NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently on page two is a very significant bill which desperately needs support. It is called Industrial Byproduct Trade and would greatly benefit all members of the UN. Please endorse it so as to get it to the voting stage, and then the UN's voice will be heard.

If we must read it, I suggest you allow us to do so. In future, please post the text of your proposals.

Industrial Byproduct Trade
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation
Proposed by: New Danadia

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that severely constraining pollution laws already exist and are showing little benefit to humankind and/or the environment.
REALIZING that these extremely oppressive laws rob economies and industries of many opportunities to expand their businesses and provide jobs to the populace.
MAINTAINING laws for the protection of the environment are very important in sparing the world from uncontrollable pollution. However, they are overbearing and much too comprehensive for modern society's burgeoning economy.

Therefore, it is proposed that companies may trade pollution credits in order to better increase production, or make money by selling off credits to other companies.

This will not only increase business and bolster the economy, but it will also help the environment. If companies have to pay extra to pollute more, and environmentally conscious companies create additional revenue by selling these credits, eventually, most companies will try to pollute less in an effort to sell credits.

Then, limits for pollution can be tightened and the environment will reap the benefit.
I'm not sure what this does, given you don't define "pollution credits". Seems like there's something in this, though.

I don't see why it is a "must read" for delegates... it is not well defined or argued. There is merit to the idea, though. I recommend that if you have any ideas for resolutions in the future, you bring them around here; there are many long-time UN members who excel at making resolutions viable!

Towards that, for future versions, you may want to define what pollution credits are and how exactly they are used; that would make this far more intelligible.

A Must Read For All Delegates!

Why?

Currently on page two is a very significant bill which desperately needs support.

Significant bill? Sir, there has only been a handful of truly significant proposals this year and I'd be shocked if you truly have another one. The changes that most proposals make to this world are almost never significant in any meaningful way.

It is called Industrial Byproduct Trade

You're serious?

and would greatly benefit all members of the UN. Please endorse it so as to get it to the voting stage, and then the UN's voice will be heard.

No draft, I'm disliking this proposal already.

Industrial Byproduct Trade
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation
Proposed by: New Danadia

Yay, an environmental deregulation for a title that's suggesting trade

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that severely constraining pollution laws already exist and are showing little benefit to humankind and/or the environment.

Yep. And we seem to be repealing them as fast as possible

REALIZING that these extremely oppressive laws rob economies and industries of many opportunities to expand their businesses and provide jobs to the populace.

Um......ok.

MAINTAINING laws for the protection of the environment are very important in sparing the world from uncontrollable pollution. However, they are overbearing and much too comprehensive for modern society's burgeoning economy.

Considering the protection of the environment laws aren't stopping the destruction of the environment and slowing when doomsday will come, I'd say they aren't comprehensive enough while others are going "why bother then?"

Therefore, it is proposed that companies may trade pollution credits in order to better increase production, or make money by selling off credits to other companies.

Um.....what?

This will not only increase business and bolster the economy, but it will also help the environment. If companies have to pay extra to pollute more, and environmentally conscious companies create additional revenue by selling these credits, eventually, most companies will try to pollute less in an effort to sell credits.

Um.....huh? That's like a 1+1 = 14 claim. Besides, we already have a system where they can pay more to pollute. It's called fines

Then, limits for pollution can be tightened and the environment will reap the benefit.

Um.......no

eh,

1. Because he apparently believes it is important, who's going to read a proposal called "Hey guys why don't you come around and read this when you have time, its kinda cool."

2. Please try addressing the individual bill instead of generalizing all bills.

3. Obviously.

4. You're entitled to your opinion.

5. The theory (I believe) is that all companies would be assigned pollution credits that allow you to produce a specific amount of pollution. If you don't need all your pollution credits because you run a clean factory, you may trade your pollution credits to another company for cash. Therefore the cleaner companies would make more money than the dirty ones. Pollution is "industrial byproduct" so its essentially "Pollution Trading." so it makes perfect sense.

6. The current laws are ineffective, agreed.

7. People are starving because they can't get jobs due to the current UN pollution laws.

8. This is an outside-the-box proposal looking at the issue of pollution in a different way. Stricter isn't always better.

9. See 5 above.

10. See 8 and 5 above.

11. Actually, yes.

The proposal might need some work in its detail, especially in describing the pollution credit system, but otherwise, the system makes sense.

Overall, not a terrible start. Still, the NSUN tends to have a high threshold for proposals lately (a good thing, in my opinion), and even some of the best proposals benefit greatly from a drafting process. With that in mind, on to the proposal:

ACKNOWLEDGING that severely constraining pollution laws already exist and are showing little benefit to humankind and/or the environment.
REALIZING that these extremely oppressive laws rob economies and industries of many opportunities to expand their businesses and provide jobs to the populace.
MAINTAINING laws for the protection of the environment are very important in sparing the world from uncontrollable pollution. However, they are overbearing and much too comprehensive for modern society's burgeoning economy.

First off, it will likely cause trouble in future debates to make statements that are not easily verifiable. In some nations, "severely constraining pollution laws" may be having an enormous "benefit to humanking and/or the environment". Those nations may very well oppose this proposal because the very first sentence is, for them, not true.

Second, your "extremely oppressive law" may very well be an act designed to keep basic social order intact in another nation. It's another thing entirely to say that most, if not all, past environmental resolutions are disastrous monstrosities that obliterate national economies as a general principle. Certainly they can have an effect, but it is possible to run a solid green economy. Trust me, this is not the desired debate for the proposal. Introductory clauses should (in my opinion) frame the debate of the operative clauses (that tell nations what to do).

Therefore, it is proposed that companies may trade pollution credits in order to better increase production, or make money by selling off credits to other companies.

"Pollution credit" will have to be defined within this resolution because the term is not understood in the context of the NSUN.

This will not only increase business and bolster the economy, but it will also help the environment. If companies have to pay extra to pollute more, and environmentally conscious companies create additional revenue by selling these credits, eventually, most companies will try to pollute less in an effort to sell credits.

Then, limits for pollution can be tightened and the environment will reap the benefit.

This should be rephrased and turned into introductory clauses. These arguments (right or wrong) help to frame the debate. Your argument then becomes, "Introduce pollution credits and allow their trade so that nations can pick and choose what level of environmental protection they desire."

Side note: If there is another resolution that already does this (I don't know of one off the top of my head), then this cannot be passed for reasons of resolution duplication.

OOC: Interesting - taking the RL carbon trading market principle and applying it more generally to pollution. Needs a lot of work, plus I'm not keen on the slavishly pro-business rhetoric.

It needs work, as the other commentators here have already said, but I do think that something useful could be done with the basic idea involved.

eh,

Might want to use the quote system, then I know what you're referring to

1. Because he apparently believes it is important, who's going to read a proposal called "Hey guys why don't you come around and read this when you have time, its kinda cool."

How about instead he titles it "SUBMITTED: Industrial Byproduct Trade"? His arrogance in proclaiming his proposal is worth any more time than a replacement to Scientific Freedom, a new Divorce Resolution, a Repeal to UNR #24, or a campaign to eventually outlaw same-sex marriage is absolutely ridiculous. Hence, my question.

2. Please try addressing the individual bill instead of generalizing all bills.

Again, I'm targetting his attitude. He's trying to claim a great importance to this proposal (and BTW, I'm sure you're puppet wanking here because you and the author are the only two identities I've ever seen use the term bill in 11 months - quite amazing really). I don't care if he's proud of it, he doesn't have the right to claim that. Attempts to claim uniqueness, greatness, excellence, or many other things annoy me. I want a dry comment like "I've submiited this, tell me what you think". Anything else brings an attitude.

3. Obviously.

I'm merely expressing my disbelief that someone brought this concept forth.

4. You're entitled to your opinion.

I stick to my opinion. It needs work. It doesn't belong on the floor. It needs more time being drafted to be even worthy of being voted on. I've seen a handful of proposals with that little drafting actually have the quality for a resolution, and all were done by long-time proposal writers.

5. The theory (I believe) is that all companies would be assigned pollution credits that allow you to produce a specific amount of pollution. If you don't need all your pollution credits because you run a clean factory, you may trade your pollution credits to another company for cash. Therefore the cleaner companies would make more money than the dirty ones. Pollution is "industrial byproduct" so its essentially "Pollution Trading." so it makes perfect sense.

Nope. Free trade makes more sense. You aren't deregulating anything, you're putting an extra level of bureaucracy in place. That's called ADDING regulations. Environmental deregulation is putting a proposal together saying "No company should be forced to replant trees after they've clear cut an acre of forrest".

6. The current laws are ineffective, agreed.

7. People are starving because they can't get jobs due to the current UN pollution laws.

*Blinks*

Aside from being contradictory, point out which of these laws is actually causing people to starve.

8. This is an outside-the-box proposal looking at the issue of pollution in a different way. Stricter isn't always better.

While at the same time making boistrous claims about what it can achieve and proving a failure for the author to understand the reality of the way this world works. If you want, I could certainly explain to you why it would actually increase pollution rather than decrease it.

9. See 5 above.

10. See 8 and 5 above.

Oh look, I criticized both

11. Actually, yes.

Pfft

The proposal might need some work in its detail, especially in describing the pollution credit system, but otherwise, the system makes sense.

If it needs work, it should go BACK to drafting stage and get those points fixed.