NationStates Jolt Archive


Resolution #48 - Save the forests of the World

Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 14:02
While lazily browsing through the passed UN resolutions, I found this one. Can someone please tell me what it actually does? It has a long, fluffy introduction, but I cannot bend my brain enough to understand the "solution."

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #48
Save the forests of the World

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Woodchipping

Proposed by: The lords of the isles

Description: For years the forest of numerous nations have been abused and destroyed for profit. In many nations, this is reaching critical leavels, almost to the point where all the forests are gone. If we destroy the forests now, they're gone. Forever. My reasons for this proposal are twofold:

1. Enviromental Concerns
The destruction of the rainforest has a major destructive effect on the enviroment. Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently. These animals would be dead, and thier would be no way of resurecting them, short of cloning, which rases an entirly diferent moral issue. The simple fact is that the destruction of rainforest is simply pointless destruction as thier is no way to make the forests renewable without seriously cutting the money that they make, which is the reason for thier destruction anyway! The mindless destroying of a valuable national resorce will, in the long run, achieve nothing.

2. Thoughts of the future
By destroying the forests today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through turism or logging. People don't recognise that, while forests make more money more quickly when felled on the mass scale, in the long run, monetarily the same amount of money could be produced by carefully felling a section of forest, then helping it regrow. This way, the woods produced would be more valuable on the international market due to the decreased availability of the timber. Over a longer amount of time, the money produced would, in fact, outstrip the money made by the wanton destruction. The forest would, with help, renew its self and go on making money. As and added bonus, turism would increase.

Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.
Risat
07-12-2005, 14:30
It seems to be saying that we

A) Shouldn't chop down our forests because it's bad and

B) Should chop down a large portion of our forests and market trees as a scarce resource...

It's a bit messy (structurally) for a resolution isn't it?

The spelling and grammar isn't too fantastic either.
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 14:49
It seems to be saying that we

A) Shouldn't chop down our forests because it's bad and

B) Should chop down a large portion of our forests and market trees as a scarce resource...

It's a bit messy (structurally) for a resolution isn't it?

The spelling and grammar isn't too fantastic either.

Yes, I understand the intentions of the author. I just don't understand what he is legally mandating or urging nations to do. The only suggestions he makes are in the "reasons for this proposal" sections, and are written in the style "if people did this, that would happen."
The Most Glorious Hack
07-12-2005, 15:46
Implemented: Thu Feb 19 2004

This was during the Enodian period. While Enodia was, unarguably, the King of the UN, there were periods where he was less active. This was one of them. Also, the NS UN has a disturbing habit of passing even the most horribly writting environmental Proposals.

If something like this was to come around now, it would certainly be deleted.
St Edmund
07-12-2005, 16:14
Time for a repeal, maybe?
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 16:19
Yes, that was my idea, but I wanted to make sure I understood the proposal first. I have given up on that.
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 17:43
I have drafted a little repeal. Should I post it here, or open a new thread?
Hirota
07-12-2005, 17:47
As a nation which hates this resolution, we wil lgladly assist in a draft
Yelda
07-12-2005, 18:18
Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.
How much would could a would chipper chip if a would chipper could chip would?

Also, apparently ramparts are being destroyed.
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 18:21
How much would could a would chipper chip if a would chipper could chip would?

I would even rephrase your enlightened comment to

"How much would would a would chipper chip if a would chipper would chip would?"

Anyway, where should I post the repeal?
Ecopoeia
07-12-2005, 18:51
Even the author disowned this resolution.
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 21:13
OK, for lack of better ideas I will post my draft here. I can always start a thread later if it is deemed more appropriate.

Any thoughts?

---

Repeal “Save the forests of the World”

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING the assumed intentions of Resolution #48, “Save the forests of the World”;

DEEPLY COMMITTED to guaranteeing the sustainability of the world ecosystem, namely by the preservation of forests; yet

REGRETTING the confusing, discursive and unconstructive nature of said Resolution;

NOTING that it does not mandate or recommend any course of action to further the cause of sustainability, rendering it completely ineffective;

ACKNOWLEDGING the clear overlap between the assumed intentions of its author and the mandate of Resolution #23, “Replanting Trees”; and

DECLARING that ambiguous and ineffective legislation threatens the credibility of the UN, especially when in duplication of previous legislation;

REPEALS Resolution #48.

---

Save the forests of the World: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=47
Replanting trees: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22
[NS]The-Republic
07-12-2005, 21:37
DEEPLY COMMITED to guaranteeing the sustainability of the world ecosystem, namely by the preservation of forests; yet
"Commited" should be "Committed."

REGRETTING the confusing, discursive and unconstructive nature of said Resolution;

NOTING that it does not mandate or recommend any course of action to further the cause of sustainability, rendering it completely ineffective;

ACKNOWLEDGING the clear overlap between the assumed intentions of its author and the mandate of Resolution #23, “Replanting Trees”; and
Good, good.
DECLARING that ambiguous and ineffective legislation threatens the credibility of the UN, especially when in duplication of previous legislation;
Ooh, I like this a lot.

Everything sounds good. You shouldn't have much trouble getting this through, I don't think. Let me know if you want help with a campaign.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN
Waterana
07-12-2005, 21:50
Your draft sounds good and I agree that this resolution is one that needs to be repealed.

I'll certainly push a few delegates to support it when you submit it :).
Gruenberg
07-12-2005, 22:29
I once drafted a repeal of this:

Proposal: Repeal "Save the forests of the World"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #48

Description: Resolution #48 (Save the forests of the World) will be struck out and rendered void.

Argument: REPEALS Resolution #48 on the grounds it does jackshit

If you can use any of that, you're welcome to.

----

Ok, I'm hopeless at giving feedback on repeals of environmental resolutions, because I'm too biased. I can't see any problems with your draft, though, and I'll obviously support it. If you need any help with TG campaigns and such like, let me know.
Fonzoland
07-12-2005, 23:26
Thanks for the support. I will wait for comments for a while longer, and post it tomorrow. I may take up your kind offers of help for the campaign.