NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #13
Proposed by: Herconia

Description: UN Resolution #13: MANDATORY RECYCLING (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALIZING: This resolution demands recycling without giving specifics on implementation and to be achieved goals.

RECOGNIZING: Recycling is to be a national policy rather than a UN obligatory resolution. The UN must only be allowed to issue guidelines.

REGRETTING: This resolution is poorly written and unclearly defined.

REPEALS Resolution #13 - "MANDATORY RECYCLING".

Approvals: 37 (Allied Iraq, Chris_mays90, Doom Hell, Ukaraine, Tresullus, Schordic, Twisted Transistor, WZ Forums, Noctaurus, Tyndarus, Yeldan UN Mission, Manussa, The City by the Live S, Governor JEB, Child Care Workers, Palentine UN Office, Merasia, Jey, Wild Lands of North, Leg-ends, Onahere, Hou Mian, Evictory, Saxist Saxons, NewTexas, Conchland, Preeminent States, Futuristic America, The Kazoo Peoples, Flibbleites, Chmiel, Screw you all, Chrisington2, Lodisia, SFSteve, Cluichstan, Skilsland)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 29 2005


Any questions, post them here.
All Delegates please approve the repeal resolution

Kind Regards,
Seasons Greetings,
Herconia

If you replace your CODE box by a QUOTE box, it will be much easier to read.

If you replace your CODE box by a QUOTE box, it will be much easier to read.

edited

Although I agree with repealing the resolution, I think this proposal is illegal. "The UN must only issue guidelines" sounds to me like it's making new provisions, which a repeal can't do: provisions which, in any case, might be illegal.

I am in favour of repealling this resolution, but with more careful wording.

Your first two statements are somewhat contradictory. First you complain it does not micromanage enough, then you complain that it infringes on NatSov.

The NatSov argument is worthless in this repeal, IMHO. People who believe NatSov are likely to support you no matter what you say, and the argument is likely to antagonise some of the median voters.

My personal view is that Res #13 goes way too far by forcing countries to recycle all <insert material>, and then doesn't go far enough by offering an arbitrary list of materials.

I also believe that the mandatory approach is wrong, rather you should give some targets, and fine governments who don't meet the recycling targets.

If this doesn't reach quorum, maybe you can redraft it in this forum.

Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #13
Proposed by: Herconia

Description: UN Resolution #13: MANDATORY RECYCLING (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALIZING: This resolution demands recycling without giving specifics on implementation and to be achieved goals.

RECOGNIZING: Recycling is to be a national policy rather than a UN obligatory resolution. The UN must only be allowed to issue guidelines.

REGRETTING: This resolution is poorly written and unclearly defined.

REPEALS Resolution #13 - "MANDATORY RECYCLING".

Approvals: 37 (Allied Iraq, Chris_mays90, Doom Hell, Ukaraine, Tresullus, Schordic, Twisted Transistor, WZ Forums, Noctaurus, Tyndarus, Yeldan UN Mission, Manussa, The City by the Live S, Governor JEB, Child Care Workers, Palentine UN Office, Merasia, Jey, Wild Lands of North, Leg-ends, Onahere, Hou Mian, Evictory, Saxist Saxons, NewTexas, Conchland, Preeminent States, Futuristic America, The Kazoo Peoples, Flibbleites, Chmiel, Screw you all, Chrisington2, Lodisia, SFSteve, Cluichstan, Skilsland)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 29 2005

We would only support a repeal that would have a guaranteed replacement lined up, with the intention of diversifying and clarifying the recycling responsibilities, aims and targets of individual nations, so that less confusion exists and more specific explanations of intent and definitions are given.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We would only support a repeal that would have a guaranteed replacement lined up, with the intention of diversifying and clarifying the recycling responsibilities, aims and targets of individual nations, so that less confusion exists and more specific explanations of intent and definitions are given.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would suggest to Ambassador Holt that the process of stating "no repeal without replacement" could be made automatic, eg by creating a card or inserting a quote in the signature.

Thanks for all the constructive comments. Rest assured they will be adressed in a redraft.

I support this resolution, and have already endorsed it. As voting ends soon, I would encourage all delegates to approve it as well.

I would support repealing mandatory recycling if it is brought before the General Assembly.

I agree this resolution is one that should go, but do have a problem with this line...

RECOGNIZING: Recycling is to be a national policy rather than a UN obligatory resolution. The UN must only be allowed to issue guidelines.

The UN can issue whatever it likes. As I'm sure someone will come in and remind me that doesn't mean it should, but it can. You also need to remember that not all of us are nat sov fanatics.

Stating in a repeal that the UN must, as opposed to should, only be allowed to issue guidelines puts me off this repeal right off the bat. I don't like anything that smells of restricting what the UN can and can't deal with.

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

Ok, well, there seems to be some interest in repealing this, so could we use this thread to get together a workable draft? Here's my suggestion:

The United Nations,

OBSERVING the need for practical recycling legislation,

APPALLED by the failures of "Mandatory Recycling" to deliver suitable solutions, and its restriction on the ability of the UN to adopt more workable recycling policies,

AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made,

CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling,

NOTING the distinct possibility of environmental damage caused by inappropriate recycling of materials by member states without developed, safe industrial facilities,

FURTHER LAMENTING the inclusion of some materials, all forms of which may not be recycleable without the expenditure of excessive and environmentally detrimental levels of energy, such as certain states of aluminium, and the exclusion of several more suitable materials, such as compostable waste,

REMAINING OPEN to a replacement which adopts a more effective set of recycling regimes:

REPEALS "Mandatory Recycling"

There's some more that go in there. I'd keep sovereignty out.

Now that version, I'd push some delegates to support :).

Gruenburgs really hit the spot with that draft.

When I attempted a repeal of this I was considering a replacement programme that could allow a nation to recycle 20% of certain waste materials over a ten year period. It would have been a UN programme that a nation could join and get the help of UN experts and funds to create the needed industry. Funds would have come from members of the scheme.

Using a gradual buildup of 2% growth every year a nation could make the 20% target in ten years and create a recycling industry for themselves while they were at it.

Herconia, feel free to canibalise this idea if you want to. The list of recyclable materials may well be a sticking point although.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

IMO the UN cannot practically enforce regulation recycling targets on countries (seeing as they all have different size and type economies).

BUT recycling is very important to conserve the worlds natural resources.


Resolution 13 is just far too vague to do anything "You must recycle".

How much?
What?
By when?
How do you enforce it?

IMO the UN cannot practically enforce regulation recycling targets on countries (seeing as they all have different size and type economies).

I agree, regulations should not be recycled.

Very well written proposal. I would have left out the "FURTHER LAMENTING" line not to stir up any confusion. Congrats

Ready for submission

Well, you're welcome to incorporate any of my draft into yours, if you see fit. And let me know if you want any help with a TG campaign: I really want to see this one go down.

We agree with your proposal and suggest you also provide a clause describing that the mandate to recycle "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries," stretches beyond the bounds of necessary recycling. While certainly the proposal does not imply this, it is mandating that every single battery, paper item, glass item, and item made of aluminum MUST be recycled, with no consideration made of whether the item is completely used, its value (be it monetary or otherwise), or whether it has a need to be recycled for it may have other uses.

We Jevians are tired of not being allowed to have our glass eyeware for more then one recycling weekly cycle before being forced to recycle them immediately.

An excellent observation. Not sure of how to put that into a concise clause: anyone have a suggestion?

An excellent observation. Not sure of how to put that into a concise clause: anyone have a suggestion?

"Considering that recycling "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries", regardless of needs, value, other uses of these items, etc, as this resolution mandates, is not a safe, intelligent, or effective way to issue a resolution encouraging recycling"

Great. I'd advise Herconia to use that.

Gruenberg, Jey,

I just sent TM. Please read.

There's been a brief discussion in the GTT about this, and we concur that this resolution needs repealing. We'd favour a replacement, but one that concentrates on the international aspect of recycling. In particular, we feel that the exchange of recycling technologies, and trade in recycled goods is something which may stimulate responsible environmental practices. I'd welcome any comments on how to approach this.

Hello,

The proposal has been resubmitted. All regional delegates, please review the proposal and decide whether you endorse it or not.

Kind Regards,
Herconia


Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #13
Proposed by: Herconia

Description: UN Resolution #13: MANDATORY RECYCLING (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: OBSERVING the need for practical recycling legislation,

APPALLED by the failures of "Mandatory Recycling" to deliver suitable solutions, and its restriction on the ability of the UN to adopt more workable recycling policies,

REGRETTING the lack of clear guidelines, measurable goals and regulations in aforementioned resolution,

AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made,

CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling,

NOTING the distinct possibility of environmental damage caused by inappropriate recycling of materials by member states without developed, safe industrial facilities,

CONSIDERING that recycling "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries", regardless of needs, value, other uses of these items, etc, as this resolution mandates, is not a safe, intelligent, or effective way to issue a resolution encouraging recycling,

REMAINING OPEN to a replacement which adopts a more effective set of recycling regimes

REPEALS "Mandatory Recycling"

Co-authored by Gruenberg, Jey

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jan 2 2006

You have my support. This is one that merits a replacement, in my opinion, but my support is independent on whether a replacement is drafted.

I fully support this repeal. I would oppose a replacement which made the mistakes of Mandatory Recycling. Given one of those mistakes was 'existing', I think you'd be pressed to find a draft I could support.

I fully support this repeal. I would oppose a replacement which made the mistakes of Mandatory Recycling. Given one of those mistakes was 'existing', I think you'd be pressed to find a draft I could support.

Well, I would like your support, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. ;)
Current GTT debate points to something that focuses on the international market for waste, and on the negative externalities of waste dumping. Recycling is a solution to a problem, not an end in itself. Possibly other stuff would need repealing before that could happen.

Repeals Baby! I love em! You've got my support!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Repeals Baby! I love em! You've got my support!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Thanks for your support.

I hope it will pass, only 8 more approvals to go

Congrats on reaching quorum and thanks for everyone's support.

Herconia, we would advise that you edit the first post of this topic to reflect the current state of your proposal, so to not confuse anyone about what it is they're voting on.

Myself and my people regret that this is the second environnment related resolution that Wyldtree must support being repealed. My nation is a strong advocate for environmental concerns, but this is a very weak resolution lacking any real specifics at all. It's a one line statement without any thought of how to implement it. I support this repeal, but along with some others hope we as a group can come up with a stronger, more specific resolution to replace it.

The government of St Edmund will vote FOR this repeal when it reaches the General Assembly.

Special thanks to all who helpded to write and advertise for the proposal!

Thanks to all delegates who voted in favour of the repeal.

Myself and my people regret that this is the second environnment related resolution that Wyldtree must support being repealed. My nation is a strong advocate for environmental concerns, but this is a very weak resolution lacking any real specifics at all. It's a one line statement without any thought of how to implement it. I support this repeal, but along with some others hope we as a group can come up with a stronger, more specific resolution to replace it.
I echo the ambassador's regret. Ecopoeia will most likely support this repeal. It is our hope that the poor environmental legislation that has tarnished the reputation of the green movement within the NSUN will continue to be swept aside and replaced by more worthy resolutions.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Though I am a friend of gatesville, NSO member and probably considered one of the mosst orthodox sovereigntists(sp) I would definitely SUPPORT A REPLACEMENT.

No, No, No!

No No No what?

I'll take it. But I'm going to throw in my support for a replacement resolution.

No, No, No!

It's helpful to explain why you oppose things. You can vote 'no no no' by clicking AGAINST; the only point posting is to explain that, in order to persuade others to vote against.

The Empire will/would support this repeal, this is another resolution that interferes with Imperial Soverignity

The people of Cluichstan are a bit confused. We would like to support a repeal of this resolution. However, the paper upon which it was written, per the mandate of said resolution, has been recycled, thus we are unable to read the original resolution -- or, for that matter, any resolutions that have been passed by this austere body.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Although I agree with repealing the resolution, I think this proposal is illegal. "The UN must only issue guidelines" sounds to me like it's making new provisions, which a repeal can't do: provisions which, in any case, might be illegal.

OOC: I'd like to echo that the first page should reflect the current state of the proposal because I was going to agree with the above statement until I saw that you'd removed it.

IC: The nation of Jocabia, on behalf of the region of Zion, has approved the upcoming vote for this repeal and would like to commend the author nations for not only creating a well-written repeal, but also garnering approval by decidedly more than 10% of the delegates. Our nation looks forward to supporting this measure in a vote and encouraging member nations of our region to do the same.

Fourhearts congradulates the author on the reaching of quorum and will vote in favor of this repeal. We do not see the nessisty of a replacement.

- Titus Chain
UN Ambassodor
Kingdom of Fourhearts

I vote against this repeal, because i'm exhausted of all these anti-environmental
propositions. What did the trees do to you ? (after the repeal of the protection of the forest, if there's no more recycling, more trees will be cut !). but the trees can't say anything, that's so easy, isn't it ?

Gaiah,
Delegate of France

I vote against this repeal, because i'm exhausted of all these anti-environmental
propositions. What did the trees do to you ? (after the repeal of the protection of the forest, if there's no more recycling, more trees will be cut !). but the trees can't say anything, that's so easy, isn't it ?

Gaiah,
Delegate of France

For the edification of my esteemed colleague, a tree fell on my father and killed him when I was but a wee lad.

For the edification of my esteemed colleague, a tree fell on my father and killed him when I was but a wee lad.

We extend our sympathies...

I vote against this repeal, because i'm exhausted of all these anti-environmental propositions. What did the trees do to you ? (after the repeal of the protection of the forest, if there's no more recycling, more trees will be cut !). but the trees can't say anything, that's so easy, isn't it ?

It is disturbing to see that whilst we may mock new nations for 'not reading the proposal', a Jan '03 delegate of a prominent region with 25 endorsements does not either. Disgusting behaviour.

i strongly feel that the this bill should not force any nation to recycle if the nations leader dont want to recyle. this is a crazy bill and i urge members to vote this down. because if nations choose to be free thats great. if nations want to recyle then lets leave it to the nations leaders to make that descion. the un or no other body should force or make a nation recycle if the leader dont want to. and i have already voted against this and i hope the rest of my fellow members will do the same.

i strongly feel that the this bill should not force any nation to recycle if the nations leader dont want to recyle. this is a crazy bill and i urge members to vote this down. because if nations choose to be free thats great. if nations want to recyle then lets leave it to the nations leaders to make that descion. the un or no other body should force or make a nation recycle if the leader dont want to. and i have already voted against this and i hope the rest of my fellow members will do the same.

This is a repeal. If it passes, then you will be free to choose to recycle. The resolution it's trying to remove is the one that forces nations to recycle. Sorry for the confusion.

I vote against this repeal, because i'm exhausted of all these anti-environmental
propositions. What did the trees do to you ? (after the repeal of the protection of the forest, if there's no more recycling, more trees will be cut !). but the trees can't say anything, that's so easy, isn't it ?

Gaiah,
Delegate of France

We cannot agree that repeal of a completely unrealistic resolution is an "anti-environmental proposition". If this unfortunate legislation is replaced by a sound, reasonable recycling proposal, it will be a step forward for the environment -- including the trees.

Those interested in the subject might want to visit the Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?), where possibilities for replacement are being discussed.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Another poorly-worded and childishly-constructed resolution gets repealed? I'm for it!

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote yes.

pardon if it may be ignorant on my part, but instead of repealing over and over and over... Why can't we just amend the resolutions. Repealing a resolution should be saved for those that have no future use. But if you're just going to replace it with something similar amend it!

pardon if it may be ignorant on my part, but instead of repealing over and over and over... Why can't we just amend the resolutions. Repealing a resolution should be saved for those that have no future use. But if you're just going to replace it with something similar amend it!

Basically, because that would be illegal, and we have no especial desire to be kicked out of the UN.

pardon if it may be ignorant on my part, but instead of repealing over and over and over... Why can't we just amend the resolutions. Repealing a resolution should be saved for those that have no future use. But if you're just going to replace it with something similar amend it!

OOC: The rules of the game don't allow amendments. This has been complained about time and time again, but it ain't a-gonna change. Actually, it's probably a good thing. I'd hate to see the number of amendments that would change one word here, another one there, and on into infinity. Although I get frustrated with the repeal-and-replace stuff sometimes, not having amendments may be saving our sanity. ;)

BTW... Welcome to the UN.

BTW... Welcome to the UN.

Check your sanity at the door. ;)

This bill is a repeal... a repeal removes the former law out of the records forever.

The recycling bill infringes on my private sector by forcing my government to recycle. That is why I agree with the repeal. It creates more jobs for my people and the private sector can pick up were the public sector isn't anymore. I urge you to vote FOR this repeal!

Commodore LaFarge

if possible could the regional delegates post their opinions because in the end this is what really decides what happens. For example i dont want to give my regional delegate my endorsment if he isnt voting the way i am.

I urge my regional delegate, Unlimited, to vote to abolish mandatory recycling. Nations should retain this sovereign power.

The Empire of Kirisubo will be suporting this repeal.

At present the existance of a useless resolution is only blocking a better replacement that is being worked on as we speak.

If you care about the environment as well as the trees it will be in your interest to vote for the repeal.

This if sucessful will also untie a governements hands so they can recycle as little or as much as they can manage rather than having to face an unreasonable target, thereby encouraging a strong local recycling industry which will also create new jobs and bring more money into the local economy.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

While The Free Land of Garrieto believes in recycling, and encourages it among our people, I fear a mandatory system is unfair to most nations. With each nation having diffrent industrial capacity, economic stability, and beliefs forcing such things infringes upon both soveriengty, and economic possiblities.

For example our own companys have low recycling qoutas so they may compete with global markets on even terms. Also by spending less on recycling they can maintain the wages and benifits to their employees.

Due to these beliefs we shall be supporting the repeal. Thank you for letting me speak.

The People's Republic of Kride shall support the repeal of said resolution. We also encourage the creation of a much more detailed - and much less extreme - resolution to stand in it's place.

As I said I would, I have voted for this repeal on behalf of Wyldtree and the Sea of Madness. On a personal note to Gaiah... I understand your frustration with the large number of environmental resolution repeals, but it's hard to deny that this particular resolution is poorly written.

Despite being vague, the recycling bill has good intentions. What is wrong with recycling all of the trash?

Vagueness is no reason to comprimise the environment.

The nation of Oogal would heavily support a revised version of the bill that goes into more specifics, infact we press for it.

Despite being vague, the recycling bill has good intentions. What is wrong with recycling all of the trash?

Vagueness is no reason to compromise the environment.

The nation of Oogal would heavily support a revised version of the bill that goes into more specifics, infact we press for it.

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

1) It infringes on National sovereignty.
2) It directs that the member state must recycle, ousting private cooperation.
3) Not all paper, glass and batteries can be recycled without causing more harm to the environment than trashing them

Any questions, post them here.
All Delegates please approve the repeal resolution

Kind Regards,
Seasons Greetings,
Herconia

I am in full 100% agreement with Herconia. The UN should only give guidlines not mandatory laws. This is a national issue, not an issue that should be decided by the UN.

With Love
Conocia

I wasn't playing nationstates when this bill was passed but when I read it I saw a serious lack of insight and research.
The bill doesn't even define recycling, it doesn't say when these items must be recycled it could just be an endless loop of recycling paper that has just been recycled. Historical documents or glass in museums? Also if they honestly wanted to set up a recycling program in each nation why not set up a means of support? Also other commonly recycled items such as plastic, steel, Aseptic Packaging, Old refrigerators, Heat Pumps & Air Conditioners, Motor Oil, Computer Printers, Household toxics, and tires are totally avoided in this bill leading me to believe that either the dumping of these items isn't an issue or the writer of this bill couldn't be bothered to even look up commonly recycled items.
I'm not against recycling but like the repeal bill says this could cause harm in under developed nations. I also can't imagine any bill that is written in one sentence can have much thought or research placed into it. It fails to define anything, set any goals, or make any provisions.

Despite being vague, the recycling bill has good intentions. What is wrong with recycling all of the trash?

Vagueness is no reason to comprimise the environment.

The nation of Oogal would heavily support a revised version of the bill that goes into more specifics, infact we press for it.

I understand what you are saying, but the UN making sucha thing mandatory is pointless. Recycling? Why not emission standards? toxic wastes? or something that can affect the enviroment of surronding states?

If a nation feels profits are more important then clean streets let them be. The cost would be a strong thing to consider as well, does the government pay and have less moeny for other projects, or do corperations pay giving an edge to stronger nations over little ones in terms of how much money can be spent.

Despite being vague, the recycling bill has good intentions. What is wrong with recycling all of the trash?

1/. The existing resolution doesn't specify "all the trash", it specifies all of the listed materials... appparently regardless of whether they are trash yet or not.
2/. The target of 100% recycling that's set is unattainable, because -- apart from anything else -- it fails to allow for materials that might be accidentally destroyed in fires, or sunk to the bottom of the ocean in shipwrecks, or otherwise rendered inaccessible to the recyclers, which means that just about every nation (no matter how "green" its policies might be) is likely to find itself in non-compliance with the resolution.
3/. The target of recycing 100% of all paper ignores the fact that some uses of paper render it rather insanitary, so that recycling (rather than, for example, incineration) would cause a public health risk.
4/. The existing resolution fails to consider the fact that some materials can only be recycled a finite number of times before the product becomes useless.
5/. The existing resolution fails to consider the possibility that in some cases collecting the materials, transferring them to the recycling plants and reprocessing them there, might actually cause more environmental damage than disposing of them in other ways & producing replacements instead would do.

i am completely against such a propostorous idea, we need and have taken care of our planet and repealing such a descision would be terrible for our world.

As Lester Brown said:

"We have not inherited this world from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children"


So please any yay sayers remove your vote please, for everyone's sake. And undecided people should vote NO.

Our lifetime is a snap of a finger in comparison to all time, yet WE'RE the ones ruining it, the world's bad state has only occured within the last 150 years. Let's pass on this world as good as we got it to our children.

This world grows at a rate and pollutes and uses up fuels at the rate it would if we had 6 Planet Earths, the average american does this as much as if we had 26 Planet Earths, we only have ONE world, so as ONE we should all act UNITED in saying NO to this repeal, to do all we can to lessen the great problems we face TODAY.



VOTE NO

This is the second resolution in the last three that's repealed a pro-environment resolution, and I see nothing even resembling a worthy proposal on the table. (Well, there is one proposal, but it's horribly written.) As both repealings note that they would like a replacement drafted to fix the problems of the original, the lack of said replacements makes us in Great Plains very concerned, and we ask that someone get a replacement resolution on the floor quickly should this repeal pass.

i am completely against such a propostorous idea, we need and have taken care of our planet and repealing such a descision would be terrible for our world.

As Lester Brown said:

"We have not inherited this world from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children"


So please any yay sayers remove your vote please, for everyone's sake. And undecided people should vote NO.

Our lifetime is a snap of a finger in comparison to all time, yet WE'RE the ones ruining it, the world's bad state has only occured within the last 150 years. Let's pass on this world as good as we got it to our children.

This world grows at a rate and pollutes and uses up fuels at the rate it would if we had 6 Planet Earths, the average american does this as much as if we had 26 Planet Earths, we only have ONE world, so as ONE we should all act UNITED in saying NO to this repeal, to do all we can to lessen the great problems we face TODAY.

VOTE NO


Neither the resolution nor its proposed repeal affects our world...

i am completely against such a propostorous idea, we need and have taken care of our planet and repealing such a descision would be terrible for our world.

As Lester Brown said:

"We have not inherited this world from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children"


So please any yay sayers remove your vote please, for everyone's sake. And undecided people should vote NO.

Our lifetime is a snap of a finger in comparison to all time, yet WE'RE the ones ruining it, the world's bad state has only occured within the last 150 years. Let's pass on this world as good as we got it to our children.

This world grows at a rate and pollutes and uses up fuels at the rate it would if we had 6 Planet Earths, the average american does this as much as if we had 26 Planet Earths, we only have ONE world, so as ONE we should all act UNITED in saying NO to this repeal, to do all we can to lessen the great problems we face TODAY.



VOTE NO
You do realize that you'll still be allowed to recycle even after this repeal is passed, don't you?

i am completely against such a propostorous idea, we need and have taken care of our planet and repealing such a descision would be terrible for our world.

As Lester Brown said:

"We have not inherited this world from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children"


So please any yay sayers remove your vote please, for everyone's sake. And undecided people should vote NO.

Our lifetime is a snap of a finger in comparison to all time, yet WE'RE the ones ruining it, the world's bad state has only occured within the last 150 years. Let's pass on this world as good as we got it to our children.

This world grows at a rate and pollutes and uses up fuels at the rate it would if we had 6 Planet Earths, the average american does this as much as if we had 26 Planet Earths, we only have ONE world, so as ONE we should all act UNITED in saying NO to this repeal, to do all we can to lessen the great problems we face TODAY.



VOTE NO

I concur.

i am completely against such a propostorous idea, we need and have taken care of our planet and repealing such a descision would be terrible for our world.

As Lester Brown said:

"We have not inherited this world from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children"


So please any yay sayers remove your vote please, for everyone's sake. And undecided people should vote NO.

Our lifetime is a snap of a finger in comparison to all time, yet WE'RE the ones ruining it, the world's bad state has only occured within the last 150 years. Let's pass on this world as good as we got it to our children.

This world grows at a rate and pollutes and uses up fuels at the rate it would if we had 6 Planet Earths, the average american does this as much as if we had 26 Planet Earths, we only have ONE world, so as ONE we should all act UNITED in saying NO to this repeal, to do all we can to lessen the great problems we face TODAY.



VOTE NO



The world may require conservation, but the methods of conservation should not be dictated to all countries by extremist nations using resolutions which are unrealistic, draconian and completely lacking in research, feasibility and good old common sense.

These nations may have the best of intentions, but that STILL does not automatically mean that a resolution with good intentions is an effective one. A young child may have the best of intentions, but nobody elects them as leaders of the country do they? Similarly, well-intentioned resolutions shoudl not exist merely because they are well-intentioned.

If you believe that this resolution deserves a good replacement. CRAFT ONE YOURSELF. It is disgusting behavior for nations to sit on their behinds, allow vague resolutions to remain in place, are not willing to craft better ones, but STILL have the gall to criticise those who attempt to improve the UN, merely because you support 100% tax rates to maintain your environment.

You can spout facts about how the environment is getting polluted but you are completely UNABLE to create a feasible proposal to conserve the environment.

This is a one-liner resolution that is among well-written and thorough resolutions. You insult those who spend their times writing these resolutions by supporting a one-liner merely because it is an environmental resolution.

Vote FOR.

The world may require conservation, but the methods of conservation should not be dictated to all countries by extremist nations using resolutions which are unrealistic, draconian and completely lacking in research, feasibility and good old common sense.

These nations may have the best of intentions, but that STILL does not automatically mean that a resolution with good intentions is an effective one. A young child may have the best of intentions, but nobody elects them as leaders of the country do they? Similarly, well-intentioned resolutions shoudl not exist merely because they are well-intentioned.

If you believe that this resolution deserves a good replacement. CRAFT ONE YOURSELF. It is disgusting behavior for nations to sit on their behinds, allow vague resolutions to remain in place, are not willing to craft better ones, but STILL have the gall to criticise those who attempt to improve the UN, merely because you support 100% tax rates to maintain your environment.

You can spout facts about how the environment is getting polluted but you are completely UNABLE to create a feasible proposal to conserve the environment.

This is a one-liner resolution that is among well-written and thorough resolutions. You insult those who spend their times writing these resolutions by supporting a one-liner merely because it is an environmental resolution.

Vote FOR.
Hear hear! Well said!

i, as representative of The Republic of Pie rats, am whole-heartedly against this repeal.

This repeal is something that could drastically harm our environment! yes, the origional bill may have been "badly thought out", a "one-liner" and "vague".... but it adresses a serious issue! unless someone has a replacement lined up, i see this repeal as a bad move, as it take away one of our many defenses against a degrading evironment.... which i see as being one of the major issues that affects ALL of us.

vote AGAINST the repeal

As I am new here, forgive me if anything I say seems naive or uninformed. I am doing my best to catch on as a fledgeling nation and all that jazz.

That being said, I wonder if it is completely neccessary to repeal this resolution. I agree that it is simple and inneffective, but should our energies be going to repealing this, or should we be concentrating on making a new resolution that addresses the concerns that have been raised. It does nothing wrong on its own and I think that it is just a first step to a more complete recycling plan.

It's all well and good to point out the problems. But I want to know if there is another course we can take here that actually produces a noticable effect on our countries.

My thanks from the Holy Republic of Sheogorath and Azura.

The world may require conservation, but the methods of conservation should not be dictated to all countries by extremist nations using resolutions which are unrealistic, draconian and completely lacking in research, feasibility and good old common sense.

These nations may have the best of intentions, but that STILL does not automatically mean that a resolution with good intentions is an effective one. A young child may have the best of intentions, but nobody elects them as leaders of the country do they? Similarly, well-intentioned resolutions shoudl not exist merely because they are well-intentioned.

If you believe that this resolution deserves a good replacement. CRAFT ONE YOURSELF. It is disgusting behavior for nations to sit on their behinds, allow vague resolutions to remain in place, are not willing to craft better ones, but STILL have the gall to criticise those who attempt to improve the UN, merely because you support 100% tax rates to maintain your environment.

You can spout facts about how the environment is getting polluted but you are completely UNABLE to create a feasible proposal to conserve the environment.

This is a one-liner resolution that is among well-written and thorough resolutions. You insult those who spend their times writing these resolutions by supporting a one-liner merely because it is an environmental resolution.

Vote FOR.

The people of Cluichstan welcome the esteemed representative of Tyndarus to this austere body and thank him for voicing their sentiments exactly.

i, as representative of The Republic of Pie rats, am whole-heartedly against this repeal.

This repeal is something that could drastically harm our environment! yes, the origional bill may have been "badly thought out", a "one-liner" and "vague".... but it adresses a serious issue! unless someone has a replacement lined up, i see this repeal as a bad move, as it take away one of our many defenses against a degrading evironment.... which i see as being one of the major issues that affects ALL of us.

vote AGAINST the repeal

I must say, you haven't put much thought into this, what?

I take it that you follow the resolution to the letter, and cart away every battery, lightbulb and pair of scissors a week after they're produced, used or not? How does one recycle batteries, anyway?

you go ahead and repeal it, heres an alternate solution, dump all your trash on meccazo

After mucking around a bit, I must say that my assertion that this Mandatory Recycling Resolution does "nothing wrong" was an incorrect statement. It has problems. Ah well, I think I will just dump my trash on Meccazo. It seems to work.

I do not feel that repealling it without a proper replacement is a viable option. With the multitude of nations in the world producing the amount of recyclables that they do, it is beyond irresponsible for the UN not to provide a consistant guideline to conserve and reuse as much as feasible.

Therefore, until a proper replacement can be drafted, I will vote against repealing standing legislation.

Humbly yours,
TPLOV

Honorable President of the General Assembly and fellow delegates,
Our policy contradicts recycling. Therefore we support this resolution and we will vote IN FAVOR of the resolution. But we must remind the delegates that the Holy Republic of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem does believe that we should do something about our environment, we just believe that recycling is not the correct way of doing so.
Thank you,
We yield the floor back to the president

The description of the repeal has risen a question for me and my region, the most glorious region of the Rutland Islands. Would we be allowed to inact certain recycling laws in our lands?

The "Mandatory recycling" made, as it said, recycling mandatory, so in repealing this, are we allowed to individually put in place recycling laws or is that a no?

:confused:

The description of the repeal has risen a question for me and my region, the most glorious region of the Rutland Islands. Would we be allowed to inact certain recycling laws in our lands?

The "Mandatory recycling" made, as it said, recycling mandatory, so in repealing this, are we allowed to individually put in place recycling laws or is that a no?

:confused:

Yes, you are. By removing the resolution, the decision becomes a national one. So you can choose whether to recycle, or not, and how/what/etc.

there is two things we have against this:
1) in the period of absence between this passing and a suitable replacment being passed, quite a number of nations would resort to dumping rather than recycling, and this could have an adverse affect.

2) these two parts:

AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made,

CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling,


the resolution in question is resolution #13. how long has it been since it has passed? surely by now, most nations would have the recycling plants in effect and being cost efficient by now. also, these two lines mainly are in reguards to those nations who have recently joined the UN, but even then, i am sure other nations would be willing to share the technology with them if asked

however, i do agree with the lack of targets, and the fact that it is an ill-defined one-liner that needs to be replaced. therefore, our position is ABSTAIN

**From the Office of the Premier of The United Socialist States of Ameron**
As a socialist state the USSA and the people of the USSA hold our environment in high regards. The USSA first supported this repeal but the USSA will not support this until it is guaranteed that a new resolution will be created that will solve the faults of "Mandatory Recycling". Thus the USSA will repeal its previous vote and will instead ABSTAIN.

I do not feel that repealling it without a proper replacement is a viable option. With the multitude of nations in the world producing the amount of recyclables that they do, it is beyond irresponsible for the UN not to provide a consistant guideline to conserve and reuse as much as feasible.

Therefore, until a proper replacement can be drafted, I will vote against repealing standing legislation.

Humbly yours,
TPLOV
I agree with you. Recycling should be mandatory, within bounds of course. I agree with the people for the apeal, they all have good thoughts. Unfortunetly, I have the impression that a replacement can't be drafted until this one is repealed.
I vote for the repeal, and hope a draft will follow.

Prime Minister of Neobotua

I agree with you. Recycling should be mandatory, within bounds of course. I agree with the people for the apeal, they all have good thoughts. Unfortunetly, I have the impression that a replacement can't be drafted until this one is repealed.
It can be drafted, but it cannot be submitted until the repeal passes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Listen,I agree that recycling is important for nature and what not but you cant freaking force a nation to force its citizens to recycle or else :headbang: its just not done.Those who wanna recycle do,those who dont dont...welcome to democracy:headbang: :rolleyes:

Yes, you are. By removing the resolution, the decision becomes a national one. So you can choose whether to recycle, or not, and how/what/etc.

OOC: If you know how to do that let me know. I'd love to actually initiate my own legislation. Unfortunately the only thing I can do is to respond to my inbox of issues. (Is there a recycling issue?)

I do not feel that repealling it without a proper replacement is a viable option. With the multitude of nations in the world producing the amount of recyclables that they do, it is beyond irresponsible for the UN not to provide a consistant guideline to conserve and reuse as much as feasible.

Therefore, until a proper replacement can be drafted, I will vote against repealing standing legislation.

Humbly yours,
TPLOV


The UN is a body of nations with radically different ideals and views. There are pro-environment nations just as there are pro-industrial nations.Therefore it is NOT the UN's responsibility to be singly pro-environment at all costs.

IT IS the UN's responsiblity to create and enforce serious, detailed and practical resolutions. Whether they are pro-human rights, social justice or environmental bills, that is purely up for the members of the UN to decide according to vote.

However, just as nations have the basic responsiblity of submitting a serious proposal if they want a resolution to be passed, WE have the responsibility of examining resolutions impartially at first, before we decide to vote for or against it according to our ideals.

Basically, we should be driven by enough common sense to recognise a well-written resolution, whether we agree with it or not, as well as not to support a resolution that was written in thirty seconds.

It is not a matter of whether you support conservation or not. Do you honestly believe that a one-line resolution deserves to exist simply because it is pro-environmental?

If so, you only demean your own cause by demonstrating your own narrow-mindedness.

It is not irresponsible of the UN not to have a guideline for conservation. It IS IRRESPONSIBLE, for UN nations to allow unrealistic and poorly-written resolutions merely for the impression of conservation.

The UN is a body of nations with radically different ideals and views. There are pro-environment nations just as there are pro-industrial nations.Therefore it is NOT the UN's responsibility to be singly pro-environment at all costs.

IT IS the UN's responsiblity to create and enforce serious, detailed and practical resolutions. Whether they are pro-human rights, social justice or environmental bills, that is purely up for the members of the UN to decide according to vote.

However, just as nations have the basic responsiblity of submitting a serious proposal if they want a resolution to be passed, WE have the responsibility of examining resolutions impartially at first, before we decide to vote for or against it according to our ideals.

Basically, we should be driven by enough common sense to recognise a well-written resolution, whether we agree with it or not, as well as not to support a resolution that was written in thirty seconds.

It is not a matter of whether you support conservation or not. Do you honestly believe that a one-line resolution deserves to exist simply because it is pro-environmental?

If so, you only demean your own cause by demonstrating your own narrow-mindedness.

It is not irresponsible of the UN not to have a guideline for conservation. It IS IRRESPONSIBLE, for UN nations to allow unrealistic and poorly-written resolutions merely for the impression of conservation.

I strongly agree with the honourable representative of Tyndarus' points and would commend them to all other members as an excellent means of coming to a decision regarding any resolution tabled before this esteemed body. I would register a minor disagreement though with his implication that it is impossible to be pro-industrial and pro-environmental at the same time. I would argue that it is perfectly possible, should adaquate regulations and incentives be offered to employees and employers, that industry can be both productive and sustainable, nurturing a clean environment for all.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Indeed, all it takes is a little compromise.

the resolution in question is resolution #13. how long has it been since it has passed? surely by now, most nations would have the recycling plants in effect and being cost efficient by now. also, these two lines mainly are in reguards to those nations who have recently joined the UN, but even then, i am sure other nations would be willing to share the technology with them if asked

Please try to remember that many nations do not operate on the same fast (1 RL day = 1 NS year) timescale that you do, so that it's been a considerably shorter period of time since the resolution was passed for many of them...

OOC: If you know how to do that let me know. I'd love to actually initiate my own legislation. Unfortunately the only thing I can do is to respond to my inbox of issues. (Is there a recycling issue?)

I think there is. Mine was an IC post, of course - I know you can't technically click your fingers and recycle! in gameplay terms - but I do believe there's a recycling issue...however, you can still answer that however if this repeal passes or fails.

OMG FAKE EDIT: Issue #97, in the Issues list stickied in the Got Issues? forum, seems to be what I was thinking of.

I must say, you haven't put much thought into this, what?

I take it that you follow the resolution to the letter, and cart away every battery, lightbulb and pair of scissors a week after they're produced, used or not? How does one recycle batteries, anyway?
i never said the origional resolution was good.... i just said that i think at principle it was right, and until someone makes the show of drafting something better, i'd rather keep it that have nothing at all like it!

thats why i'm against the repeal

i am for the repeal. i belive whist you cannot force any nation, country, ect. to recycle, and even if you could a resolution such as this is way too linear to do anything. like most of you said
when do i recylce?
how?
what do i recycle?
and so on.

even though i am for the repeal i do believe we should have a similar resolution to replace it.

best wishes,
Ambassador of El Dora

Please try to remember that many nations do not operate on the same fast (1 RL day = 1 NS year) timescale that you do, so that it's been a considerably shorter period of time since the resolution was passed for many of them...
that was the rule of thumb that i was taught when i first joined, so i am not the only one who goes by this guide

I am yet to see anyone RP an election every four days. I think trying to be too clever about time will probably detract from the real issues here: namely, that it's time to show Mother Nature who's boss.

The UN is a body of nations with radically different ideals and views. There are pro-environment nations just as there are pro-industrial nations.Therefore it is NOT the UN's responsibility to be singly pro-environment at all costs.

IT IS the UN's responsiblity to create and enforce serious, detailed and practical resolutions. Whether they are pro-human rights, social justice or environmental bills, that is purely up for the members of the UN to decide according to vote.

However, just as nations have the basic responsiblity of submitting a serious proposal if they want a resolution to be passed, WE have the responsibility of examining resolutions impartially at first, before we decide to vote for or against it according to our ideals.

Basically, we should be driven by enough common sense to recognise a well-written resolution, whether we agree with it or not, as well as not to support a resolution that was written in thirty seconds.

It is not a matter of whether you support conservation or not. Do you honestly believe that a one-line resolution deserves to exist simply because it is pro-environmental?

If so, you only demean your own cause by demonstrating your own narrow-mindedness.

It is not irresponsible of the UN not to have a guideline for conservation. It IS IRRESPONSIBLE, for UN nations to allow unrealistic and poorly-written resolutions merely for the impression of conservation.

I honestly agree with most of your point. However, as a nation trying to stimulate economic growth with minimal damage to the environment, it is my governments position to err on the side of conservation. If we can come to an agreement on a resolution that would grant latitude as to what, where, and how much is to be recycled, I would be open to repeal the standing legislation.

Thank you for your frankness, and I hope for continued prosperity for your nation and citizens.

I honestly agree with most of your point. However, as a nation trying to stimulate economic growth with minimal damage to the environment, it is my governments position to err on the side of conservation. If we can come to an agreement on a resolution that would grant latitude as to what, where, and how much is to be recycled, I would be open to repeal the standing legislation.

Thank you for your frankness, and I hope for continued prosperity for your nation and citizens.


I agree with everything said here and do not belive it could be made more clear.

best wishes,
Ambassador of Eldora

I honestly agree with most of your point. However, as a nation trying to stimulate economic growth with minimal damage to the environment, it is my governments position to err on the side of conservation. If we can come to an agreement on a resolution that would grant latitude as to what, where, and how much is to be recycled, I would be open to repeal the standing legislation.

Thank you for your frankness, and I hope for continued prosperity for your nation and citizens.


Erm, I'm sorry but I was not actually trying to say that it is impossible to be pro-environment and pro-industrial at the same time. In fact, I have done so using another of my non-UN nations.

What i meant was that whether we are pro-environment or pro-industrial, we should not just blindly support resolutions simply because they are pro-environment or pro-industrial, such as "Mandatory Recycling". We should make sure that it is first and foremost a well-written bill.

Certainly, a well-written replacement would be welcome.

Sorry for any confusion.

Argument: OBSERVING the need for practical recycling legislation,

APPALLED by the failures of "Mandatory Recycling" to deliver suitable solutions, and its restriction on the ability of the UN to adopt more workable recycling policies,


Wouldn't this be a good thing? It lets each nation decide how to set about recycling these items. I thought this would be a NatSov's wet dream of a resolution.


REGRETTING the lack of clear guidelines, measurable goals and regulations in aforementioned resolution,


It doesn't meddle in internal affairs - it leaves it up to the nation.


AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made,


So - they learn to do it. Other member nations help them. If this is scrapped, then no one will have any incentive to recycle anything, and the whole world will turn in to a huge rubbish tip.


CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling,


So they build them.


NOTING the distinct possibility of environmental damage caused by inappropriate recycling of materials by member states without developed, safe industrial facilities,


As opposed to the certain possibility of environmental damage caused by just dumping all these things in to landfills, or oceans?


CONSIDERING that recycling "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries", regardless of needs, value, other uses of these items, etc, as this resolution mandates, is not a safe, intelligent, or effective way to issue a resolution encouraging recycling,


Yeah - I just don't get this. Once paper is used, what other use does it have? Once glass has been used, what other use does it have?


REMAINING OPEN to a replacement which adopts a more effective set of recycling regimes


Or - to paraphrase - to write a replacement resolution that totally screws over the concept of National Sovereignty in order to let the UN micromanage the business of recycling, as opposed to setting an idea of what should be done, and leaving the details up to the nations.


Oh - I oppose the repeal, if you hadn't figured out :}

Wouldn't this be a good thing? It lets each nation decide how to set about recycling these items. I thought this would be a NatSov's wet dream of a resolution.

No, no it doesn't. You missed the word 'all'.

It doesn't meddle in internal affairs - it leaves it up to the nation.

Again, no it doesn't. It compels every nation to recycle in this bludgeoning fashion.

So - they learn to do it. Other member nations help them. If this is scrapped, then no one will have any incentive to recycle anything, and the whole world will turn in to a huge rubbish tip.

Nice to see such compassion for delevoping nations. Of course, the fact that they haven't got industrial capabilities is their fault, and they can just learn to rectify their silly error.

So they build them.

And if they don't know how? And if they can't afford them? They should be wasting their time on this, instead of, you know...buying food?

As opposed to the certain possibility of environmental damage caused by just dumping all these things in to landfills, or oceans?

What about incineration? Space dumping? Reuse (which is not the same as recycling)? What about a sensible replacement which acknowledges that forcing all nations to exist in a state of perpetual recycling of every post-it note is actually more damaging than some controlled rubbish storage?

Yeah - I just don't get this. Once paper is used, what other use does it have? Once glass has been used, what other use does it have?

Where does the resolution say 'used'?

Or - to paraphrase - to write a replacement resolution that totally screws over the concept of National Sovereignty in order to let the UN micromanage the business of recycling, as opposed to setting an idea of what should be done, and leaving the details up to the nations.

I certainly wouldn't support that sort of replacement. I'd be more interested in something that established a financial framework, so that developing economies had the means to recycle, but which left the decision of what - and even whether - to recycle in national hands.

Oh - I oppose the repeal, if you hadn't figured out

Again...didn't you leave?

You repeal the mandatory recycling, but the fact is there's no "issue" to decide if we want or not recycling in our nation, so for the moment, it repeals recycling itself !


Gaiah,
Delegate of France region.

Yeah you're right.

#97: Landfills Filling Up [Edolia; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
After claims of two-headed @@ANIMAL@@s being seen near the numerous landfills of @@NAME@@, there have been calls for the government to act.

The Debate
1. "Look at that thing!" wails famous environmentalist @@RANDOMNAME@@, pointing at one of @@NAME@@'s largest dumps. "It's an eyesore, a pollutant, and a damn disgrace! What we need to do is get everyone recycling their waste! What we have left we can shoot into space in specially-made space shuttles and we'll never have to think about it again! Sure it'll be expensive, but considering the benefits to the great outdoors, I think we should consider it."

2. "Ah, the expense!" moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, government economist. "Do you have any idea what that would cost?! A much better way of dealing with this waste is to burn it and use the energy it produces to power @@NAME@@'s big cities. There may be a few side-effects on the environment, but with all the cheap power coming in who would care?"

3. "Oh come now," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a nearby suburbanite. "There's no need to bring all the pollution into the cities! These dumps can get a whole lot bigger you know. Just keep piling the rubbish on and we can use them as tourist attractions or something. People will flock to see how high they can climb our artificial mountains! If we run out of space, just knock down a few forests. No one will notice."

4. "You're all missing the real solution," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the '@@NAME@@ First!' society. "Why should we bother building landfills at all? I'm sure that there are plenty of less-fortunate countries out there who would be more than happy to take our litter in return for some cash."

OH WAIT!

Gruen, maybe you should put a spoiler warning there. Otherwise, the presence of an issue is irrelevant for the repeal of crappy legislation. You can still RP it as much as you want without an issue.

Yes, I know that. Some people seem not to recognsise that fact. Nonetheless, I feel it important to show that both from a roleplay and a gameplay perspective, this works.

I think none of you can see this proposal for what it is, perfect, and to repeal it would be a great loss to the UN.

First of all I believe that the “vagueness” is intended as the purpose of the United Nations is not to turn all nations into one but create guidelines for all nations to abide by. By saying that all batteries, paper, glass etc must be recycled it leaves it up to the individual nations to conform to these general mandates in whatever means that they find the most viable in terms of their industry and current environmental policies in force already.

By creating way too specific resolutions and appealing the vague ones we are turning our world into one country and taking away the individuals' right and privilege to govern one’s own nation. I’ve heard talk of how the original bill would violate the principles of sovereignty but in truth, by not offering specific guidelines, it is enforcing that very right while at the same time trying to ensure that our environment is kept intact.

On a personal note, I believe that the purpose of the United Nations is not to create new laws that must be unilaterally adhere to by all members (although I, as a member, intend to follow and abide by such bills as they are past as to fail to do so would jeopardize my membership) but to create or alter a facet of the government for it’s members as the recycling proposal did. It, while still maintaining the finality of a law, allows individual nations to comply with it as they see fit just so long as they can comply and provide documentation of doing so. But as far as the specifics such as the time frame of recycling or the amounts of times items must be re-recycled is best left up to the individual nations.

Thank you for considering my opinion, I plan on voting against this repeal and urge my fellow members of the UN to do the same.

Adam Kesher
Prime Minister of 0U812

OOC: As this is my fist post I’d appreciate as much constructive criticism as anyone is willing to offer. My telegram box is sadly always empty and I’d very much like that to change thanks!

No, no it doesn't. You missed the word 'all'.


Yeah - but if I want to do it in large groups, as opposed to small ones, I can. And if I want to have county wide centers as opposed to country wide centers, I can.

If I want people to recycle every day, and not every week, I can.

How is this not leaving it up to the nation?


Again, no it doesn't. It compels every nation to recycle in this bludgeoning fashion.


What fashion? Where does it specify in what fashion the stuff has to be recycled?


Nice to see such compassion for delevoping nations. Of course, the fact that they haven't got industrial capabilities is their fault, and they can just learn to rectify their silly error.


As opposed to piling up heaps of crap, that will not only pollute their nation, but every other nation on the planet? No progress is made without compulsion.


And if they don't know how? And if they can't afford them? They should be wasting their time on this, instead of, you know...buying food?


If the UN is in the business of making the world a better place, people can help them.

And when their entire country has been taken up with landfill, where are they going to get the food?


What about incineration? Space dumping? Reuse (which is not the same as recycling)? What about a sensible replacement which acknowledges that forcing all nations to exist in a state of perpetual recycling of every post-it note is actually more damaging than some controlled rubbish storage?


Burning it - that won't cause environmental damage at all.
Space dumping - just polluting another area instead of your own. Again - no environmental damage there.


Where does the resolution say 'used'?


It comes in common sense - I am not convinced any nation is going to make a battery, then recycle it without it being used. And if you are suggesting then the resolution suggests otherwise then I think the reasons for your support for the repeal become more obvious.



Again...didn't you leave?

Again?

And I did, but then I realised that the UN badly needed my moral guidance because you are turning it in to the 10th circle of hell. So I came back to provide a solid moral voice of the working class and the left-wing, so that the right-wing, conservative lunacy that is sweeping the world will be checked, if not entirely turned back.

Why do you all want to repeal this legislation. Surely you'd be doing a lot more good by simply amending it.
Having some kind of mandatory recycling scheme in the mean time of the bereaucratic process for bringing in a revised one is better than none at all for a potentially lengthy period of time.

Why do you all want to repeal this legislation. Surely you'd be doing a lot more good by simply amending it.
Having some kind of mandatory recycling scheme in the mean time of the bereaucratic process for bringing in a revised one is better than none at all for a potentially lengthy period of time.

The rules prohibit amendments, so that if we are unhappy with an existing Resolution's details its repeal -- & perhaps the subsequent passing of a more suitable replacement -- is the only way allowed in which we can change it.

*snip*

And I did, but then I realised that the UN badly needed my moral guidance because you are turning it in to the 10th circle of hell. So I came back to provide a solid moral voice of the working class and the left-wing, so that the right-wing, conservative lunacy that is sweeping the world will be checked, if not entirely turned back.

Actually, we're slowly fixing all of the damage caused by the left-wing fluffies.

And I did, but then I realised that the UN badly needed my moral guidance because you are turning it in to the 10th circle of hell. So I came back to provide a solid moral voice of the working class and the left-wing, so that the right-wing, conservative lunacy that is sweeping the world will be checked, if not entirely turned back.

Go tell it to someone who hasn't repealed UCPL and Right To Molest.

In any case, you might want to change the sig.

And I did, but then I realised that the UN badly needed my moral guidance because you are turning it in to the 10th circle of hell. So I came back to provide a solid moral voice of the working class and the left-wing, so that the right-wing, conservative lunacy that is sweeping the world will be checked, if not entirely turned back.

I can assure you that the moral voices of the right, center, left, homophobic, fascist, religious, fluffy, and other groups are all in very good hands. In fact, I would even argue that some of the left-wing thinkers in this forum would have second thoughts in recognising you as their moral voice. But I have the annoying habit of only speaking for myself, so I wouldn't know for sure.

And I did, but then I realised that the UN badly needed my moral guidance because you are turning it in to the 10th circle of hell. So I came back to provide a solid moral voice of the working class and the left-wing, so that the right-wing, conservative lunacy that is sweeping the world will be checked, if not entirely turned back.
Left wing; check, working class; check, respect for you; sadly missing in action.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

*snip*
In fact, I would even argue that some of the left-wing thinkers in this forum would have second thoughts in recognising you as their moral voice.
*snip*

Hell, I bet they're cringing at the thought.

The rules prohibit amendments, so that if we are unhappy with an existing Resolution's details its repeal -- & perhaps the subsequent passing of a more suitable replacement -- is the only way allowed in which we can change it.

What about proposing a new one straight away? Putting one there right next and ready before getting rid of this one, then ypu wouldn't be harming the posative benefits of what's already there?

What about proposing a new one straight away? Putting one there right next and ready before getting rid of this one, then ypu wouldn't be harming the posative benefits of what's already there?

Draft one yourself; there's nothing stopping you.

What about proposing a new one straight away? Putting one there right next and ready before getting rid of this one, then ypu wouldn't be harming the posative benefits of what's already there?


You could certainly get a proposed replacement drafted & discussed before submitting the repeal attempt, but there's a rule against duplication too which means that you'd have to be very careful about overlap between the two resolutions if you actually wanted to pass the second one before repealing its predecessor...

The resolution Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING" was passed 9,498 votes to 3,457.

Burn planet burn.

The resolution Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING" was passed 9,498 votes to 3,457.

Burn planet burn.

And there was much rejoicing.

Yey.

Yey.

"Jey" :p jk

Yes, yes. Hilarious. I too would like to congratulate the authors, whoever they are, for the passage of this bill, whatever it was.

[Rises, staggering, a shaky arm holding a glass of wine aloft:]

I raise my glass in your honor!

[Takes a sip.]

And now, also in your honor, I'd like to sing an old Kennyite folk song, which always makes my heart burst with pride:

[Clears throat, staggers, takes another sip of wine:]

She's my cherry pie!
Cool drink of water, such a sweet surprise!
Tastes so good, make a grown man cry!
Sweet cherry pie!

[Collapses over his desk, snoring.]

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

[OOC: Is there a particular reason this thread is still stickied?]

[OOC: Is there a particular reason this thread is still stickied?]

OOC: Arguably to give us the opportunity to listen to fine Omigodtheykilledkennian poetry. ;)

OOC: Poetry? It's a bloody awful Warrant song. :p

Probably because the forums crapped out before it could be fixed.