, the language is complicated because the situation is complicated. I would contrast this to previous Environmental UN resolutions, which have woefully lacked detail or adequate action (they either proscribed no realistic action or enforced an unrealistic uniform policy). Would you rather the resolution read: "Large reservoirs are special. Let's all take care of them."


Finally, if the resolution has binding force, Krioval believes that it is far too intrusive into a nation's control over its own industrial regulations, and if the resolution merely "suggests" changes, then it is not worth the money that our government will have to pay to listen to some paper-pusher make "suggestions". Krioval operates from a premise of efficiency and openness, and as such we find this resolution lacking in both qualities.

That's a bit misdirected.

The resolution is open in that it presents viewpoints about large-water reservoir management, and prescribes them to UN nations--rather than forcing them into such an accord. This openly regards contrary viewpoints and contrary actions in reservoir mitigation.

The resolution is efficient in that it delegates the most valuable local resources to the task: national governments. It apprises nations, openly, about the exigency of large-water reservoirs and endorses action, largely, for those governments to take. Would you rather it inefficiently mandate that the UN become an even larger bureaucracy? I doubt it.

There is reason to address this oft-occurring situation, and I really don't see any base to allegations that this resolution doesn't address it adequately. Especially those allegations which are based on the readers' laziness. :(

Ah, I just realized, this thread is out of line altogether. There's already a thread devoted to the topic, and moderators are pretty consistent about allowing only one topic per resolution up for vote.

The thread follows; I would suggest that you take your concerns over your nation not being able to understand it there, Cally24:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435824

How can it help agriculture!?

You are going to kill off all of the farms! HOW IS THIS GOING TO HELP?

YOU might not care because you live off the otter population in your country. But you are going to flood over your own country in the process. Hmm so your are destroying your people in order to help them.


"How will this affect Multi-planet nations? "
They will want you to flood over your planets and kill off all your people.

Thats about it.

How about adapting your agriculture, i.e. grow rice.

Incidentally, spreading paranoia is just daft and unconstructive. Talking about mass-destruction of countries and people is not conduisive to a rational discussion.

And for your information we don't live off otters! We have a sizeable trout farming industry and sustainable logging and tourism to boot.

Leonard Otterby

There's no good reason this bill should pass. What happens to Agriculture???

Unfortunately, virtually every resolution passes within Nation States, which really undermines the validity of the game. I'm beginning to lose patience.

My country runs mostly off nuclear and hydroelectric power. Passing this resolution would have a serious negative impact on the economy.

I don't see why countries such as mine who try to find a happy medium between heavy industry and environmental responsibility must be penalized in this manner. This simply looks like a resolution to benefit a handful of extremely large nations who are on the same page.

Actually, PC, I'd rather the UN stay the hell out of national affairs for at least thirty-five seconds. Barring that, I'd prefer that the delegate from PC not engage in the type of bombast that has earned said delegate quite the international reputation.

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.

Do you now that this resolution will take down all our industry's.I don't care what cuality my product's are as long as I sale them!

I deeply believe that instead of going with this we should start investing in solar power. It would be in the best interest of the environment. I cannot think of any bad consequences of solar power, only positive ones.


Sincerely,


M

Mothy
Emperor of the Empire of Mothy, Region of Nirn

How about adapting your agriculture, i.e. grow rice.
What, so changing to one of the most water-intensive crops is going to work in every case? What about nations going through a drought?

Ah, I just realized, this thread is out of line altogether. There's already a thread devoted to the topic, and moderators are pretty consistent about allowing only one topic per resolution up for vote.

The thread follows; I would suggest that you take your concerns over your nation not being able to understand it there, Cally24:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435824

Thanks! :)

I started the other thread last night, and I'd honestly appreciate anybody who wishes to discuss this issue to delete their posts here and direct their questions there. I'll be happy to respond to questions there (not attacks, the likes of which I've seen a few from n00b and established players alike).

Official thread stuck, this one locked.