NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations

Noting that:
- Mandatory recycling is an unrealistic measure to enforce and implement.
- Mandatory recycling cannot be implemented in developing nations without significant impact to their economies.

Further noting:
- The resolution is extremely vague in its implementation.
- The resolution does not mention any method of implementation other than simply calling for the recycling of paper, glass, aluminium and batteries ONLY.
- Does not mention to whom this resolution applies to, whether it be corporations or individuals.
- Does not mention the recycling of materials other than paper, glass, aluminium and batteries.

CONCLUDES that the lack of specification in this resolution cripples its effectiveness.

COMMENDS the initiative of UN nations to conserve the environment.

HOWEVER REGRETS that this resolution is unrealistic, ineffective and simply inadequate to justify its existence

REPEALS UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling".


Original Resolution -

"UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #13
MANDATORY RECYCLING

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Techno prisoners

Description: Be it hereby resolved that all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries be recycled by all UN member states.

Votes For: 17,211
Votes Against: 4,178

Implemented: Thu 8 2003"


Please support my repeal, thank you.

Tyndarus

The United Nations

Noting that:
- Mandatory recycling is an unrealistic measure to enforce and implement.
- Mandatory recycling cannot be implemented in developing nations without significant impact to their economies.

Further noting:
- The resolution is extremely vague in its implementation.

Agreed.

- The resolution does not mention any method of implementation other than simply calling for the recycling of paper, glass, aluminium and batteries ONLY.

I see this as a good thing. Each country can only implement this resolution within its own technological boundaries and political system, so implementation details could actually worsen the impact to developing nations.

- Does not mention to whom this resolution applies to, whether it be corporations or individuals.

I disagree. The resolution applies to the state. The government then implements it suitably, doing it itself, or stimulating a recycling industry.

- Does not mention the recycling of materials other than paper, glass, aluminium and batteries.

This is destructive criticism. If you think other materials should be recycled, then give us examples.

CONCLUDES that the lack of specification in this resolution cripples its effectiveness.

I would argue the opposite: The expression "all paper, glass, aluminium and batteries" in this resolution actually makes it too effective, and ignores technological and economic factors.

COMMENDS the initiative of UN nations to conserve the environment.

HOWEVER REGRETS that this resolution is unrealistic, ineffective and simply inadequate to justify its existence

I tend to agree with you. You should also have mentioned the obvious misinterpretation, whereby materials are forced to be recycled even if they are still in good working order.

i had an test run of a repeal on this very resolution.

you've got my support and i know a few delegates who will approve this as well.

i agree fully with your arguments but i feel a more practical replacement is necessary and also that recycling 100% of the materials mentioned is totally unfeasable and economically impossible.

my own thoughts on this are the list should be shortened (no batteries) and a more realistic target set (10%) for starters. once nations can reach this they can ecomonically recycle more than this target.

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban ambassador to the UN

I would like to defend the resolution in question. I feel that in leaving the issue of exact nature of implementation to the governments in question, it permits greater flexibility in recycling. If one nation has a particularly efficient way to recycle, say, paper, why should we force it to follow the dictates of a less efficient method, that is made standard. Equally, in respecting a nations perogative to decide internal implementation of the proposal, it permits greater freedom of use of recycling technologies and of initiatives to boost recycling. It would be unfortunate if the U.N., in seeking to strengthen this act, unintentionally weakened it, by rigidifying its remit, permitting greater opportunity for damaging loopholes to be exploited.

For these reasons, we oppose the repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

With that argument I should then submit two line resolutions that are as vague as possible and then leave it to individual nations to conform or shy away from the resolution as they see fit.

I then hope you will be supporting my Free Trade Proposal:

Description: Trade, trade and trade!

Please, there is no point in submitting a vague bill as this. Laws have to be more specific. There is no point in seeking to save the environment if you are not willing to submit a decent proposal to do so.

The government of St Edmund supports this proposed repeal, due to various problems with the original resolution (such as the fact that "all paper" presumably includes used toilet paper...).

I shall not support a repeal of resolution 13 until I have seen a well-crafted and viable replacement.

With that argument I should then submit two line resolutions that are as vague as possible and then leave it to individual nations to conform or shy away from the resolution as they see fit.

I then hope you will be supporting my Free Trade Proposal:

Description: Trade, trade and trade!

Please, there is no point in submitting a vague bill as this. Laws have to be more specific. There is no point in seeking to save the environment if you are not willing to submit a decent proposal to do so.

You have twisted my argument, something I do not appreciate. What I meant was that in some cases (as I felt here) it is best to allow a maximum amount of flexibility for the nations affected. Did you even read my arguments in favour?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

Then a replacement proposal should be crafted allowing this flexibility rather than leaving it to be implied.

Then a replacement proposal should be crafted allowing this flexibility rather than leaving it to be implied.

What sort of wording did you have in mind?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You have support on this one. Recycling actually isn't a good means for protecting the enviornment. While it conserves resources, the pollution emitted from the recycling facilities is more then 3 times the magnitude of creating the products in the first place. It's alot more damaging to the enviornment and should only be used on materials that are in dire need of being recycled from being in short supply, such as platinum.

What sort of wording did you have in mind?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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


I merely feel that if members of the UN saw fit to repeal UCPL for being poorly worded, then this resolution should be repealed as well.

A UN Resolution should not remain in place simply because it does not have a suitable replacement. I have not thought much about a replacement, but I would support one that ENCOURAGES recycling rather than making it mandatory. Mandatory recycling is well, rather extreme in my opinion. Yes, the environment does need UN intervention, but mandatory recycling just seems unrealistic.

And I apologise for my earlier remarks. I just do not see any reason for a resolution as vague as this to remain in existence.

Please support the repeal, and feel free to raise any of your concerns.

Thank you.

Tyndarus.

Tyndarus, if you need help with a natsov friendly replacement i'll give you a hand.

i wrote a draft of a replacement for UNR 13 not so long ago and i'm sure theres common ideas we could use.

Voting ends today. Please support this repeal to promote better worded resolutions in the UN.

I supported as a friendly gesture, but I don't think it is going to reach quorum. I think it has good chances of working eventually, but I suggest you do some redrafting, resubmitting, and campaigning.

Yeah I think so too.

Been a bit busy of late, so didnt campaign as much as I would have liked too. I'll probably try to lengthen it a lot more, perhaps suggest a replacement resolution.

I'm just surprised that such a short resolution has remained for so long.