NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone, I'm trying to publicize the proposal that I just wrote. It calls for a repeal of Resoultion 23, "Replanting Trees." While I am a conservationist, I felt that this resoultion was a bit too powerful. It encrouaches upon the rights of a country to regulate its own industry and also encroaches upon the rights of property owners. Many of the people in poorer countries who engage in slash-and-burn farming or have to cut down trees for a living would probably not be able to afford replanting. Also, many lumber companies actually already plant trees after they cut them down.

So, that's why I am here, asking for any delegates to approve of it. Thanks in advance for the support.

Requesting your repeal's text, please

The United Nations,
FINDING that:
1) Many industries are dependent upon use of tree-based products or use of land and would require that several trees be cut down.
2) The costs and effort associated with tree replanting can often outweigh the benefits of cutting down a tree.
3) Many of the resource gatherers whose lives depend on slash-and-burn farming, logging, or similar actions that require loss of trees cannot afford to plant more trees in order to replace them. Force tree replanting could endanger their livelihoods.
4) It can be very difficult to track and enforce the cutting down of trees.
and
5) The current resolution regarding replanting of trees is too broad and does not specify a time period or size of tree. It also does not differentiate between several trees in one plot of land or a number of trees or patches of trees spread out over a long area.

REPEALS Resolution 23, Replanting Trees.

The United Nations,
FINDING that:
1) Many industries are dependent upon use of tree-based products or use of land and would require that several trees be cut down.

True

2) The costs and effort associated with tree replanting can often outweigh the benefits of cutting down a tree.

The benefits of planting a tree not to mention the costs of tearing down that tree also are something that need to be balanced. Due to the cost - in particular, to environment - I consider that the least you can do is replant the tree

3) Many of the resource gatherers whose lives depend on slash-and-burn farming,

As far as I'm concerned, should be outlawed

logging,

Log then replant

or similar actions that require loss of trees cannot afford to plant more trees in order to replace them.

That is a failing of the company to balance it's budget

Force tree replanting could endanger their livelihoods.

Either they smarten up, or their livelihood will be lost. The same argument you just made there could be made as a reason that we should take slaves away from slave owners - it'll endanger their livelihood.

4) It can be very difficult to track and enforce the cutting down of trees.

That's a government (particularly, law enforcement) issue, not an issue with the actual resolution

and
5) The current resolution regarding replanting of trees is too broad and does not specify a time period or size of tree. It also does not differentiate between several trees in one plot of land or a number of trees or patches of trees spread out over a long area.

Now THERE is an argument

REPEALS Resolution 23, Replanting Trees.

Ya cut it down to point 5, I can support it. As it is, I can't support it.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, it was kinda hastily put together, considering that I'm new at this. I'll try again in the future with some better wording.