NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for the debate, refinement and general discussion of the proposed removal of Proposal #66, as well as seeking quorum. The issue restricts free trade and fails to give real benefits while increasing bureaucracy.


Removal of Proposal #66 (Illegal Logging)

Argument: Reestablishing: Each Individual country’s right to the maintenance and distribution of its individual natural resources.

Recognizing: Proposal #66 increases wood imports from non UN countries and hence gives little or no benefit to the world at large.

Recognizing: The proposal gave no checks or over site against The World Woodland Protection Team on issues of corruption or fraud.

Recognizing: Proposal #66 hinders trade among members of the UN.

Recognizing: that PROPOSAL #66 misrepresented certain trade as illegal; despite such trade being the sole responsibility of individual nations.

We propose the removal of RESOLUTION #66 "Illegal Logging"

Appalling: this is the single worst repeal I have ever read in my life, including those with no argument. I hope to Wena this initiative of yours doesn't get anywhere. Why not think up some actual arguments? (And why go for this one, when Replanting Trees is still extant?)

I hope to Wena
Just out of interest, who is this Wena? I recall you mentioning the name before, but the Search Engines haven't been much use.

Just out of interest, who is this Wena? I recall you mentioning the name before, but the Search Engines haven't been much use.
She is the goddess of Gruenberg's religion (and thus replace oh my God, for God's sake, etc.) I try to keep vague about anything more, so that I can twist her into providing a religious justification for my calling anything I don't like 'sacrilege'. I do mean, eventually, to write up an NSwiki article on my religion, or maybe do an RP about it...but annoying noobs in the UN forum is taking up too much of my time at the moment.

Appalling: this is the single worst repeal I have ever read in my life, including those with no argument. I hope to Wena this initiative of yours doesn't get anywhere. Why not think up some actual arguments? (And why go for this one, when Replanting Trees is still extant?)

The argument is that, not only was the document ill named in an effort to sway title readers, but that the document in its current form only goes to increase bureaucracy.

A "stamp" was put on all approved wood, but the real world corporate solution would be to not only move wood production to non-UN nations but to also move product production to non UN nations, where civil liberties are still hindered. The increased demand for production in the Non-UN countries would promote child/ forced labor. The bill does not address any restriction on UN countries to only use products created by WWP wood and hence only does harm to both UN Nation's economy and human rights.

If you want to get all "protect mother earth" on us, fine. That will still not make this an effective or useful piece of legislation.

Also, there is evidence to suggest that Trees produce methane which contributes heavily to global warming. For the record, I think that the "replant trees" proposal also needs to go eventually.

The argument is that, not only was the document ill named in an effort to sway title readers, but that the document in its current form only goes to increase bureaucracy.
Well um...why not actually say that in the repeal text. Because you say 'the argument is that...' but the argument clearly isn't that, or else you would have made it.

A "stamp" was put on all approved wood, but the real world corporate solution would be to not only move wood production to non-UN nations but to also move product production to non UN nations, where civil liberties are still hindered. The increased demand for production in the Non-UN countries would promote child/ forced labor. The bill does not address any restriction on UN countries to only use products created by WWP wood and hence only does harm to both UN Nation's economy and human rights.
Good argument. SO PUT IT IN THE REPEAL. Most people won't read this topic, or any topic. They'll just read the repeal text. In which you have not made this point, at all. (Although, in terms of industrial logging, I'm not so sure about the child labour argument...in manufacturing, perhaps._

If you want to get all "protect mother earth" on us, fine. That will still not make this an effective or useful piece of legislation.
Heh. Ok, I don't expect you know my track record as a delegate, but I'm not sure many would leap to paint me as a "protect mother earth" type, given my implacable opposition to every environmental resolution the UN has ever passed, barring one which made it easier for me to kill dolphins. It's precisely because I'm not a tree-hugger that I would prefer to see the vastly inferior Replanting Trees go first.

Also, there is evidence to suggest that Trees produce methane which contributes heavily to global warming. For the record, I think that the "replant trees" proposal also needs to go eventually.
Yeah, I wouldn't use that. A better argument would be this. Because of the decomposition processes natural to each forest, trees do not, as some suggest, act as a carbon dioxide sink and give out healthy fluffy oxygen, but in fact consume, by a net level of about 1%, oxygen.

Read the Replanting Trees resolution. I would hope such an astute business mind as yourself would pretty quickly see it needs to go first.

Rewrite this resolution. Replanting has little to do with forestry management. It should be rewritten so logging companies have to set aside a certain amount of their forests as permanent harvestable resources. Managed forests. There have been some forestry companies that have managed lands for hundreds of years in the Scandinavia and in Japan as well. Replanting does little to stop clear cutting. The land is permanently destroyed. Trees are a long term asset.