NationStates Jolt Archive

Waste Disposal Covenant

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Fonzoland

Description: APPALLED at the environmental and public health risks posed by irresponsible waste disposal,

COMMENDING all efforts to minimise these risks by recycling or responsible waste disposal, yet

NOTING that the economic viability of recycling is driven by demand, technology, and other national circumstances,

REGRETTING that some nations do not possess the technology or resources necessary for responsible waste disposal,

DEEPLY AWARE of the multitude of personal and industrial waste products with different chemical characteristics, and of the variety of waste disposal techniques, most of which are only suitable for specific types of waste,

CONSCIOUS that legislation detailing specific technologies or processes is likely to be made obsolete by scientific progress,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'waste' as unwanted materials of little or no value that are generated by human activities,
- 'impact' as the negative aesthetic, public health, and environmental consequences of a certain practice,
- 'waste disposal' as the collection, transport, processing, storage, disposal, and destruction of waste with the purpose of minimising its impact,

The UN:

1. ADVISES member nations that the use of recyclable or biodegradable materials in industrial production can greatly reduce the cost and impact of waste disposal;

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to create public organisations, or to stimulate the creation of private organisations, capable of performing responsible waste disposal;

3. CREATES the UN Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), mandated to:
a) Establish, publish, and regularly update:
- a description of available waste disposal techniques (WDT), outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories,
- a list of recommended WDT for each category, taking into account technological and economic constraints, and their maximum permissible impact,
- a list of 'hazardous waste' categories, which pose serious health or environmental risks, or for which no satisfactory WDT exist,
- a list of banned WDT, deemed to pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations;
b) Officially certify the WDT of entities that request it, provided they meet said recommendations;
c) Perform regular and surprise inspections of certified entities to ensure said recommendations are strictly followed;
d) Research improved WDT with reduced impact or costs;
e) Advise upon request on the best WDT for each waste category;

4. REQUESTS that member nations contribute personnel, technology, knowledge, and funding to the WDA;

5. ENCOURAGES the use of recommended WDT;

6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
a) Prevent the use of banned WDT;
b) Impose economic and compensatory damages on any entity in their jurisdiction whose waste disposal practices are deemed to have a direct impact on other member nations, and promptly transfer collected damages to affected nations;
c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;

7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;

8. PROHIBITS:
a) International transfer of hazardous waste without the official consent of receiving nations;
b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;
c) Protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

Co-authored by the GTT

This will be brought to vote soon. But feel free to start debating, ask questions, demand a Kenny-style FAQ, or fume in exasperation if I ignore your demand.

EDIT: Then again, why not?

Why should we care?
Errr... it says so right there. Irresponsible waste disposal is damaging to the environment and to public health. It is also unpleasant, smelly, ugly, and annoying.

But isn't that too fluffy?
Yes.

Advises, encourages... does this proposal have any teeth?
Yes. It bans practices likely to affect other nations, forces polluting nations to pay if other nations are affected by their practices, regulates international transfer of waste, and allows more advanced nations to sell responsible waste disposal services to other nations.

How about NatSov? Don't I have the right to dump my trash wherever I want?
Notice that the only mandatory effects relate to international issues. NatSov concerns do not apply.

That is not enough! I want more!
Please state your concern in the form of a question.

Nitpicking again, hein? Didn't Ceo use that joke before? OK, what else does it do?
One of the most important parts of the Covenant is technological dissemination. The centralised Waste Disposal Authority will collect technology and knowledge from all member nations, and make them public. Of course some nations might choose not to share these technologies; however, it is in their best interest to have other nations using better disposal techniques, which do less damage to the world's environment. Alternatively, they can patent the techniques and provide them internationally, for the same practical effect.

But won't this destroy my economy?
Statwanker.

Come on, seriously, it will, right?
It is true that some individuals/companies/governments will incur some extra costs. However, an enormous stimulus is also given to the fledging industry of waste disposal, creating new jobs, developing new technology, etc. There are also gains to turism and property value from a cleaner environment. Finally, healthier citizens generate lower health bills and increased productivity. The aggregate effect will depend on the nation.

I know! Why don't we get rid of waste by <insert method>?
Remember, there are too many different methods in RL to be listed in this space. Furthermore, NS nations have a variety of different technology levels. What makes sense for a space-faring nation may be pointless for a medieval kingdom. This wording places the burden of listing all appropriate methods on the scientists and gnomes of the Waste Disposal Authority, not on the legislator.

Why am I still against this wonderful idea?
Beats me. Maybe you clicked the wrong link while voting?

Does this text make abortion legal?
Uh? What? No. Emphatically no. First of all, a fetus is not a "material." Second, a fetus is not considered to be of "little or no value" by most people, as recent debates have proven. Quite frankly, I find it ridiculous that you can seriously consider any fetus to be an "unwanted material of little or no value."
I know for a fact that everytime someone mentions abortion in a waste disposal thread, Kivisto feeds a puppy to a vegan white rhino, causing it to choke to death. Be reasonable, and for the love of God, think of the vegan white rhinos!

ctf: if you refer to a post i made earlier to the space junk, you may see a possible solution to this problem as well...

For reference, the suggestion was space dumping. It doesn't strike me as particularly cost effective (the amount of energy spent taking waste to orbit could arguably be used incinerating it), but might be an option for FT nations and very hazardous materials. If so, such would be a recognised waste disposal technique, and treated accordingly.

Will be voting for of course.

Obvious vote for. It even dovetails a bit from NERA...

Bringing up more posts.

Voted, 'For'.

Voted, 'For'.
How? It's not up for vote yet.

How? It's not up for vote yet.

http://www.kasterborus.com/tardis/tardis/tardis16.jpg

:p

Must the UN have its hands in EVERYTHING? This UN is simply becoming the biggest bureaucracy known to man! Nations can handle their own waste. Yes, waste is bad but do we really need a UN resolution to tell us to do something about it? Nations need to take the initiative and do things on their own and not count on the UN to stipulate everything they can and cannot do.

The UN is supposed to dip its hands where it is needed, not everywhere it can.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value ability to act autonomously of the UN to vote this UNNEEDED proposal down that we might actually view a resolution worthy of our time.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Ministry of Communication and Public Relations

Must the UN have its hands in EVERYTHING? This UN is simply becoming the biggest bureaucracy known to man! Nations can handle their own waste. Yes, waste is bad but do we really need a UN resolution to tell us to do something about it? Nations need to take the initiative and do things on their own and not count on the UN to stipulate everything they can and cannot do.
Which is probably why this is a largely non-mandatory resolution. Would you prefer we went back to "Mandatory Recycling" and "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning"?

Furthermore, you can't dispute there are international ramifications to waste disposal. Who, in such instances, is better placed to arbitrate such issues than the UN?

The UN is supposed to dip its hands where it is needed, not everywhere it can.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value ability to act autonomously of the UN to vote this UNNEEDED proposal down that we might actually view a resolution worthy of our time.
This proposal doesn't stop you writing a worthy one. What's it to be about?

What about this clause in the resolution:

Originally posted by Fonzoland
7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;[/]

Why should member nations pay for directly impacting (with their waste disposal techniques) nations outside the U.N? Cleary a non member nation which does impact a member nation with its unsafe WDT will not be brought to justice and pay for impacting on member nations. Since those states outside the U.N do not sign this convention surely they should not be protected by it otherwise you are penalising nations for being in the U.N and protecting rogue states.

Why should member nations pay for directly impacting (with their waste disposal techniques) nations outside the U.N? Cleary a non member nation which does impact a member nation with its unsafe WDT will not be brought to justice and pay for impacting on member nations. Since those states outside the U.N do not sign this convention surely they should not be protected by it otherwise you are penalising nations for being in the U.N and protecting rogue states.
That's probably why it's only "urges": it's not a compulsory clause. You don't have to compensate non-members..

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'waste' as unwanted materials of little or no value that are generated by human activities,?


Thus one can say it makes ABORTION legal... as some may consider an unwanted child 'waste' generated by 'human activities'.. thus also would possibly open the door to recycling the 'waste' generated by human activities...

OOC: I'm tired so this just hit me this way sorry if some don't see it..

IC: Taking my tired arse to bed to think on this one some more.. before decide on it.. but it looks good but for this part...

Where would this "Waste" go then?

I agree with The Rogue Nation of Vispilio, This resolution is just silly. There is no definition for WDT. What is banned and what is allowed. Do we pass this resolution and let a load of 'crats then decide what is allowed and what is not? Put some clarity in this if you want my vote for it.:mad:

Why is there such a problem with stuff in space? Maybe because there are more alien life forms, they will notice this junk, and understand there is life on this planet. Why not leave well enough alone? Voted: against.

Dictator: Ace Livantis
Nation: TRNOESO
Believe you missread the actual proposal as it deals with planet based stuff/waste not space stuff/waste. As the one on space junk was some place else not here but delt with stuff/waste hanging over planets that could possibly became land based stuff/waste.

Her Holiness Aristhia considers this a worthy cause, able to deal with nations of a wide variety of technology levels. She has instructed me to vote FOR.

OOC: Though I had to vote the last option. Most humorous.

Must the UN have its hands in EVERYTHING? This UN is simply becoming the biggest bureaucracy known to man! Nations can handle their own waste. Yes, waste is bad but do we really need a UN resolution to tell us to do something about it? Nations need to take the initiative and do things on their own and not count on the UN to stipulate everything they can and cannot do.

The UN is supposed to dip its hands where it is needed, not everywhere it can.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value ability to act autonomously of the UN to vote this UNNEEDED proposal down that we might actually view a resolution worthy of our time.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Ministry of Communication and Public Relations

Read the FAQ, please. There I explain that the only mandatory parts (ie the ones the UN bureaucracy does not let you ignore) relate to international issues. Like throwing your toxic chemicals on some other nation. UN mediation is clearly needed to prevent these practices. And personally, I wouldn't go down the "worthy of our time" route if I were you: might persuade some delegates to use their ignore list.

What about this clause in the resolution:

Why should member nations pay for directly impacting (with their waste disposal techniques) nations outside the U.N? Cleary a non member nation which does impact a member nation with its unsafe WDT will not be brought to justice and pay for impacting on member nations. Since those states outside the U.N do not sign this convention surely they should not be protected by it otherwise you are penalising nations for being in the U.N and protecting rogue states.

Your point is valid (if a little cynical), and that is the exact reason why that clause is not imposed. URGES is optional. Read it like "The UN thinks this would be a nice thing to do, would be really happy if you did it, but will not slap your wrist if you decide against it."

Of course, if you do decide to start dumping trash on non-member nations, they are free to go to war against you for that reason. And frankly, I would agree with their actions.

Thus one can say it makes ABORTION legal... as some may consider an unwanted child 'waste' generated by 'human activities'.. thus also would possibly open the door to recycling the 'waste' generated by human activities...

OOC: I'm tired so this just hit me this way sorry if some don't see it..

IC: Taking my tired arse to bed to think on this one some more.. before decide on it.. but it looks good but for this part...

The answer is no. Even if a fetus is unwanted by the mother, you are basing yourself on the wrong premise that everyone in society considers a fetus to have little or no value. Also, considering a human organ/independent person/however you see the fetus as being "materials" is quite a strech (what some would call semantic wanking). After an abortion is performed, the dead tissue removed from the mother is indeed medical waste, unless someone desires to treat it as a corpse (which again, fails the condition of having little or no value, since people wish to have it in a specified location to pay tribute).

Where would this "Waste" go then?

I am not sure I understand you. The whole Resolution is about getting rid of waste.

I agree with The Rogue Nation of Vispilio, This resolution is just silly. There is no definition for WDT. What is banned and what is allowed. Do we pass this resolution and let a load of 'crats then decide what is allowed and what is not? Put some clarity in this if you want my vote for it.

First, this resolution is not silly. You might disagree with it, but it endured a decent drafting process with some feedback from valuable members of this community.

Second, there is a definition for "waste disposal," I would argue that waste disposal techniques should be pretty unanbiguous.

Finally I direct you to the FAQ, and the Resolution itself. There are past tech nations where a method is essential, but it might be severely obsolete for future tech ones (an example is ocean dumping). Listing methods would not only be infeasible (there are too many, if you want sharp definitions) but make the law fragile, in the sense that it would become obsolete with scientific progress and would be inadequate for nations with different technology.

Oh, forgot. The WDA is composed of scientists, not bureaucrats.

Oh, forgot. The WDA is composed of scientists, not bureaucrats.
Hey, all he said was 'crats. So, stock it up with plutocrats, aristocrats, democrats, autocrats, hierocrats, stratiocrats and thalassocrats to your hearts content, and he's still right. Or you could just go with technocrats.

Ecopoeia has voted in favour of this resolution.

It's been a while since I've been able to say that.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Voted Against, could be better written I find it slightly ambiguous after reading the debate mostly when you can tell how abortion is legal from it. It's a good proposal but I feel it needs more and not necessarily a change of technology because then you never get anywhere perfect. If you have the un itself give out technology to all of it's nations and don't worry about non un nations then perhaps I would have voted yes. But my job market is already under attack from my anti corporation politics and it doesn't need more trouble.

Also how can you encourage that we use safe WDT methods and then also say we have to a line later. It seems like this document is an utter disaster in both preparation and usage. I agree we should have safe WDT methods only but you have written this in a way that it sounds like we don't have to yet we do, I vote for a rewriting of the document and I will definitely vote yes.

How? It's not up for vote yet.

http://www.kasterborus.com/tardis/tardis/tardis16.jpg

:p

OOC: Oops! My secret is out...

Must the UN have its hands in EVERYTHING? This UN is simply becoming the biggest bureaucracy known to man! Nations can handle their own waste. Yes, waste is bad but do we really need a UN resolution to tell us to do something about it? Nations need to take the initiative and do things on their own and not count on the UN to stipulate everything they can and cannot do.

The UN is supposed to dip its hands where it is needed, not everywhere it can.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value ability to act autonomously of the UN to vote this UNNEEDED proposal down that we might actually view a resolution worthy of our time.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Ministry of Communication and Public Relations

We share the concern of the honorable representative of Vispilio that the NSUN often meddles in matters best left to national, state/provincial, or even local governments to handle. Too often, the idea seems to be: "Hey! We can make a law about this. That means we should."

We don't believe that is the case with this resolution, however. Disposal of waste is truly an international issue, since improper disposal can have serious harmful effects beyond the borders of a nation. The resolution has been very carefully crafted to take reasonable and effective measures to help solve the problem.

Ausserland has voted for this resolution. It has our unreserved support.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Voted Against, could be better written I find it slightly ambiguous after reading the debate

The reasons for ambiguity have been laid out previously in the debate as well as in the FAQ.

mostly when you can tell how abortion is legal from it.

Please reread the previous post about how stating such is essentially stating that you believe that the foetus is of no value to anyone etc.

It's a good proposal but I feel it needs more

What would you suggest? Perhaps your concerns can be dealt with.

and not necessarily a change of technology because then you never get anywhere perfect.

Which is one of the reasons for the ambiguity in the proposal. Differing tech level nations make that a must.

If you have the un itself give out technology to all of it's nations

The UN isn't your mother handing you your allowance. This proposal supports the sharing of information and technology between the nations of the UN, allowing everyone access to it.

and don't worry about non un nations then perhaps I would have voted yes.

The only mention of non-UN nations is an URGE. A sugestion, if you will. You can ignore that bit if you don't like it.

But my job market is already under attack from my anti corporation politics and it doesn't need more trouble.

As stated in the FAQ, with the induction of this proposal into law, it will boost certain sectors of the economy and broaden the job market, quite possibly bolstering your economy.

Also how can you encourage that we use safe WDT methods and then also say we have to a line later.

After rereading the proposal, I'm not sure I understand which section and/or clauses you are referring to. Perhaps I am misreading. Please clarify.

It seems like this document is an utter disaster in both preparation and usage.

How so?

I agree we should have safe WDT methods only

Glad to hear it.

but you have written this in a way that it sounds like we don't have to yet we do, I vote for a rewriting of the document and I will definitely vote yes.

As it is already up for vote, unfortunately it is too late for a rewrite. However, perhaps if we can allay any concerns you have, we might be able to gain your support yet.

Fairly obviously, Kivisto is voting FOR

OOC: I am somewhat surprised to find myself on the same side of a debate with Ecopoeia.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

OOC: First Gruenberg, now Kivisto? C'mon, Kenny and Cluich - let's shake the universe to its roots!

I realize the need for ambiguity but I also realize a need to make this document more legable, sadly it can't be and I'll end up complying anyways I've accepted that by now I am just wondering how it will turn out when it's all said and done. My thoughts at the same time are that you just completely showed the fault of this document. Different levels of technology that means that some nations won't be able to clean up as well as others so we still could have a problem. You say the united nations isn't ment to give us our allowance, I agree but if we are to work on a world wide project everyone needs the same materials I would say otherwise the problem still lives.

This is a pretty good proposal.
But, I* have to say, the wording is a bit melodramatic for my taste. I mean "deeply aware?" C'mon guys.
I'll vote for this one, but I'd like to see it a little more polished.

--Rooty

Voted Against, could be better written I find it slightly ambiguous after reading the debate mostly when you can tell how abortion is legal from it.

I am sorry, I answered the abortion point once, and I refuse to go there again. If you can't understand the difference between fetus and waste, vote against.

It's a good proposal but I feel it needs more and not necessarily a change of technology because then you never get anywhere perfect. If you have the un itself give out technology to all of it's nations and don't worry about non un nations then perhaps I would have voted yes.

Funny. The resolution does have the UN (through the WDA) giving technology to all member nations, and it doesn't mandate anything regarding non-members. Confused maybe?

But my job market is already under attack from my anti corporation politics and it doesn't need more trouble.

I am sure there is an argument hidden somewhere, but I can't find it. The job market???

Also how can you encourage that we use safe WDT methods and then also say we have to a line later.

Please quote the contradictory statements. I am not seeing them.

It seems like this document is an utter disaster in both preparation and usage.

Whatever. Why don't you write a proposal for us? Then we can decide which one is the utter disaster. Talking about contradictions, you have described the Resolution as 'good' and 'an utter disaster' in the same post.

I agree we should have safe WDT methods only but you have written this in a way that it sounds like we don't have to yet we do, I vote for a rewriting of the document and I will definitely vote yes.

Maybe you have read it in a way that does not correspond to what is written. In any case, you cannot vote for a rewrite. You can vote for, against, or abstain. I hope that clarifies things.

you are basing yourself on the wrong premise that everyone in society considers


The whole Resolution is about getting rid of waste.

I said some not everyone in my comment but if you feel all of society will comply with your proposal and thus get rid of waste... you are basing this on the wrong premise.. The NSUN is not all nations in NS that polute; thus you might find them dumping their waste on your nation.

As long as 'some' don't care we will have 'waste' in this world just like we will have some who might see a child as a 'waste material' and abort it then use the results for profits.. and call it recycling.


Don't get me wrong I feel we need to do something about killing ourselves by poluting the worlds we live in. Thus at times we need a little something to get us headed down the right path to do that. As until we get all of society moving in the same direct to a clearer world then.. we will never get rid of all the 'waste'.. this is just one small step as I see it in getting folks headed in one direction, or some of them.. as know we can't reach all of NS..

I realize the need for ambiguity but I also realize a need to make this document more legable, sadly it can't be and I'll end up complying anyways I've accepted that by now I am just wondering how it will turn out when it's all said and done. My thoughts at the same time are that you just completely showed the fault of this document. Different levels of technology that means that some nations won't be able to clean up as well as others so we still could have a problem. You say the united nations isn't ment to give us our allowance, I agree but if we are to work on a world wide project everyone needs the same materials I would say otherwise the problem still lives.


For the differing levels of technology, the proposal allows that not all nations will be able to perform WDT's as well as others. It also allows for nations to share or trade technologies and information with each other to help bridge the technology gap. In such a way, we might all be able to work with roughly the same materials on this worldwide concern.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

This is a pretty good proposal.
Thanks.

But, I* have to say, the wording is a bit melodramatic for my taste. I mean "deeply aware?" C'mon guys.
I'll vote for this one, but I'd like to see it a little more polished.
Deeply aware is a well accepted preambulatory clause, I am sure you can find it in previous legislation. The initial statements (before "The UN") are meant to present an argument; I don't think the term has any particular emotional charge.
I do agree, however, that some members of this assembly show no signs of being deeply aware (or aware at all) of that particular fact.

This is a pretty good proposal.
But, I* have to say, the wording is a bit melodramatic for my taste. I mean "deeply aware?" C'mon guys.
I'll vote for this one, but I'd like to see it a little more polished.

--Rooty

Glad to hear of your support. Sorry you don't like how aware the author wishes us to be.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

You guys have won me over, but I'm still wary we can work together but I just hope your might becomes a definite.


As for why I ran over I was going to debate against you that we might be able to get everyone together then I realized of course we couldn't if I wouldn't help either and others were like me. You're right I will gladly share my resources to try and help everyone else.

I said some not everone in my comment but if you fill all of society will comply with your proposal and thus get rid of waste... you are basing this on the wrong premise.. The NSUN is not all nations in NS that polute; thus you might find them dumping their waste on your nation. As long as 'some' don't care we will have 'waste' in this world just like we will have some who might see a child as a 'waste material' and abort it then use the results for profits.. and call it recycling.


Don't get me wrong I feel we need to do something about killing ourselves by poluting the worlds we live in. Thus at times we need a little something to get us headed down the right path to do that. As until we get all of society moving in the same direct to a clearer world then.. we will never get rid of all the 'waste'.. this is just one small step as I see it in getting folks headed in one direction, or some of them.. as know we can't reach all of NS..

OOC: I beg of you to use some proper punctuation. My brain can't take too much of that.

IC: As we cannot legislate in any way that affects non-UN nations, we must, unfortunately, restrict ourselves with the betterment of the world with our own works and actions within it. No we cannot get rid of all the waste in the world, but we can sure cut down on our part of it.

OOC: Why do I feel a soft fuzz growing all over my body.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

I said some not everyone in my comment but if you feel all of society will comply with your proposal and thus get rid of waste... you are basing this on the wrong premise.. The NSUN is not all nations in NS that polute; thus you might find them dumping their waste on your nation.

Yes. There is little we can do to change the way non-members behave. Let's see:
- We cannot ban torture because non-members still torture.
- We cannot enforce fair trials because non-members do not have them.
- We cannot make any sort of legislation because it isn't binding on non-members.
Why do we have a UN in the first place? There has to be a reason... searching... found it.
Before: Members and non-members can dump trash in Zeldon 6229 Nodlez without punishment.
After: Only non-members can dump trash in Zeldon 6229 Nodlez without punishment.
Are you seriously arguing that you prefer this effort to fail?

As long as 'some' don't care we will have 'waste' in this world just like we will have some who might see a child as a 'waste material' and abort it then use the results for profits.. and call it recycling.

Yes, we will still have waste. Your point? [One more white rhino just died, aren't you ashamed?]

Don't get me wrong I feel we need to do something about killing ourselves by poluting the worlds we live in. Thus at times we need a little something to get us headed down the right path to do that. As until we get all of society moving in the same direct to a clearer world then.. we will never get rid of all the 'waste'.. this is just one small step as I see it in getting folks headed in one direction, or some of them.. as know we can't reach all of NS..


So, your proposed solution is: We need to do something about it, so we do absolutely nothing until such time when all nations belong to the UN. That doesn't make sense.

It is impossible to write a resolution to get rid of all the waste. What you have here is a resolution that reduces the negative effects of waste in member nations. Take it or leave it.

EDIT: FAQ updated.

Whoa fonzoland you just offended me even, just because a non nmember doesn't have to do what we do doesn't mean they don't. You talk as if all non member nations commit torture and dump garbage in other nations. I see non members as just to this world as the UN has the ability to be. My district has both and while I'm not their representative I am deeply offended at what you at pointing at.

Now you can say their is an enviromental issue but don't dare put it on the heads of nonmember nations.

-Mr. Ragan
sNooVa of Darkness

Yes, we will still have waste. Your point? [One more white rhino just died, aren't you ashamed?]


OOC: The only reason there isn't coffee on my computer monitor right now is because I had already swallowed. LMFAO.

Whoa fonzoland you just offended me even, just because a non nmember doesn't have to do what we do doesn't mean they don't. You talk as if all non member nations commit torture and dump garbage in other nations. I see non members as just to this world as the UN has the ability to be. My district has both and while I'm not their representative I am deeply offended at what you at pointing at.

Now you can say their is an enviromental issue but don't dare put it on the heads of nonmember nations.

-Mr. Ragan
sNooVa of Darkness

My apologies on behalf of our colleague. He is feeling a little tempermental right now with the defense of this proposed resolution. I'm sure he intended no offense, simply wished to demonstrate that we can't base what we at the UN legislate upon by what effect it will have on non-members.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Whoa fonzoland you just offended me even, just because a non nmember doesn't have to do what we do doesn't mean they don't. You talk as if all non member nations commit torture and dump garbage in other nations. I see non members as just to this world as the UN has the ability to be. My district has both and while I'm not their representative I am deeply offended at what you at pointing at.

Now you can say their is an enviromental issue but don't dare put it on the heads of nonmember nations.

-Mr. Ragan
sNooVa of Darkness

You totally missed my point. Zeldon was arguing that we cannot enforce effective legislation because it is not binding on non-members. I was showing the fallacy in that argument. My words were not meant to be insulting to non-members.

I like non-members. They are cute and fluffy and fun. Yay.

Why dont we impose immedait sanctions on those countries not willing to comply with UN regulations regarding Waste dumpage, torture, etc?

Alright I am sorry I perhaps over reacted, but this is the problem of having the UN we are a governing force who doesn't procede over everyone so what is our use besides friendly contact between each other.

First, this resolution is not silly. You might disagree with it, but it endured a decent drafting process with some feedback from valuable members of this community.
I would argue that it is silly, We simply do not need another resolution removing power from nations to deal with this issue on there own terms. Who is dumping what on whom?

Second, there is a definition for "waste disposal," I would argue that waste disposal techniques should be pretty unanbiguous.
Right, they should be but they are not. This allows for a scheme of making the rules as you go along. In order for this to be effective it must contain and outline procedures.

Finally I direct you to the FAQ, and the Resolution itself. There are past tech nations where a method is essential, but it might be severely obsolete for future tech ones (an example is ocean dumping). Listing methods would not only be infeasible (there are too many, if you want sharp definitions) but make the law fragile, in the sense that it would become obsolete with scientific progress and would be inadequate for nations with different technology.
Thank you for making my point. You are suggesting that technical issues and more or better science could make the methods obsolete. Exactly the reason that each nation should be allowed to deal with waste within the confines of there own budgets and technical advances. Unless of course the UN is willing to fund underdeveloped countries disposal. If you do not define methods for disposal then it is an empty law. If you want a law preventing a specific act then propose it. ie. ocean dumping, etc.
Oh, forgot. The WDA is composed of scientists, not bureaucrats.
or scientific bureaucrats

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio commends the delegate from Shelby Forest.

The NSUN has gone too far in trying to dictate the way things should be done. Vispilio recognizes that many places have problems with waste dumping. Vispilio recognizes that nations have the right not to be dumped on by any nation. That does not mean there needs to be a NSUN resolution stating so. It is absurd to think that without such a resolution it would be legal for a nation to unilaterally decide to dump its waste on another nations soil.

This is an issue the NSUN need not concern itself with. We are grateful that nearly none of this resolution is enforceable because we feel it is our right to deal with our waste as we see fit. If it happens to coincide with anything in this resolution, then it is purly that: coincidence.

Again, the Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value their autonomy to vote this needless resolution down.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

I'm voting aginst this bill.

1) it interferes with the autonomous nature of my government and region. Many in my region regect the UN even because they pefer to rule themselves and not be "meddled" with
2) Reconizing that Improper waste disposal is bad for business. The corporations have manged acceptable methods in wich to dispose of thier waste without all the need for bureaucratic redundancy interfering with the free market.
3) By starting the bill with APPALLED REGRETTING and DEEPLY AWARE it seems more of a popular political grandstanding in an attempt to appeal to emotions rather then allowing the facts of the law speak for itself.

First, this resolution is not silly. You might disagree with it, but it endured a decent drafting process with some feedback from valuable members of this community.
I would argue that it is silly, We simply do not need another resolution removing power from nations to deal with this issue on there own terms. Who is dumping what on whom?

Alright. I was trying to be nice previous to this, but for the love of whatever you please.... We are dealing with an international issue. Even if nobody is dumping anything on anybody else on purpose, the fact remains that the amount of waste being produced by the world could stand to be reeduced and such a reduction would be beneficial to all of us.

Second, there is a definition for "waste disposal," I would argue that waste disposal techniques should be pretty unanbiguous.
Right, they should be but they are not. This allows for a scheme of making the rules as you go along. In order for this to be effective it must contain and outline procedures.

Techniques will change over time. Eventually they would change and evolve to a point that any legislation that explicitly describes certain techniques would be more of a hindrance than anything else in the long run. Furthermore, with the different tech levels represented in NSUN, anything that mandates anything about specific technology will find itself lost in a barrage of "that's too advanced" AND "that's too archaic" at the same time. You would know this had you taken the time to actually read the resolution, the FAQ, as well as preceeding posts.

Finally I direct you to the FAQ, and the Resolution itself. There are past tech nations where a method is essential, but it might be severely obsolete for future tech ones (an example is ocean dumping). Listing methods would not only be infeasible (there are too many, if you want sharp definitions) but make the law fragile, in the sense that it would become obsolete with scientific progress and would be inadequate for nations with different technology.
Thank you for making my point. You are suggesting that technical issues and more or better science could make the methods obsolete. Exactly the reason that each nation should be allowed to deal with waste within the confines of there own budgets and technical advances. Unless of course the UN is willing to fund underdeveloped countries disposal. If you do not define methods for disposal then it is an empty law. If you want a law preventing a specific act then propose it. ie. ocean dumping, etc.

Actually, the point being made is that with this resolution and it's allowing for different tech levels and budgets as well as the sharing of information and technology and techniques, this resolution WON"T BECOME OBSOLETE OR EMPTY with the further development and evolution of technology, information, techniques, etc. You would know this had you actually read any of the material instead of just popping in looking to pick a fight over something you obviously don't understand and aren't willing to take the time to think about or even bother reading the discussion in question.

Oh, forgot. The WDA is composed of scientists, not bureaucrats.
or scientific bureaucrats

Go away,

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/troll.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio commends the delegate from Shelby Forest.

The NSUN has gone too far in trying to dictate the way things should be done.

The purpose of the UN, it could very easily be argued, is that, as a community of international proportion, of legislating on iinternational matters or issues that have international impact. The UN is fully within that purview to legislate on this matter as Waste Reduction is something that affects us all.

Vispilio recognizes that many places have problems with waste dumping.

Good. We have a framework for understanding here as that is what this proposal deals with.

Vispilio recognizes that nations have the right not to be dumped on by any nation.

Good. We have a framework for understanding here as that is what this proposal deals with.


That does not mean there needs to be a NSUN resolution stating so.

The idea isn't that there needs to be one, but that this resolution could be of benefit to all of us, which it would.

It is absurd to think that without such a resolution it would be legal for a nation to unilaterally decide to dump its waste on another nations soil.

Show me where in the legislature it says that we can't. Simply because it would or should be common sense that such things are illegal doesn't make them so.

This is an issue the NSUN need not concern itself with.

Of course not. An international issue with international repercussions that can only be dealt with internationally. What is the international legislative community thinking?

We are grateful that nearly none of this resolution is enforceable because we feel it is our right to deal with our waste as we see fit.

You are essentially saying that you wish to dump your waste in haphazardous ways with no regard as to where, who or what is affected by your actions. Perhaps you should reconsider your position within the UN if that is the way you feel about your neighbours and the rest of us that are forced to share the planet with you.

If it happens to coincide with anything in this resolution, then it is purly that: coincidence.

Or perchance some of your own scientists and the like will have discovered the value of the tenets of this resolution and adopted them as being beneficial. If such is the case, good for them.

Again, the Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value their autonomy to vote this needless resolution down.

If you are that concerned about your autonomy over something that's designed to benefit the health and well-being of your populace, you may be in time to catch the next bus HOME to tell your people that you had a hand in ensuring that the governments autonomy was protected at the cost of their lives, their lands, and the welfare of their very future.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

I'm voting aginst this bill.

1) it interferes with the autonomous nature of my government and region. Many in my region regect the UN even because they pefer to rule themselves and not be "meddled" with
2) Reconizing that Improper waste disposal is bad for business. The corporations have manged acceptable methods in wich to dispose of thier waste without all the need for bureaucratic redundancy interfering with the free market.
3) By starting the bill with APPALLED REGRETTING and DEEPLY AWARE it seems more of a popular political grandstanding in an attempt to appeal to emotions rather then allowing the facts of the law speak for itself.

If your nation has managed such wonderful accomplishments, then cudos to you and yours. Well done. This proposal will do next to nothing to affect your country as a result. There are, however, a great many countries who have not accomplished such things and they could stand to greatly benefit from such legislation. If we cannot convince you to actively support this proposal as it won't affect Sad lil Hill much, at least consider abstaining instead of standing in the way of what would be a great boon to a great many others.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Are we going to move the trash to the moon? I really want to move the trash to the moon. Could we, could we please?

Ace Livantis
Dictator of TRNOESO

To: The Constitutional Monarchy of Kivisto
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant

To the The Constitutional Monarchy of Kivisto,

From your message you have made it apparent that you have very little understanding of our message to these United Nations.

By even a cursory examination of our earlier submittance you would see that we are in no way against the proper disposal of all wastes.

We are opposed to the idea that these United Nations feel that it might be necessary to put their hand in an issue that can clearly be handled without the oversight of this ever growing buerocracy.

We in Vispilio are acutely aware of the rammifications of the improper disposal of wastes. We would support any resultion that clearly defined itself as only dealing with international rammifications pertaining to this issue.

This resolution (while we understand the majority of it is not binding upon us) seeks to tell a nation what exactly it can and cannot do with its waste. The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is completely able to care for its own waste, we neither need nor desire any international meddling in this regard.

It is our primary concern that the NSUN should concern itself with issues worthy of its purview. As Ausserland said, the NSUN often makes laws simply because it can, rather than the fact that it should. While Ausserland is free to feel and debate that this is such an issue, we too are free to express the oposite point of view.

It is the view, belief, and declaration of this Rogue Nation of Vispilio that the NSUN need not meddle in such affairs that are by nature national, and not international. The Rogue Nation of Vispilio again calls upon all nations to vote this resolution down.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

While the People of Bansheez see a need to promote waste controls, they see no real "authority" in this measure. While the idea of working together to bring about now technologies is beneficial, there is no requirement for member nations to help fund or share technology. The People see a need for a stronger worded document in order to enforce the ideas stated therein. We also did not tie "waste" together with abortion until reading the statements debated by other countries. That's just not right! We thank you.

I would argue that it is silly, We simply do not need another resolution removing power from nations to deal with this issue on there own terms. Who is dumping what on whom?

You fail to grasp the idea of Sovereignty. The Resolution respects the rights of doing whatever you want inside your borders, not damaging other nations. It restricts your right to do things that damage other nations. This is one of the main purposes of the UN; if you don't like it, go away.

snip
Whatever. If you don't understand the proposal... I. Don't. Care.

OOC: Please master the ways of the quote box. Your post made my head hurt.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio commends the delegate from Shelby Forest.

Really? Must be a religious thing...

The NSUN has gone too far in trying to dictate the way things should be done.

Totally irrelevant for the debate.

Vispilio recognizes that many places have problems with waste dumping. Vispilio recognizes that nations have the right not to be dumped on by any nation.

Good, good.

That does not mean there needs to be a NSUN resolution stating so.

Is this some sort of Zen thought of the day? If
a) some nations dump waste with international impact;
and
b) nations have the right to be protected from dumping;
then the logical conclusion is
c) we need a UN resolution to regulate dumping.

It is absurd to think that without such a resolution it would be legal for a nation to unilaterally decide to dump its waste on another nations soil.

The only absurd thing here is your awareness of the law. I challenge you to tell me whose authority, what commission, or which law makes dumping on other nations illegal.

This is an issue the NSUN need not concern itself with. We are grateful that nearly none of this resolution is enforceable because we feel it is our right to deal with our waste as we see fit. If it happens to coincide with anything in this resolution, then it is purly that: coincidence.

I am afraid you will have to leave the UN if this baby passes. You see, it mandates you to do stuff. Really, I am not kidding. And these unpleasant fellows, the Gnomes, come around at night and rewrite all your legislation. Now, isn't that nasty?

Again, the Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon all nations that value their autonomy to vote this needless resolution down.

I am relieved that delegates with your level of arguments tend to have difficulties finding the "Vote Against" button in their desks.

To: The Holy Empire of Fonzoland
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant

Your position on this document is clear. We would ask, however, that you review our full stance on this document before attempting to comment upon ours.

It is that stance of this nation that this resolution goes far beyond the bounds which the NSUN should it attmepting to regulate the day to day affairs of its member nations.

It is clearly a breach of international borders for a nation to dump its waste on the soil of another nation. Such a dispute should immedaitely be brought to the NSUNSC.

It is this nation's view that any resolution that deals simply and concisely with international law pertaining directly and concisely with internationas waste incidents is a matter worthy of the purview of the NSUN.

We are grateful that the authors of this document left the majority of the language as optional for nations to follow, and very little of it mandatory, this is what was spoken of when we refused to recognize and nonbinding statements in this resolution.

We would ask that The Holy Empire of Fonzoland's Minisiter of Communication or your equivalent post please review the full stance of any nation prior to commenting upon any such nations stances on a topic.

Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communication and Public Relations.

To: All in favor of this law
From: The Theocracy of sNooVa
Subject: I say down with this law

Your treatment of countries who are against this law has become despicable as of late, as for your ideas and wants well they are all good but what about our people, perhaps we aren't completely in good terms with your items. I said earlier I would vote yes to try, but I feel you are abusing your powers against many people. You have got your Resolution up to vote, I myself look forward to seeing if it goes down or is sunk. I am a believer of karma as is my people and we hope to see you get yours for getting so angry about other peoples opinion. As for this document well it has been horribly written and could have used more items of use as stating actual nations who have had this trouble. I can retract this whole resolution at a later date and myself will offer the court case as a complete and utter source of showing how this can eradicate jobs that are very useful and necessary to an economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of the Theocracy of sNooVa

To: All in favor of this law
From: The Theocracy of sNooVa
Subject: I say down with this law

Your treatment of countries who are against this law has become despicable as of late, as for your ideas and wants well they are all good but what about our people, perhaps we aren't completely in good terms with your items. I said earlier I would vote yes to try, but I feel you are abusing your powers against many people. You have got your Resolution up to vote, I myself look forward to seeing if it goes down or is sunk. I am a believer of karma as is my people and we hope to see you get yours for getting so angry about other peoples opinion. As for this document well it has been horribly written and could have used more items of use as stating actual nations who have had this trouble. I can retract this whole resolution at a later date and myself will offer the court case as a complete and utter source of showing how this can eradicate jobs that are very useful and necessary to an economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of the Theocracy of sNooVa

We would suggest to the representative of sNooVa that he might want to be a bit cautious about making such broad statements about members of this Assembly. His comment is addressed to "All in favor of this law". Ausserland firmly supports the resolution, but we have said nothing in this debate that would display any anger.

We also disagree strongly with his assertion that the resolution is "horribly written". We believe it to be a particularly well-written and carefully thought out proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Representative of sNooVa is sorry for any inconvenience to any in favor of this resolution who have not gotten out of line, but this resolution has definitely not gone well for the UN and would fit better as piece of legislation for each nation respectively

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa

The one thing about this proposal that I'm concerned with is recycling. Its not going to change my nations laws to require or punish my nation for not recylcling? Most recycling is done with public funds and I feel that my people are arleady taxed to much. Besides only steal and aluminum recylcing have any profit margine to them and yeild less emsions then recycling the original products (paper and plastic do create more by-products in recycling then cutting down trees and catalizying oils to make them new, respectively)

The Representative of sNooVa is sorry for any inconvenience to any in favor of this resolution who have not gotten out of line, but this resolution has definitely not gone well for the UN and would fit better as piece of legislation for each nation respectively

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa

The Ausserland delegation accepts the courteous apology of the representative of sNooVA.

On the issue of the appropriateness of this resolution, we believe we are going to have to agree to disagree. As many in this Assembly know, our delegation is very critical of what we consider unwarranted interference in national affairs. We believe that the NSUN should pass legislation only when it has true international implications and the issue needs to be dealt with on an international level. We believe this resolution meets those criteria. Air pollution from improper burning respects no national borders. Thoughtless ocean dumping can affect any and all nations whose shores lie on that body of water. Ausserland does not view this resolution as an improper interference with the sovereignty of our nation and will willingly comply with its provisions when it passes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

To: Ausserland
From:sNooVa
Topic: Complete Agreement

But in this case we are saying no dumping our garbage in other nations while this is actually a very powerful form of export in some cases as proven in the Philadelphia New Jersey supreme court case. Philadelphia shipped garbaged to be taken care of in New Jersey and when New Jersey tried to stop it the supreme court ruled in the side of Philadelphia.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa

To: Ausserland
From:sNooVa
Topic: Complete Agreement

But in this case we are saying no dumping our garbage in other nations while this is actually a very powerful form of export in some cases as proven in the Philadelphia New Jersey supreme court case. Philadelphia shipped garbaged to be taken care of in New Jersey and when New Jersey tried to stop it the supreme court ruled in the side of Philadelphia.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa
UN =/= US. UN resolutions really don't have much to do with US Supreme Court decisions.
Aside from the fact that that was a decision regarding states of a nation, and this is a matter of nations.

To: Ausserland
From:sNooVa
Topic: Complete Agreement

But in this case we are saying no dumping our garbage in other nations while this is actually a very powerful form of export in some cases as proven in the Philadelphia New Jersey supreme court case. Philadelphia shipped garbaged to be taken care of in New Jersey and when New Jersey tried to stop it the supreme court ruled in the side of Philadelphia.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa
OOC - So? NSUN =/= US Supreme Court. Further, NS =/= RL. Third, US Supreme Court =/= always right. Finally, citation please? If you're going to mention a court case, at least name it; a summary of the ruling would be better, and a link best of all...

To: Ausserland
From:sNooVa
Topic: Complete Agreement

But in this case we are saying no dumping our garbage in other nations while this is actually a very powerful form of export in some cases as proven in the Philadelphia New Jersey supreme court case. Philadelphia shipped garbaged to be taken care of in New Jersey and when New Jersey tried to stop it the supreme court ruled in the side of Philadelphia.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa

We would point out to the honorable representative of sNooVa that this is the world of NationStates, not the mythical land of the United States. We are not bound to follow the rulings of the US Supreme Court or even agree with them. We believe that, if a nation dumps waste on another and it damages the unfortunate recipient, the people who did the dumping should be made to pay the price -- just as this resolution requires. And if a nation dumps hazardous waste on an unsuspecting neighbor without permission, it should be considered a crime under international law -- just as this resolution states.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

god I hate knowing tidbits of knowledge then everyone asking for a source, I'll get one in a second as for your point true Ausserland but at the same time this doesn't properly say what kind of dumping is going on it's just a hypothetical situation but even then couldn't they be dumping it in a better WDT area one that is far superior to their own.

As I understand it, if you are dumping with the consent of the other country, that would be quite alright. If you do not have consent that would be a crime. Surely it doesn't hurt to ask first?

To: Alll who inquire
From: UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Topic: Court Case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=437&invol=617

This is a classic court case and shows how prevention of moving waste from one "nation" or "state" to anouther can be harmful to the commerce of a privately owned landfill and in doing so hurts a nation's economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Ministry of Odd Knowledge

True it wouldn't but this act prevents it completely so that severs nation to nation job offerings.

True it wouldn't but this act prevents it completely so that severs nation to nation job offerings. Basically this prevents international commerce depending on your usage of the word waste such as recycling even, or feed for swine.

But under the terms of the proposal, neither recycling nor pig food would classify as waste. Non sequitur.

To: The Holy Empire of Fonzoland
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant

The correct title is The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland. We are quite secular, and quite democratic.

Your position on this document is clear. We would ask, however, that you review our full stance on this document before attempting to comment upon ours.

My position is indeed very clear. Heck, I wrote the thing, so I kind of like it a bit. But I have reviewed your position carefully.

It is that stance of this nation that this resolution goes far beyond the bounds which the NSUN should it attmepting to regulate the day to day affairs of its member nations.

It does not. It only regulates issues which have direct international impact. That is well within the mandate of the UN by any standards or ideologies. The other points are very reasonable suggestions, but you are free to ignore them if you want to destroy your own environment, or be hostile to non-members.

It is clearly a breach of international borders for a nation to dump its waste on the soil of another nation. Such a dispute should immedaitely be brought to the NSUNSC.

The NSUNSC, you say? Please quote the legislation establishing the NSUNSC, whatever it is. And the point that gives it power to mediate on such issues. Until you provide such evidence, I will ignore such institution as a misfortunate consequence of excessive alcohol consumption.

It is this nation's view that any resolution that deals simply and concisely with international law pertaining directly and concisely with internationas waste incidents is a matter worthy of the purview of the NSUN.

Hmmm... I hope you are not suggesting that this resolution is too complex and long for you to vote for it. If so, I will be happy to direct you to the FAQ, which tries to explain its effects to the more, uh, time-constrained delegates.

We are grateful that the authors of this document left the majority of the language as optional for nations to follow, and very little of it mandatory, this is what was spoken of when we refused to recognize and nonbinding statements in this resolution.

I see. Well, none of the optional points seem reasonable to enforce against the will of a member nation. So, you have every right to ignore them, if they are clearly unsuitable for your nation. A blanket disregard for them out of nationalistic pride seems less sensible, but hey, what you do in your nation is none of my business.

We would ask that The Holy Empire of Fonzoland's Minisiter of Communication or your equivalent post please review the full stance of any nation prior to commenting upon any such nations stances on a topic.


You are repeating yourself. I try, I honestly try, to respect the full stance of any opposer to my positions. It becomes harder when they misuse the noble ideal of National Sovereignty to reject regulation of International issues.

Sincerely,
The Minister of Statements for Ministers who Desire Official Recognition (MSMDOR) of Fonzoland

To: Alll who inquire
From: UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Topic: Court Case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=437&invol=617

This is a classic court case and shows how prevention of moving waste from one "nation" or "state" to anouther can be harmful to the commerce of a privately owned landfill and in doing so hurts a nation's economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Ministry of Odd Knowledge
OOC - The ruling in Philadelphia et al v. New Jersey et al rests on interpretation of the interstate commerce clause; said clause doesn't matter in terms of nations.

To: All in favor of this law
From: The Theocracy of sNooVa
Subject: I say down with this law

Your treatment of countries who are against this law has become despicable as of late, as for your ideas and wants well they are all good but what about our people, perhaps we aren't completely in good terms with your items. I said earlier I would vote yes to try, but I feel you are abusing your powers against many people. You have got your Resolution up to vote, I myself look forward to seeing if it goes down or is sunk. I am a believer of karma as is my people and we hope to see you get yours for getting so angry about other peoples opinion. As for this document well it has been horribly written and could have used more items of use as stating actual nations who have had this trouble. I can retract this whole resolution at a later date and myself will offer the court case as a complete and utter source of showing how this can eradicate jobs that are very useful and necessary to an economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of the Theocracy of sNooVa

You see, I don't have any "powers." All I have is arguments. If you say it is karma that will make this fail, who am I to fight it? If you say the resolution is horribly written, what hope is there? If you say nations will lose jobs, how on Earth can I persuade national leaders to support me? And yet, I persist, armed only with my words. May the best force win.

[/arrogant (if slightly poetic) tirade]

The one thing about this proposal that I'm concerned with is recycling. Its not going to change my nations laws to require or punish my nation for not recylcling? Most recycling is done with public funds and I feel that my people are arleady taxed to much. Besides only steal and aluminum recylcing have any profit margine to them and yeild less emsions then recycling the original products (paper and plastic do create more by-products in recycling then cutting down trees and catalizying oils to make them new, respectively)

This is not a Resolution about recycling, although recycling is briefly mentioned. There is nothing telling you what/how/how much to recycle.

To: Ausserland
From:sNooVa
Topic: Complete Agreement

But in this case we are saying no dumping our garbage in other nations while this is actually a very powerful form of export in some cases as proven in the Philadelphia New Jersey supreme court case. Philadelphia shipped garbaged to be taken care of in New Jersey and when New Jersey tried to stop it the supreme court ruled in the side of Philadelphia.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa

Ah, but you see, our complete stances are not so different after all. If you read carefully the last statement of the Resolution, it actually encourages international trade of waste disposal services. Those just need to be certified to assure the will not damage the receiving nation. If what you desire is to stimulate trade in waste disposal services, look no further than the WDC.

To: Alll who inquire
From: UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Topic: Court Case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=437&invol=617

This is a classic court case and shows how prevention of moving waste from one "nation" or "state" to anouther can be harmful to the commerce of a privately owned landfill and in doing so hurts a nation's economy.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan from sNooVa
Ministry of Odd Knowledge

We thank the representative of sNooVa for providing the link to the case he cited. We have two comments. The first is simply to say again that this is not the mythical land of the US, and US Supreme Court decisions need have no weight in our deliberations.

We sould also point out that the sole basis for the Court's decision was that the action of New Jersey violated the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. That clause applies to commerce between states of a single nation, which the Supreme Court believes the framers saw as a single economic entity. That clearly does not apply to the member states of the NSUN.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

didn't we vote on something like this like a month ago or something?

You see, I don't have any "powers." All I have is arguments. If you say it is karma that will make this fail, who am I to fight it? If you say the resolution is horribly written, what hope is there? If you say nations will lose jobs, how on Earth can I persuade national leaders to support me? And yet, I persist, armed only with my words. May the best force win.

[/arrogant (if slightly poetic) tirade]


Arrogant yet extremly beautiful lol and yes I did seem to have missed that final line, as for the comments about it disrupting commerce that's what I thought this resolution does if it doesn't then I truely have no power against it and I wish fonzoland the best at it just be calmer and stop with the attacking. My usage of the court case was exactly about that the stopping of jobs through use of this yet it does actually have alot in common if you look at UN nations in a region who are close together then you do still have an international commerce issue that could be stopped by this resolution unless proper clauses are instated. So if Fonzoland can at least be calmer in this situation I think all is well and we will be well set.

To prevent the debate from getting muddled by false claims, I will do a slow reading of Article 8.

Scenes from previous chapters: The Resolution creates the distinction between certified entities (those that behave properly, treat waste the recommended way, and are regularly inspected by the experts), henceforth known as the good guys, and non-certified entities (those that for one reason or another are not using the correct methods of disposal, or refuse to be inspected by the experts), dubbed the bad guys that cannot be trusted. The Resolution also defines hazardous waste, henceforth know as the really nasty stuff


8. PROHIBITS:

That part doesn't need a slow reading. I hope. Everything that follows will stop happening.

a) International transfer of hazardous waste without the official consent of receiving nations;

If you want to send the really nasty stuff to another country, you have to say please.

b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;

The bad guys that cannot be trusted are not allowed to carry any waste across borders. In other words, you can only carry waste from/into any UN member if you are one of the good guys.

c) Protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

Wow. Look. If you are one of the good guys, you are allowed to get waste (and get paid) in any nation of the UN. Oh, the trade! Picture this. A bunch of the good guys going around the world, picking up all the waste, getting rid of it properly (they have to, because they are the good guys), and earning money with it. From the other side, you have the nations who are able to outsource waste disposal to any of the good guys. It's... it's... it's beautiful, isn't it?

Arrogant yet extremly beautiful lol and yes I did seem to have missed that final line, as for the comments about it disrupting commerce that's what I thought this resolution does if it doesn't then I truely have no power against it and I wish fonzoland the best at it just be calmer and stop with the attacking. My usage of the court case was exactly about that the stopping of jobs through use of this yet it does actually have alot in common if you look at UN nations in a region who are close together then you do still have an international commerce issue that could be stopped by this resolution unless proper clauses are instated. So if Fonzoland can at least be calmer in this situation I think all is well and we will be well set.

Please, please, please use some punctuation. And you can rest assured that I haven't lost my temper in this debate. (Yet.) This is my usual diplomatic self.

didn't we vote on something like this like a month ago or something?
Nope, one month ago we were voting on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. In fact, we haven't voted on an "Environmental" resolution since October 2005.

The NSUNSC, you say? Please quote the legislation establishing the NSUNSC, whatever it is. And the point that gives it power to mediate on such issues.
He must be talking about the Space Consortium. Not sure how that relates, but it's the only UNSC I know of.

We must deciede for our childerns sake. I mean for the love of our fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. We must make a bill that must be passed inorder to save this world, we were put in charge and we needto take care of it. If we dont there will be a war over this already insane subject. I must say that in my country we are adopting this and we will expect only the best form the UN.

We must deciede for our childerns sake. I mean for the love of our fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. We must make a bill that must be passed inorder to save this world, we were put in charge and we needto take care of it. If we dont there will be a war over this already insane subject. I must say that in my country we are adopting this and we will expect only the best form the UN.

Agreed. Thank you for your support.

For the love of God (the Father, the Son, and the Mother Daughter), think of the children! Vote FOR The Fluffy Compromise.

To: The MSMDOR of The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland, Member Nations of the NSUN
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant

We wish to thankyou for informing us of the recent change in your governments title.

It has never been said that what is contained in said document is outside of the formal purview of this assembly. It has been said that this assembly need not dip its hands into clearly national matters. This is the point of contention.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio contends:

This proposed resolution is beyond the bounds which NSUN need concern itself in the national affairs of its member nations.

There is a place for discussion on a strictly international resolution on waste management.

This proposed resolution, while it does contain such restrictions for international purposes, contains far too many attempts to regulate nations in noninternational matters to be allowed to pass.

By establishment of this NSUN it is not possible to ammend this resolution to an acceptable form.

Therefore:

The only reasonable matter of recourse is to vote down such a proposed resolution.

Furthermore:

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio asks The MSMDOR of The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland to refrain from making any insinuations as to the intelligence of this government or its officials. It is completly unfitting of a nation presenting a proposed resolution to this assembly to not readily listen to criticism posed to such a resolution. It is exactly the purpose of such an assembly to critisize each proposed resolution that the truth may be drawn out. The Rogue Nation of Vispilio has been careful to word its documents in a manner befitting of these United Nations that all may be treated respectfully.
The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon The MSMDOR of The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland to do the same.

Again, The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon member nations to vote down this proposed resolution. Thankyou.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

I agree with The Rogue Nation of Vispilio, This resolution is just silly. There is no definition for WDT. What is banned and what is allowed. Do we pass this resolution and let a load of 'crats then decide what is allowed and what is not? Put some clarity in this if you want my vote for it.:mad:
I agre with Shelby. It's extremely unclear. I don't such pieces of vague legislation among the other UN Resolutionsthat have already passed.

I agre with Shelby. It's extremely unclear. I don't such pieces of vague legislation among the other UN Resolutionsthat have already passed.
1. Have you read the passed resolutions list? This is perfectly clear compared to a lot of them.

2. Have you read any of the responses to Shelby Forest's query? It doesn't appear so.

Fermiparadoxia votes in favor of this resolution.

--
Titus Lucretius Carus Lucretius
U.N. Reresentative
The Most Sovereign and Holy Empire of Fermiparadoxia
Da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo Gallico fricta, ac quassum Coca

I cant vote for this. Im too busy letting all my businesses sell their waste to the drinking water companies. Waste is fun!!! (and it makes me money)

:gundge:

If the proposition is about the environment then why would are protections (tariffs etc.) be outlawed? Making protections illegal for business-free market reasons makes sense but not for area that is solely about the environment. Governments should be encouraged to subsidies waste control.

To: The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland
From: UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa
Subject: Horrible grammar

Please exscuse my last message in this forum it was late at night and to say the least I was running on fumes. As for your debating you do it well but sometimes you got to treat people who disagree with you a little differently, as for your propsal it seems to be doing better. I wish all of you luck and hope this proposal goes well now that it's been properly discussed to me.

Sincerely,
Mr. Todd Ragan
Ministry of Odd Knowledge,
UN Delegate of sNooVa

There is an old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." 'Tis sad, but true. I think it is important to remember that this board, rightly or wrongly is populated by idiots. I should know, because I've been one myself at times myself. People are trying to honestly defend their resolutions in this forum, and have to endure reading garbage trash from people who either can't or refuse to read the resolution as it is written, complaining about things that are not there, or simply ranting about nothing in general. In such an environment, one should be forgiven if one becomes a little terse and snippy. If this game were populated by customer service represetatives or elementary school teachers I would expect constant decorum in the face of such nonsense, but it's not so expect someone to take a bite at your finger if you wave it or point it at them. Such is life.

If the proposition is about the environment then why would are protections (tariffs etc.) be outlawed? Making protections illegal for business-free market reasons makes sense but not for area that is solely about the environment. Governments should be encouraged to subsidies waste control.

You are free to subsidise or encourage in any way responsible waste disposal practices. The first operative clause actually encourages that. The prohibition on protectionist devices just means your subsidies must only depend on the type of waste disposal practice, not on national origin of the disposing entity.

---

We wish to thankyou for informing us of the recent change in your governments title.

Oh, it is not that recent. In fact, we have never been a Holy Empire in the past. Moving on.

It has never been said that what is contained in said document is outside of the formal purview of this assembly. It has been said that this assembly need not dip its hands into clearly national matters. This is the point of contention.

So, you contend that this Resolution addresses "clearly national matters." Name the clause that addresses clearly national matters.

This proposed resolution is beyond the bounds which NSUN need concern itself in the national affairs of its member nations.

Name the clause that violates National Sovereignty.

There is a place for discussion on a strictly international resolution on waste management.

Indeed. Now, how I wish you had spent more time reading the text of the Resolution and the FAQ, instead of fighting strawmen and repeating falsehoods ad nauseam.

This proposed resolution, while it does contain such restrictions for international purposes, contains far too many attempts to regulate nations in noninternational matters to be allowed to pass.

Name the clause that regulates noninternational matters.

By establishment of this NSUN it is not possible to ammend this resolution to an acceptable form.

Name the clause you wish to ammend.

The only reasonable matter of recourse is to vote down such a proposed resolution.

Well, enjoy. Fortunately your position seems to be in minority thus far.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio asks The MSMDOR of The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland to refrain from making any insinuations as to the intelligence of this government or its officials.

Are insinuations on reading ability better? I can swich to those if it tickles your tummy.

It is completly unfitting of a nation presenting a proposed resolution to this assembly to not readily listen to criticism posed to such a resolution.

Oh, I listen. How could I attack you so effectively if I didn't listen?

It is exactly the purpose of such an assembly to critisize each proposed resolution that the truth may be drawn out.

And the truth is, my friend, that you are attacking the proposal based on things it does not do. You have attacked it repeatedly on that basis, without a shred of supportive evidence to your name. That is not criticism; that is uneducated whining.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio has been careful to word its documents in a manner befitting of these United Nations that all may be treated respectfully.
The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon The MSMDOR of The Excessive Nitpickers of Fonzoland to do the same.

Forgive me if I concentrate on content rather than form. Your form is perfectly diplomatic. Your content is an attempt to muddle this debate with false insinuations and unproven claims. My aggressiveness stems from the latter.

Again, The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon member nations to vote down this proposed resolution. Thankyou.

Oh noes!!111!1 Please don't!

---

I cant vote for this because I am a troll. <ugly smiley>

OK.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio contends:

This proposed resolution is beyond the bounds which NSUN need concern itself in the national affairs of its member nations.

There is a place for discussion on a strictly international resolution on waste management.

This proposed resolution, while it does contain such restrictions for international purposes, contains far too many attempts to regulate nations in noninternational matters to be allowed to pass.

Ausserland has long been deeply concerned about what we believed to be unwarranted intrusion of the NSUN into matters best left to national decision. We have expressed that concern many times in this forum.

We would ask the representative of Vispilio to point out specifically the "far too many attempts to regulate nations in noninternational matters" contained in this resolution. With the exception of clause 6a, we can find nothing which remotely fits that description.

The resolution focuses on matters which are clearly of international impact and concern and deserves support.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Are we going to move the trash to the moon? I really want to move the trash to the moon. Could we, could we please?

Ace Livantis
Dictator of TRNOESO
I don't know, have you talked to those nations on the moon to find out their opnions on the idea?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We thank the cuddly dwarves for their support. If I may, let me point out that clause 6.a) states:
6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
a) Prevent the use of banned WDT;
However, please note that "banned WDT" are those that "pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations." As such, this also refers to a clearly international concern.

We thank the cuddly dwarves for their support. If I may, let me point out that clause 6.a) states:

However, please note that "banned WDT" are those that "pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations." As such, this also refers to a clearly international concern.

We understand that, which is why we included "remotely".

As an aside to the distinguished representative of Fonzoland, may I point out that, while Ambassador Ahlmann might be described as "cuddly" and Minister Kapalaoa definitely is, Ambassador Barfanger and I certainly are not. :p

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This Resolutions has Norderia's support.

Even if it is decided that abortions are made legal by it (Heh heh, yeah right).

Props and a handshake go to Fonzo. The minor problems with the Resolution are negligable, and unnoteworthy. Well done.

Thank you for your support. However, I must inform you that poor little Shida is now an orphan. Shame on you!
http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/uncategorized/shidatherascal.jpg

The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is opposed to any intrusion of the NSUN into its matters of waste disposal. This includes the majority articles of this proposition.

Article 1 - While use of recyclable materials may lower the cost of waste disposal it may raise the cost of production by:
1: Introducing forgeign objects due to ineffecient or insufficent recycling methods.
2: Requires the use of either a greater amount of raw product or a finer grade of recycled product.
3: Requires increased base production time as the recycling of material must now be factored into production times and costs.

Article 2 - This article asks governments to create posts that may be totally unnecessary. It attempts to tell governments they should provide funding at least in part to waste management groups or ventures. It is up to each government how it deals with its nation waste management and this government refuses to accept any foreign interference on this matter. This government will not contribute to a needlessly growing buerocracy.

Article 3 - This article creates a larger buerocracy and forms more governmental posts. Unless and until there has been shown a need for such posts this government will not take part in such an authority nor will it abide by its needlessly created rules and regulations. Vispilio would not have nor would it accept any of these proposed "certified entities." Vispilio views this process as one that needlessly wastes a companies revenue by forcing it to comply with needless regulations. As such Vispilio will not ask its companies to take part in such an atrocity.

Article 4 - This article asks memeber nations to further fund a needless group attmepting to enact and enforce needless laws.

Article 5 - This article is acceptable other than that it refers to methods created by this group. Had it read "Encourages nations to to responsibly deal with their waste products" Vispilio would readily accept such an article.

Article 6 -
-Part A would, like article 5 be acceptable except that the termainoglogy relies upon the rest of this document. Should this part be capable of standing on it own it would be supported by Vispilio.
-Part B forms what might be a good resolution. This may be supported by Visipilio, depending upon its supporting information.
-Part C gives too much economic power over national entities. This proposed WDA could easily attempt to force a nation into complaince with whatever it passed with no matter of recourse for said nation. Should the abilities of the proposed WDA be limited, and an oversight process be set down, this could, possibly, be supported by Vispilio.

Article 7 - This is good, nations who cooperate in waste management should be properly compensated.

Article 8 -
-Part A is a sound idea and if it is not already enforced by national armed forces it should. While a good idea we believe this to already be enacted by the vast majority of these United Nations.
-Part B this attempts to force any NSUN nations, who may willfully and legally not participate, to participate if they wish to work together apart from the proposed WDA on waste management ventures.
-Part C is not a point of contention as is does not prevent non-participating nations from taxing these wastes.


This is a short summary of the argument against this needless proposition.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon member nations to vote down this proposal.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is opposed to any intrusion of the NSUN into its matters of waste disposal. This includes the majority articles of this proposition.

Article 1 - While use of recyclable materials may lower the cost of waste disposal it may raise the cost of production by:
1: Introducing forgeign objects due to ineffecient or insufficent recycling methods.

Ignoring your typographic error, I'm still not sure what you mean by "introducing forgeign sic objects due to inefficient or insufficient recycling methods". What foreign objects? How would using recyclable materials necessarily lead to the insertion of foreign objects? Do you mean to say that un-recycled and recycled objects would be mixed, to which I would say that if you find it more efficient to separate them then by all means do so. Indeed, the resolution encourages you to do so.

2: Requires the use of either a greater amount of raw product or a finer grade of recycled product.

Recycling will lead to greater use of raw products. I find this an interesting assertion, especially since it involves re-use of materials, saving on the need to find new materials for a product each occasion it is required to be manufactured. And by "finer grade of recycled product", do you mean that the product will have to be modified to make up for defficiencies in recycling?

3: Requires increased base production time as the recycling of material must now be factored into production times and costs.

All the more reason to contribute to the UN WDA, so more efficient, cost-effective techniques can be found.

Article 2 - This article asks governments to create posts that may be totally unnecessary. It attempts to tell governments they should provide funding at least in part to waste management groups or ventures. It is up to each government how it deals with its nation waste management and this government refuses to accept any foreign interference on this matter. This government will not contribute to a needlessly growing buerocracy.

Yeah, yeah, NatSov ranting as usual. Why don't you outsource your waste disposal to the private sector if you're so concerned about bureaucracy? Compadria wouldn't do it, (bureaucracy is what keeps our economy going), but there's nothing to prevent you doing it.

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to create public organisations, or to stimulate the creation of private organisations, capable of performing responsible waste disposal;

Article 3 - This article creates a larger buerocracy and forms more governmental posts. Unless and until there has been shown a need for such posts this government will not take part in such an authority nor will it abide by its needlessly created rules and regulations. Vispilio would not have nor would it accept any of these proposed "certified entities." Vispilio views this process as one that needlessly wastes a companies revenue by forcing it to comply with needless regulations. As such Vispilio will not ask its companies to take part in such an atrocity.

Dear God, the horror at being asked to not recklessly pollute the environment and place the health of your fellow citizens at risk. On a more capitalistic note, you can make waste-disposal a profitable business and won't companies save money through using more recycled goods?

Article 6 -
-Part A would, like article 5 be acceptable except that the termainoglogy relies upon the rest of this document. Should this part be capable of standing on it own it would be supported by Vispilio.
-Part B forms what might be a good resolution. This may be supported by Visipilio, depending upon its supporting information.
-Part C gives too much economic power over national entities. This proposed WDA could easily attempt to force a nation into complaince with whatever it passed with no matter of recourse for said nation. Should the abilities of the proposed WDA be limited, and an oversight process be set down, this could, possibly, be supported by Vispilio.

With regards to your answer for c, I sense a certain misrepresentation of the clause:

c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;

Article 8 -
-Part A is a sound idea and if it is not already enforced by national armed forces it should. While a good idea we believe this to already be enacted by the vast majority of these United Nations.

Yes, but the minorities aren't exactly entitled to be exempt are they.

-Part B this attempts to force any NSUN nations, who may willfully and legally not participate, to participate if they wish to work together apart from the proposed WDA on waste management ventures.

I share your concern partially, but not enough to disagree with the clause.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Your proposal has some good points but what about HOW PPL DISPOSE of NUCLEAR WASTE? ther should be set and reasonable methods of disposal of hazardous wastes.:headbang:

Your proposal has some good points but what about HOW PPL DISPOSE of NUCLEAR WASTE? ther should be set and reasonable methods of disposal of hazardous wastes.:headbang:

Yes, another resolution perhaps sir?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The Rogue Nation of Visipilio seems to turn wherever the wind blows. It is hard not to insult you if you claim:
It is this nation's view that any resolution that deals simply and concisely with international law pertaining directly and concisely with internationas waste incidents is a matter worthy of the purview of the NSUN.
... and then ...
The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is opposed to any intrusion of the NSUN into its matters of waste disposal.
I suggest you keep a diary to remember what your position is. Anyway, back to your misreading of the text.
Article 1 - While use of recyclable materials may lower the cost of waste disposal it may raise the cost of production by:
1: Introducing forgeign objects due to ineffecient or insufficent recycling methods.
2: Requires the use of either a greater amount of raw product or a finer grade of recycled product.
3: Requires increased base production time as the recycling of material must now be factored into production times and costs.
So what? Am I telling nations to recycle? No. I am not even suggesting it. This proposal is not about recycling at all. I am merely advising that recycling reduces waste disposal costs. You agree that it is a correct statement. And yet, you introduce a strawman to the debate, beefing it up with generalist statements about irrelevant topics.
Article 2 - This article asks governments to create posts that may be totally unnecessary. It attempts to tell governments they should provide funding at least in part to waste management groups or ventures. It is up to each government how it deals with its nation waste management and this government refuses to accept any foreign interference on this matter. This government will not contribute to a needlessly growing buerocracy.
A blatant lie. First of all, it is an optional clause, so governments can do whatever they want. Second, it encourages governments to stimulate organisations, public or private, to handle waste disposal. There is no need to create a single public job to follow this optional advice.
Article 3 - This article creates a larger buerocracy and forms more governmental posts. Unless and until there has been shown a need for such posts this government will not take part in such an authority nor will it abide by its needlessly created rules and regulations. Vispilio would not have nor would it accept any of these proposed "certified entities." Vispilio views this process as one that needlessly wastes a companies revenue by forcing it to comply with needless regulations. As such Vispilio will not ask its companies to take part in such an atrocity.
Another lie. First of all, UN commissions are not staffed by national public servants. Second, funding, staffing, and so on are voluntary by member nations. Third, your reasoning is idiotic. You think calling everything "needless" passes as an argument in this body? Think again. I presented an argument in the preamble for why responsible waste disposal is needed; the ball is still in your court.
Article 4 - This article asks memeber nations to further fund a needless group attmepting to enact and enforce needless laws.
Blah blah blah.
Article 5 - This article is acceptable other than that it refers to methods created by this group. Had it read "Encourages nations to to responsibly deal with their waste products" Vispilio would readily accept such an article.
Methods "created" by this group??? Learn to read. Please.
Article 6 -
-Part A would, like article 5 be acceptable except that the termainoglogy relies upon the rest of this document. Should this part be capable of standing on it own it would be supported by Vispilio.
Funny. As the not-so-cuddly dwarves said, this is the only clause that could remotely be interpreted as infringing on National Sovereignty by a careless reader. And yet, after all your whining about what the UN can or cannot do... you find it acceptable. As opposed to the outrageous infringement posed by the optional clauses. Very funny.
-Part B forms what might be a good resolution. This may be supported by Visipilio, depending upon its supporting information.
Why, thank you. But in all fairness, I must warn you that this clause is an intrusion of the NSUN into matters of waste disposal. A justified and reasonable intrusion, granted, but you contradict yourself yet again.
-Part C gives too much economic power over national entities. This proposed WDA could easily attempt to force a nation into complaince with whatever it passed with no matter of recourse for said nation. Should the abilities of the proposed WDA be limited, and an oversight process be set down, this could, possibly, be supported by Vispilio.
Amazing. You don't even know what the sentence means, do you? At their discretion means the clause is optional. These powers (or for that matter, everything outside Article 3) are not being given to the WDA. This clause actually says that national governments, if they feel it is the best thing to do, can punish offenders by more than compensating the costs for affected nations.
Article 7 - This is good, nations who cooperate in waste management should be properly compensated.
OK, school teacher hat. You obviously have no clue of what Article 7 is saying. What Article 7 actually does is the following. It suggests (not mandates) that member nations use the procedure of Article 6 (parts B and C) when the affected entities are not members of the UN, or when the consequences are strictly within their borders.
Article 8 -
-Part A is a sound idea and if it is not already enforced by national armed forces it should. While a good idea we believe this to already be enacted by the vast majority of these United Nations.
Silly you. The national armed forces do not enforce legislation; they wage war. If a nation with a bigger army than yours decides to dump their nuclear waste in your capital city (you know, the stuff left over from building gazzillions of OMG nookz), how would you "enforce" this clause? I would love to know.
-Part B this attempts to force any NSUN nations, who may willfully and legally not participate, to participate if they wish to work together apart from the proposed WDA on waste management ventures.
Reply to lie #1: Compliance is automatic. This Resolution will affect all member nations if it passes. If you don't like it, I suggest you quit. The UN is in dire need of office space anyway.
Reply to lie #2: Other than that, Part B does not force nations to "participate" in anything. It simply states that the transportation company you use to transfer waste from one nation to another is using responsible practices. If irresponsible entities are allowed to carry waste, they might have the temptation to, you know, dump the cargo in the ocean. Which makes it an international concern.
-Part C is not a point of contention as is does not prevent non-participating nations from taxing these wastes.
Part C is not about wastes, it is about waste disposal services. But yes, feel free to tax them.
This is a short summary of the argument against this needless proposition.
Thank you. I had a few good laughs. Note that you generally agreed with (or completely misunderstood) the compulsory clauses; then you argued that the optional ones are restricting your decision power.
The Rogue Nation of Vispilio calls upon member nations to vote up this proposal.
Thank you again.

Thank you for your support. However, I must inform you that poor little Shida is now an orfan. Shame on you!
http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/uncategorized/shidatherascal.jpg


Hey! You mentioned it first! If poor little Shida's an orphan now, it's because of your FAQ's.

The only white vegan rhino's I'm responsible for killing are ones without names, or cute pictures, thus absolving me of any shaming, contemptful looks from the General Assembly.

Given, I only scanned this thread very briefly, and as such I might have missed what I am ultimately requesting. But I have one request nonetheless.

Not a complaint, just a request.

Is there a report showing detrimental effects of "x" chemicals? Already I'm aware of the ambiguity. This, in my opinion, was a poorly written proposal. More importantly though is the fact that the only suggestion of "harm" (left undefined, by the way) I found were simple assertions that mysterious chemicals did mysterious things.

I want a report, with statistics, graphs, studies, the works, showing detrimental effects of chemicals that this proposal may classify as "harmful". Until I recieve a legitimate report, I stand in firm negation.

Is there a report showing detrimental effects of "x" chemicals? Already I'm aware of the ambiguity. This, in my opinion, was a poorly written proposal. More importantly though is the fact that the only suggestion of "harm" (left undefined, by the way) I found were simple assertions that mysterious chemicals did mysterious things.

I want a report, with statistics, graphs, studies, the works, showing detrimental effects of chemicals that this proposal may classify as "harmful". Until I recieve a legitimate report, I stand in firm negation.


There is more to this resolution than just the disposal of chemical waste. Normal waste is covered too. And If I'm not mistaken, the definition of "impact" is pretty clear about harm.

As for these reports and such, that's for the WDA to do.

Given, I only scanned this thread very briefly, and as such I might have missed what I am ultimately requesting. But I have one request nonetheless.

Not a complaint, just a request.

Is there a report showing detrimental effects of "x" chemicals? Already I'm aware of the ambiguity. This, in my opinion, was a poorly written proposal. More importantly though is the fact that the only suggestion of "harm" (left undefined, by the way) I found were simple assertions that mysterious chemicals did mysterious things.

I want a report, with statistics, graphs, studies, the works, showing detrimental effects of chemicals that this proposal may classify as "harmful". Until I recieve a legitimate report, I stand in firm negation.

You are saying that you are not aware of the dangers of storing nuclear waste in your cellar? Or of dumping toxic waste into drinking water reservoirs? Or of having a pit toilet in your bedroom? Or of releasing carbon monoxide into the atmosphere? Right, this is all mysterious mumbojumbo. You need a report, with pictures. Well, I for one cannot be bothered. Vote against, and make a nice cozy home in your local garbage dump. In case you are bored, you can always take something to read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_management)

To: Fonzoland
From: Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant


To the representative of Fonzoland,

You read your narrowly thought out views onto our document, and then support your own arguments with the same. If you would like to debate a point please attempt to see the issue outside of your nations narrow view.

Please recall our entire arguement when attempting to make a point against it. Please view our document outside of your bias. Until you can correctly interpret our document do not try to argue it. It is your folly you wish to wreak upon us all.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

You read your narrowly thought out views onto our document, and then support your own arguments with the same. If you would like to debate a point please attempt to see the issue outside of your nations narrow view.

Please recall our entire arguement when attempting to make a point against it. Please view our document outside of your bias. Until you can correctly interpret our document do not try to argue it. It is your folly you wish to wreak upon us all.
I have had about enough of this shit. The representative has been very - almost overly - patient with you. He presented a point-by-point rebuttal of your statement, and instead of responding to that, you merely accuse him of bias. Well of course he's biased - he wrote the damn proposal didn't he? So it's up to you to show where his bias is, to point out which arguments he has misinterpreted.

I won't respond to the majority of your points, because I think he has already addressed them, but I will suggest that you look at the first word in each clause in the proposal. If it is compulsory (REQUIRES/MANDATES/PROHIBITS) then you should be focussing on it; if it is voluntary (ENCOURAGES/URGES/REQUESTS) then it is of lesser importance, and it is not policy to the extent you have asserted.

Now, are you going to actually debate the proposal, or are you simply going to throw around random communiques repeating the same distortions and unfounded accusations?

~Moltan Bausch
Ambassador to the UN
Keeper of the THROBBING VEIN
Secretary of State for Penis Innuendos

Our delegation read the document submitted by the representative of Vesilio. We read it slowly and carefully. We found absolutely nothing in it that would cause us to question our support for this resolution.

We have no vested interest in this resolution and no reason to have a particular bias toward it. We support it 100% simply because we believe it is a sound, well-thought-out means of addressing a significant international issue.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: I am afraid I will be absent from NS for the rest of the vote. Whatever the outcome is, I would like to thank everyone who supported and helped draft this effort, here and in the many off-site fora where it was discussed. Members of the GTT, Reclamation, and IDU were especially helpful. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the help of the following nations in getting the WDC to quorum:
Yelda
Ceorana
Jonquiere-Tadoussac
Samaras
Wyldtree
Sheknu
Antrium
Groot Gouda

[/Oscar speech]

To: Fonzoland
From: Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant


To the representative of Fonzoland,

You read your narrowly thought out views onto our document, and then support your own arguments with the same. If you would like to debate a point please attempt to see the issue outside of your nations narrow view.

Um.....what? I think Gruen commented on that point nicely

Please recall our entire arguement when attempting to make a point against it. Please view our document outside of your bias. Until you can correctly interpret our document do not try to argue it. It is your folly you wish to wreak upon us all.

I will

Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

Party time:

-----------------------------

The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is opposed to any intrusion of the NSUN into its matters of waste disposal. This includes the majority articles of this proposition.

Alright, so anything that's mandatory you oppose, but anything that's not mandatory you remain, I guess, neutral.

Article 1 - While use of recyclable materials may lower the cost of waste disposal it may raise the cost of production by:
1: Introducing forgeign objects due to ineffecient or insufficent recycling methods.
2: Requires the use of either a greater amount of raw product or a finer grade of recycled product.
3: Requires increased base production time as the recycling of material must now be factored into production times and costs.

1. ADVISES member nations that the use of recyclable or biodegradable materials in industrial production can greatly reduce the cost and impact of waste disposal;

So what? Am I telling nations to recycle? No. I am not even suggesting it. This proposal is not about recycling at all. I am merely advising that recycling reduces waste disposal costs. You agree that it is a correct statement. And yet, you introduce a strawman to the debate, beefing it up with generalist statements about irrelevant topics.

The term I bolded, "can", is key. This is merely an advisement of other potential methods of disposal that nations (and, really, individuals/companies) could consider. I use the word consider because, yes, your points are correct in some cases. Various things can minimize the problems you've stated and there's other issues that could be addressed, but overall, your points are correct.

This proposal doesn't mandate/require/expect that you should recycle or even recycle all materials, but merely says that you may wish to consider such an alternative.

Article 2 - This article asks governments to create posts that may be totally unnecessary. It attempts to tell governments they should provide funding at least in part to waste management groups or ventures. It is up to each government how it deals with its nation waste management and this government refuses to accept any foreign interference on this matter. This government will not contribute to a needlessly growing buerocracy.

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to create public organisations, or to stimulate the creation of private organisations, capable of performing responsible waste disposal;

A blatant lie. First of all, it is an optional clause, so governments can do whatever they want. Second, it encourages governments to stimulate organisations, public or private, to handle waste disposal. There is no need to create a single public job to follow this optional advice.

As Fonzo said, it is optional and therefore, it isn't forcing or interfering with how your government manages its resources. The fact that it leaves it as encouragement pretty much says that "yes, there might be absolutely no need for this or you may find better ways to accomplish the goals of this resolution without creating these positions".

ENCOURAGES is always considered an optional clause. I suggest you learn that fact if you intend to have much influence over how the UN operates.

Article 3 - This article creates a larger buerocracy and forms more governmental posts. Unless and until there has been shown a need for such posts this government will not take part in such an authority nor will it abide by its needlessly created rules and regulations. Vispilio would not have nor would it accept any of these proposed "certified entities." Vispilio views this process as one that needlessly wastes a companies revenue by forcing it to comply with needless regulations. As such Vispilio will not ask its companies to take part in such an atrocity.

3. CREATES the UN Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), mandated to:
a) Establish, publish, and regularly update:
- a description of available waste disposal techniques (WDT), outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories,
- a list of recommended WDT for each category, taking into account technological and economic constraints, and their maximum permissible impact,
- a list of 'hazardous waste' categories, which pose serious health or environmental risks, or for which no satisfactory WDT exist,
- a list of banned WDT, deemed to pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations;
b) Officially certify the WDT of entities that request it, provided they meet said recommendations;
c) Perform regular and surprise inspections of certified entities to ensure said recommendations are strictly followed;
d) Research improved WDT with reduced impact or costs;
e) Advise upon request on the best WDT for each waste category;

Another lie. First of all, UN commissions are not staffed by national public servants. Second, funding, staffing, and so on are voluntary by member nations. Third, your reasoning is idiotic. You think calling everything "needless" passes as an argument in this body? Think again. I presented an argument in the preamble for why responsible waste disposal is needed; the ball is still in your court.

1) You seem confused at what is sitting within companies, within national governments and within the UN body. This committee sits within the UN body. All of its members are within the UN body.
2) Your company doesn't have to comply with anything from what is said in this article, provided it doesn't request any certification. If it does request certification....well....then the regulations apply. Oh well. This is merely a list existing of what is seen by the International Community as safe methods of disposal.

As Fonzo said, if you disagree with the preamble, you may be right in saying it's unnecessary - but then where do you disagree with the preamble?


Article 4 - This article asks memeber nations to further fund a needless group attmepting to enact and enforce needless laws.

4. REQUESTS that member nations contribute personnel, technology, knowledge, and funding to the WDA;

Blah blah blah.

I question the term "enforce". Enact? Sure. Needless? Depends on whether you agree or disagree with the preamble. Again, what do you disagree with the preamble on?

You don't agree with them, fine. Don't fund them. Don't provide knowledge. Don't provide staff. Don't provide technology. If you really feel bored, you could provide them with a few insulting phone calls. The clause is not mandatory. Enjoy

Article 5 - This article is acceptable other than that it refers to methods created by this group. Had it read "Encourages nations to to responsibly deal with their waste products" Vispilio would readily accept such an article.

5. ENCOURAGES the use of recommended WDT;

Methods "created" by this group??? Learn to read. Please.

Um....WDT's are "waste disposal techniques", therefore they are not created so much as they are approved by the WDA. It would be rather difficult to not use WDTs.......just WDTs that haven't been approved.

Article 6 -
-Part A would, like article 5 be acceptable except that the termainoglogy relies upon the rest of this document. Should this part be capable of standing on it own it would be supported by Vispilio.

6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
a) Prevent the use of banned WDT;

Funny. As the not-so-cuddly dwarves said, this is the only clause that could remotely be interpreted as infringing on National Sovereignty by a careless reader. And yet, after all your whining about what the UN can or cannot do... you find it acceptable. As opposed to the outrageous infringement posed by the optional clauses. Very funny.

I, personally, would LOVE to hear how you'd reword this one. If you're saying that bad procedures shouldn't be followed, who decides whether it's a bad procedure or not? Why couldn't an International body do this - since, after all, individual nations would have to consider the same procedures as many other nations in the UN, so having a single body from all nations consider these procedures would save a lot of money and time since the analysis would only have to be done once and the advice given once. Oh wow, I just justified the existance of the WDA. Or do you think a company should decide this? What's the moral guide to that company to determine whether it's a bad procedure or not? How would you ensure such? Please, I would love to hear your response.

-Part B forms what might be a good resolution. This may be supported by Visipilio, depending upon its supporting information.

b) Impose economic and compensatory damages on any entity in their jurisdiction whose waste disposal practices are deemed to have a direct impact on other member nations, and promptly transfer collected damages to affected nations;

Why, thank you. But in all fairness, I must warn you that this clause is an intrusion of the NSUN into matters of waste disposal. A justified and reasonable intrusion, granted, but you contradict yourself yet again.

While I partially disagree with Fonzo (I think there are portions here that prove to be rather NatSov friendly - since those issues are what some would call "International issues", but I'll let a NatSov verify), his comment is all that could be said.

-Part C gives too much economic power over national entities. This proposed WDA could easily attempt to force a nation into complaince with whatever it passed with no matter of recourse for said nation. Should the abilities of the proposed WDA be limited, and an oversight process be set down, this could, possibly, be supported by Vispilio.

c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;

Amazing. You don't even know what the sentence means, do you? At their discretion means the clause is optional. These powers (or for that matter, everything outside Article 3) are not being given to the WDA. This clause actually says that national governments, if they feel it is the best thing to do, can punish offenders by more than compensating the costs for affected nations.

Fonzo explained it pretty thoroughly, but some people just need to see how it connects.

In English, when we have a list like that, the portion that start's the list acts as the starting of a sentence while each item in the list acts as an ending for the sentence. You might consider it to be grouped startings of a sentence. So in this case, when we have
6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
followed by
c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;
, the result is that the power is given to the nation, not the WDA (which I note, was not mentioned ONCE in all of clause 6)

Article 7 - This is good, nations who cooperate in waste management should be properly compensated.

7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;

OK, school teacher hat. You obviously have no clue of what Article 7 is saying. What Article 7 actually does is the following. It suggests (not mandates) that member nations use the procedure of Article 6 (parts B and C) when the affected entities are not members of the UN, or when the consequences are strictly within their borders.

Fonzo said everything that needs to be said

Article 8 -
-Part A is a sound idea and if it is not already enforced by national armed forces it should. While a good idea we believe this to already be enacted by the vast majority of these United Nations.

8. PROHIBITS:
a) International transfer of hazardous waste without the official consent of receiving nations;

Silly you. The national armed forces do not enforce legislation; they wage war. If a nation with a bigger army than yours decides to dump their nuclear waste in your capital city (you know, the stuff left over from building gazzillions of OMG nookz), how would you "enforce" this clause? I would love to know.

Nonono, you fool! This entire issue is about trade, not matters of war. Border patrol and customs might, normally, address this matter, but it is simply making sure that no nations try and do a sneaky attempt at getting their waste into a different country.

-Part B this attempts to force any NSUN nations, who may willfully and legally not participate,

I'm breaking off here (yes, Fonzo addressed it) because this issue needs to be addressed first.

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

As you can see, they can't "legally" nor "willfully" disobey UN resolutions

to participate if they wish to work together apart from the proposed WDA on waste management ventures.

b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;

Reply to lie #1: Compliance is automatic. This Resolution will affect all member nations if it passes. If you don't like it, I suggest you quit. The UN is in dire need of office space anyway.
Reply to lie #2: Other than that, Part B does not force nations to "participate" in anything. It simply states that the transportation company you use to transfer waste from one nation to another is using responsible practices. If irresponsible entities are allowed to carry waste, they might have the temptation to, you know, dump the cargo in the ocean. Which makes it an international concern.

Fonzo got the rest - it doesn't force you to do anything, just sets limitations on what you're allowed to do if you don't follow WDA.

-Part C is not a point of contention as is does not prevent non-participating nations from taxing these wastes.

c) Protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

Part C is not about wastes, it is about waste disposal services. But yes, feel free to tax them.

I've got nothing to add

This is a short summary of the argument against this needless proposition.

"Summary"? You have provided nothing, so screw summary and give us the full monty.

[Somewhere on the Xth floor, Y Corridor of the rebuilt Conclave of Wisdom building in downtown Sanrio City. A delegation of otaku from various Conclaves, most the Conclaves of Friendship, Peace, and Beauty, are gathered around a table debating.]

CoB Minister: "It's a decent resolution, your graces. The Cute One would surely approve of it."

CoF Minister: "But our environmental laws are already the pride of the region. Why impact our economy with additional needless regulations?"

CoB Minister: "Think of the international aspects, though--we're already drawing foreign criticism from the CoF's plan to auction garbage overseas to the highest bidder."

CoP Minister: "And so what? Why do we care about the criticism of some heathen foreigners?"

CoW Minister: "Perhaps we should get a more...broad...view of the situation. What has our NSUN Nuncio have to report on the other states' views?"

CoF Minister: "Well, um...we haven't heard from him lately. Our last report was that he was in the middle of a bar-brawl with the ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny."

Article 1 - While use of recyclable materials may lower the cost of waste disposal it may raise the cost of production by:
1: Introducing forgeign objects due to ineffecient or insufficent recycling methods.
2: Requires the use of either a greater amount of raw product or a finer grade of recycled product.
3: Requires increased base production time as the recycling of material must now be factored into production times and costs.You need to expand your concept of "recycling". I'm the last one anybody would call fluffy, but even I know about thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Depolymerization). Dump all your shit in one end and take the oil out at the other. Sounds like a deal to me. The tech isn't too advanced and I'm sure the boys in... ahem... "Altruistic Foreign Investment" could sell you the plans and tech for what they would call a reasonable amount.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

To: All member NSUN nations
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: NSUN

It has been made clear through statements made here and by past resolutions passed by this body that the NSUN is incapable of performing its established purpose. The NSUN has become a buerocracy choked mass with which this nation refuses to deal with any longer. As such the Rogue Nation of Vispilio formally resigns its membership of these Corrupted Nations. We refuse to let this misguided consortium effect our nation any longer. May whomever you call god protect you from what you wreak.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg

Pray tell, what is the purpose of the United Nations? I always thought it was 'changing the world, one resolution at a time'. What other purpose does it have?

Oh. He's gone. Ah well, we've already got an office.

Voted ,... voted ... voted ?
Voted against !

To: All member NSUN nations
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: NSUN

It has been made clear through statements made here and by past resolutions passed by this body that the NSUN is incapable of performing its established purpose. The NSUN has become a buerocracy choked mass with which this nation refuses to deal with any longer. As such the Rogue Nation of Vispilio formally resigns its membership of these Corrupted Nations. We refuse to let this misguided consortium effect our nation any longer. May whomever you call god protect you from what you wreak.


Eclypse Darkmoon
Minister of Communications and Public Relations

Good riddance.

Pray tell, what is the purpose of the United Nations? I always thought it was 'changing the world, one resolution at a time'. What other purpose does it have?

That's the "official excuse." Unofficially it's a convient excuse to get away from the "significant other."

To: The Constitutional Monarchy of Kivisto
From: The Rogue Nation of Vispilio
Re: Waste Disposal Covenant

To the The Constitutional Monarchy of Kivisto,

From your message you have made it apparent that you have very little understanding of our message to these United Nations.

By even a cursory examination of our earlier submittance you would see that we are in no way against the proper disposal of all wastes.

I never said that you were.

We are opposed to the idea that these United Nations feel that it might be necessary to put their hand in an issue that can clearly be handled without the oversight of this ever growing buerocracy.

There are a great many nations within and without the UN that are not as conscientious about their waste disposal techniques as the rest. With this resolution in place, that situation would be improved. Enforced even.

We in Vispilio are acutely aware of the rammifications of the improper disposal of wastes.

Good for you. Have a cookie.

We would support any resultion that clearly defined itself as only dealing with international rammifications pertaining to this issue.

As any waste that reaches my waters, lands, or air will eventually end up in everybody else's waters, lands, and air as a result of air and water currents as well as the osmotic nature of the planet, any waste anywhere IS an international issue.

This resolution (while we understand the majority of it is not binding upon us) seeks to tell a nation what exactly it can and cannot do with its waste.

Congratulations! You have passed grade 4 reading comprehension.

The Rogue Nation of Visipilio is completely able to care for its own waste, we neither need nor desire any international meddling in this regard.

Since, as you have already stated, Visipilio already has the matter well in hand, this would barely affect your nation. Your good actions would simply be codified and everyone would be forced to follow your wonderful example. Isn't that gratifying?

It is our primary concern that the NSUN should concern itself with issues worthy of its purview.

You mean the international issues like this one?

As Ausserland said, the NSUN often makes laws simply because it can, rather than the fact that it should. While Ausserland is free to feel and debate that this is such an issue, we too are free to express the oposite point of view.

You are free to do as you wish. I am simply curious why you wish to stand in the way of something that stands to benefit the entire planet by helping to rectify this international atrocity in the standards of waste management?

It is the view, belief, and declaration of this Rogue Nation of Vispilio that the NSUN need not meddle in such affairs that are by nature national, and not international. The Rogue Nation of Vispilio again calls upon all nations to vote this resolution down.

We've heard this statement before. I can't understand why you fail to accept that it is only through cooperative international efforts that this international problem can be properly dealt with.


Eclypse Darkmoon

OOC: Seriously? THAT is a name? Come on, man. If you're sitting in your parent's basement with blacked out windows listening to old Christian Death CD's writing mopey poetry about how nobody understands you and how death would be the greatest release, I am going to laugh until my intestines rupture. You even put a Y in Eclypse, how cute.

[/QUOTE]Minister of Communications and Public Relations[/QUOTE]

Communications involves an exchange, both giving and receiving information. Public Relations is intended to make your antion look good.

You've failed at both.

Oskar Feldstein
Representative of Kivisto
Basking In The Masters Radiance

To: All in favor of this law
From: The Theocracy of sNooVa
Subject: I say down with this law

Here we go.

Your treatment of countries who are against this law has become despicable as of late,

I see no need to be nice to those who are so adamantly against the idea that this world could be a better place and absolutely refuse to make any assistance to do so. Nay. They go further. They stand in the way of those who attempt to bring about such change as would be beneficial to all without listening to reason or being willing to accept the realities of the situation.

as for your ideas and wants well they are all good

Maybe not ALL of them, but we thank you for the approval.

but what about our people, perhaps we aren't completely in good terms with your items. [QUOTE]

Since you presented your concerns with sincerity and while being open to hearing arguments in defense of the proposal, we are more than happy to open a civilized dialogue with you.

[QUOTE]I said earlier I would vote yes to try, but I feel you are abusing your powers against many people.

We have no extraordinary powers that have come into play during this debate. We only have our words. The same weapon that everyone else here has access to.

You have got your Resolution up to vote, I myself look forward to seeing if it goes down or is sunk.

How very nice for you. Nothing like voting for the value of the actual proposal, is there?

I am a believer of karma as is my people and we hope to see you get yours for getting so angry about other peoples opinion.

#1 - so they're allowed to state their opinions but we aren't because we feel more strongly about them. How very unbalanced.

#2 - Desiring ill to befall anyone in any nature for any reason WILL upset your Karma.

#3 - If Kivisto is to suffer a Karmic backlash, trust me, it won't be for our behaviour on the debate floor.

As for this document well it has been horribly written and could have used more items of use as stating actual nations who have had this trouble.

Inserting case studies into the text of the document would have done nothing to strengthen the proposed legislation.

I can retract this whole resolution at a later date and myself will offer the court case as a complete and utter source of showing how this can eradicate jobs that are very useful and necessary to an economy.

Good luck with that. Especially sice a great many jobs can be created with the passage of this legislature.

I voted against this resolution.

I'm proud to say the only bit I read before voting was 'environmental'.

I voted against this resolution.

I'm proud to say the only bit I read before voting was 'environmental'.


Congratulations. Now go away unless you actually have something to add.

Congratulations. Now go away unless you actually have something to add.


I shudder to think what he might add...

I highly encourage all of you to vote yes to this month's resolution. There are many problems with disposing waste lately, including landfills and biohazards. It is our job to help remove this waste from our environment, even if it is at the expense of these stupid, large, overly-powerful corporations. They create some cash, provide a little satisfaction for our people, and that's just about it. We need to show our people to appreciate the environment, not what money buys. Maybe they won't take anything for granted anymore.

Apocalypse

P.S.,

I had to put these guys in. Lol. Like the setup?

:sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:sniper:

I voted against this resolution.

I'm proud to say the only bit I read before voting was 'environmental'.

:confused:

It appears that you couldn't care less about the soil you stand upon at this very moment. This resolution will save our countries from pollution, a needed aspect of today's modern lives. You clearly don't stop to read a little about these resolutions, which is a foolish thing to do. I would advise you to go back and read it thoroughly, and then decide. If you don't like big corporations, then hey! You've got a little bonus. :) .Also, we need an efficient way to dispose of waste around here.

Apocalypse

Your proposal has some good points but what about HOW PPL DISPOSE of NUCLEAR WASTE? ther should be set and reasonable methods of disposal of hazardous wastes.:headbang:

I HIGHLY agree. If we could just find a way of disposing nuclear waste, this resolution would be perfected. I argued this point on the last resolution but NO, they go and accept it anyway. I hope they add an extension with a safe way of disposing or containing that stuff.

Oooh! Maybe we could put it in weapons!
:gundge:

Apocalypse

--Vaguely thought out rant--



P.S.,

I had to put these guys in. Lol. Like the setup?

:sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:sniper:

No, not really.

No, not really.

Oh wow, your SO clever.

:rolleyes:

--vaguely thought out rant--

My rant was not vaguely thought out. If anything, it would be your reply. I post a perfectly civil response to this thread and you go post some arrogant trash like that. If you can't respond to something that was said perfectly clear and free of insult, then you should just keep your filthy mouth shut. Careful. I might just come to your land and...

:sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5: :mp5:
:mp5: :mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:sniper:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg


Damn damn damn! I wish I would have read this thread earlier!!!

I call the next one..... -waddles (totally waddles) over to the corner and sulks-

Edit:
And just to be sure I'm contributing to the actual thread, I'mma tell you lot postin' above me to stop with the idle threats.

Edit again:
Or I'll cut you.

Oh yeah. Norderian humor.

I HIGHLY agree. If we could just find a way of disposing nuclear waste, this resolution would be perfected.I dunno. How's about you improve the efficiency of your reactors. You do know that "nuclear waste" is just the sludge that your reactors can't currently process. As you improve your efficiency, you'll have less and less. Or, sell it to nations that can use it. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick! Profiting from your waste!

Or, you could invest in fusion reactors. Them's verrah verrah nice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

@The Most Glorious Hack

Wake up, and come to the reality.

That doesn´t make sense!

We believe that this is a no brainer.

I think this is a terrific plan and I have voted for it.

My only concern about the resolution is that it talks about "recommended WDTs" and then goes on to talk about how there will be surprise inspections to ensure that the recommended WDTs are being strictly enforced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem right. It seems that since the WDTs are only "recommended" then you can't have any kind of enforcement to make it happen. Thus I would have prefered if the author had either left out the part about the enforcement of the recommended WDTs or had the resolution make the WDTs mandatory instead.

Other than that I love it. This is the first resolution we've had in a while that actually defines the terms it will use to prevent misinterpretations of the text. Good job.

Wake up, and come to the reality.

That doesn´t make sense!Nuclear "waste" is fuel that the reactor isn't efficient enough to process. Perhaps a bit of research on how nuclear plants actually work would be to your advantage.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

:confused:

It appears that you couldn't care less about the soil you stand upon at this very moment. This resolution will save our countries from pollution, a needed aspect of today's modern lives. You clearly don't stop to read a little about these resolutions, which is a foolish thing to do. I would advise you to go back and read it thoroughly, and then decide. If you don't like big corporations, then hey! You've got a little bonus. :) .Also, we need an efficient way to dispose of waste around here.

Apocalypse

It's not that I do not care about 'the soil I stand on', but instead believe that decisions about the environment could be much more effective if they were made by people who actually live in the environment. Yes, some nations would choose to abuse their resources and their land, but they are the ones who have to live there.

Oh wow, your SO clever.

:rolleyes:

Gee, I'm being lectured about cleverness from a guy who after eight months still hasn't picked up on the fact that resolutions aren't monthly, but change every 4-5 days.

My rant was not vaguely thought out. If anything, it would be your reply. I post a perfectly civil response to this thread and you go post some arrogant trash like that. If you can't respond to something that was said perfectly clear and free of insult, then you should just keep your filthy mouth shut. Careful. I might just come to your land and...

Firstly Apocalypston, I voted for this resolution and I welcome people who are willing to offer careful, reasoned, scientific analyses of the sensitive issues of environmental protection and management. Going on about "stupid, large, overly-powerful corporations" and not actually backing up your contentions on the environment doesn't quite fit into this category, in my opinion.

Maybe I was being a bit harsh, but honestly, you posted 5 mp5 smileys and 4 sniper ones, which isn't exactly endearing nor edifying. And I find your laughable attempts to threaten Compadria more ludicrous than anything.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I dunno. How's about you improve the efficiency of your reactors. You do know that "nuclear waste" is just the sludge that your reactors can't currently process. As you improve your efficiency, you'll have less and less. Or, sell it to nations that can use it. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick! Profiting from your waste!

Or, you could invest in fusion reactors. Them's verrah verrah nice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack


I agree with you, and selling the crap would probably be a pretty efficient way of getting rid of it.

Or, you could invest in fusion reactors.


Actually, I sent a TG to Fonzoland about that very same thing. If we can extend this resolution further, with fusion, then we could've found the key to cheap, efficent electricity. Plus, once you fuse the atoms back together (boom, zap, you have electricity), you can split them apart again (boom, zap, you have more electricity). This would really help our current situation.

Gee, I'm being lectured about cleverness from a guy who after eight months still hasn't picked up on the fact that resolutions aren't monthly, but change every 4-5 days.

First of all, you appear not to understand what a lecture is. I believe this was not a lecture, but a snide remark on your idiocy. Plus, I do know that the resolutions change, but they last for a week or two, not "4-5 days". There is no definition in that tense for two weeks, so I wrote month. Are you happy now?

Firstly Apocalypston, I voted for this resolution and I welcome people who are willing to offer careful, reasoned, scientific analyses of the sensitive issues of environmental protection and management. Going on about "stupid, large, overly-powerful corporations" and not actually backing up your contentions on the environment doesn't quite fit into this category, in my opinion.

Maybe I was being a bit harsh, but honestly, you posted 5 mp5 smileys and 4 sniper ones, which isn't exactly endearing nor edifying. And I find your laughable attempts to threaten Compadria more ludicrous than anything.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Can you tell a joke from a threat, you stupid idiot?

It's not that I do not care about 'the soil I stand on', but instead believe that decisions about the environment could be much more effective if they were made by people who actually live in the environment. Yes, some nations would choose to abuse their resources and their land, but they are the ones who have to live there.

Oh, your kidding me! Don't you know that if we don't take care of our environment now, we'll all have to do something about it later? This goes for outside of nationstates, too.

@The Most Glorious Hack

Wake up, and come to the reality.

That doesn´t make sense!

Lol. no offfense, but he's right...

Omfg. Nobody is logged on. This is so damn boring. :headbang:

Oh, your kidding me! Don't you know that if we don't take care of our environment now, we'll all have to do something about it later? This goes for outside of nationstates, too.

Some nations have better things to spend money on than saving odd bits of greenland.

Such as military and defense budgets, a nation has more to lose against some rogue dictator than a corporation who dumps a bit of toxic waste.

First of all, you appear not to understand what a lecture is. I believe this was not a lecture, but a snide remark on your idiocy. Plus, I do know that the resolutions change, but they last for a week or two, not "4-5 days". There is no definition in that tense for two weeks, so I wrote month. Are you happy now?


The term you are looking for is "fortnight"

Yeah, except voting isn't open for a fortnight.

Atomic fusion will PERHAPS work in 50 years. If it will work. It is very expensive and also risky!

Also atomic power is very expensive and risky.

If you would pay this money to renewable energy, all our energy problems would be solved!

First of all, you appear not to understand what a lecture is. I believe this was not a lecture, but a snide remark on your idiocy.

Keep going, I'm really being convinced here. And how does calling your remark snide exactly improve your position?

Plus, I do know that the resolutions change, but they last for a week or two, not "4-5 days". There is no definition in that tense for two weeks, so I wrote month. Are you happy now?

How have you managed to hang around for 8 months and not realized that the resolution at vote changes every 4 or 5 days, not every month?

From Frisbeeteria, no less, directed at you incidentally. Yet regardless, I think this is getting a little to heated for the U.N., let's try and both let bygones be bygones and avoid mentioning this again.

Can you tell a joke from a threat, you stupid idiot?

Tja, with a name like Apocalypston, one has to be careful.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Atomic fusion will PERHAPS work in 50 years. If it will work. It is very expensive and also risky!

Also atomic power is very expensive and risky.

If you would pay this money to renewable energy, all our energy problems would be solved!

But is this in R/L or NS?

In real life.

Then it in no way affects the topic of this thread.

Off course....

Nationstates referent to the real world.

It´s a picture.

Vote: Against

Talk about hurting the economy!!!!!!!!! This resolution will kill the economy. Let the scientists do their work and find a solution rather than mandating this and then hurting the companies.

It could be a very good chance for the economy.

The recycling economy is growing very fast and spend a lot of taxes.

The recycled resources can sold to the economy again.

The recycled resources are often cheaper than to buy new ones.

Yeah, but what about all of the companies and businesses it will hurt. It will do more harm than good.

Yeah, but what about all of the companies and businesses it will hurt. It will do more harm than good.
This creates a free trade area for waste disposal companies. How does that "hurt" them?

This is a good law in theory but the way it is written leaves many loop holes which make this law ineffective.
Disposing of waste is a huge problem for nations but I do not see how this will make it any easier.

This is a good law in theory but the way it is written leaves many loop holes which make this law ineffective.
Point out the loop holes, please.

It's not that I do not care about 'the soil I stand on', but instead believe that decisions about the environment could be much more effective if they were made by people who actually live in the environment. Yes, some nations would choose to abuse their resources and their land, but they are the ones who have to live there.

You do, of course, realize that the waters they contaminate, the air they pollute, and the land they befoul will all result in the contamination, pollution, and befouling of the global environment, don't you? When they choose to abuse their resources and land, we ALL have to live with the consequences.

There is no point in continuing this argument.

There is no point in continuing this argument.

Agreed.

Ladels and jellyspoons of there here fine United Nations,

A great big howdy and hello there from the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny! We were absent for most of this debate, owing mostly to an untoward detention at the Strangers' Bar by overzealous members of the Kawaiian security detail, and a national sex scandal (involving, guess who? ... that's right, the CPESL :rolleyes:), but we have have finally arrived here on the General Assembly floor, having stumbled in at the last minute in the hopes of crashing the victory party for this resolution. We're to understand there will be caek?

Anyway, we can't help our discombobulation over some of the points raised against this bill. It gives too much authority to the UN? Yeah, maybe, but what else is new? It affects non-member states? Really? Where does it do that?! It violates national sovereignty? Not seein' it, 'least not from my end. It contains too many loopholes? I assure you, the Creative Solutions Agency practically flooded this thing with bongwater just to test its absorbability, and this baby's air-tight. Water-tight, even. It makes abortion legal? Uhhh, yeah. No, no, my fellow delegates, you can't oppose this thing on national sovereignty, loopholes, abortion, non-member states, "DEEPLY AWARE" or whatever else have you. If there's any reason to oppose this, it's that towering mound of bureaucratic nightmarishness that is Clause 3. This proposal creates a government all to itself, with all the mandates and duties and charges it confers upon this WDA, rivaling even the Federal Republic's very own Corporate Welfare and Tax-Cheat and Loophole Assistance Commission in scope. Why in the Hoooooyyyyyvin Mavin need we combat waste with such, er, waste?!

We tried to sifting through the bureaucratic layers in Clause 3a), only to find more bureaucratic layers! We sifted some more, certain to uncover some monumental archaeological find, lifted up "list of 'hazardous waste' categories," pushed aside "list of recommended WDT for each category," tried to break through "list of banned WDT," and by God, behind it was a wormhole! We crawled inside, passing "outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories," and came upon a tray of tempting candies labeled "Eat Me." We did, and were instantly reduced to the size of a mouse, which, erm, made negotiating the tunnel a heck of a lot easier, let me tell you. We peered behind "regular and surprise inspections of certified entities to ensure said recommendations are strictly followed," and were horrified to discover a pile of white-rhino carcasses. We took a moment to bow our head and recite the Lord's Prayer, and journeyed on, bravely circumnavigating "Officially certify the WDT of entities that request it, provided they meet said recommendations," and were suddenly accosted by a wascawy wabbit, muttering about not having turned left at "Albuhkoikie." We brushed off the assault, and turned right at "taking into account technological and economic constraints," where we found our fine Ausserlander friend Mr. Olembe, who asked us what the fuck we were smoking, but of course Mr. Olembe is a gnome, so we kicked him, successfully bypassing "Establish, publish, and regularly update" while we were at it, and found the ambassador from some random nation railing about how nations should simply report unauthorized waste-dumpings to the "NSUNSC." The NSUN Space Consortium, you say? We can only assume, dear sir, that you are incahoots with Monkey-boy, seeking to blast waste into space, or to the Moon, or whatever. "One a' these days, Waste-lice, one a' these days ... POW! ZOOM! ..." and so forth. Anyway, we broke through the barrier at "outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories," crawled back out, and landed here. ... Yes, here.

At any rate, fellow delegates, it is my sad duty to inform you that we must oppose this resolution, for the simple fact that it leaves far to much authority in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable, massively corrupt entity; namely, the member states. And if said states' behavior during AFTA, the hydroelectric repeal, the landmine-ban repeal, and this measure (at least among those opposing it) demonstrates anything, it's that they are not to be trusted.

Still, legislation purporting to rid the Earth of "waste" would definitely prove useful for cleaning up the "arguments" in contra offered during this session. ...

[Scans the damage inflicted upon what was once a grand assembly hall ...]

Yes, indeed, it would.

But no, we are voting against, so you'll just have to clean up after this bill's opponents on your own.

~Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations
Minister for Delivering Official Kennyite Rants
A Bunch of Other Official-Sounding Titles and Initials after His Name
Certifiable Lunatic
Ooooooo!! Pretty Colors!!!:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/cn-oasis.jpg (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/un_defcon)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/natsovorg)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/un_old_guard)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=522)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Omigodtheykilledkenny)

A janitor walked into the General Assembly Hall and surveyed the damage. He picks up his radio and reports in, "We've got a code 42 in the GA."

"Kennyite delegation rampage?"

"Yup."

"OK, I'll have the entire janitorial staff report to the General Assembly Hall. In the meantime you are authorized to use clearance plan C."

"Right."

The Janitor calmly walks up to a mic yells, "FREE BOOZE IN THE STRANGERS BAR!!!!!!!!" and braces himself against the stampede of ambassadors rushing out the doors.

This proposal is just an attempt to hurt capitalist nations' economies!!! Vote against this! This proposal is onesided! It doesn't consider those whose economies revolve around free industry!!! Listen, all capitalist nations, if we pass this proposal, your economies will be damaged!!!Up yours fonzoland! :upyours:

You do, of course, realize that the waters they contaminate, the air they pollute, and the land they befoul will all result in the contamination, pollution, and befouling of the global environment, don't you? When they choose to abuse their resources and land, we ALL have to live with the consequences.

I am happy to live with the 'consequences' and once pollution leaves my nation, to put it bluntly, I couldn't care less.

I am happy to live with the 'consequences' and once pollution leaves my nation, to put it bluntly, I couldn't care less.


You are contradicting yourself.

It's not that I do not care about 'the soil I stand on', but instead believe that decisions about the environment could be much more effective if they were made by people who actually live in the environment. Yes, some nations would choose to abuse their resources and their land, but they are the ones who have to live there.

You began by saying that you beleive that this decision should be made by those who must live with the consequences, which is all of us. Now you tell us that you don't care at all about the repercussions at all. Which is it?

If the former it be, then vote FOR and help us all out.

If it be the latter, then abstain and leave the decision to those of us who care.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

You are contradicting yourself.



You began by saying that you beleive that this decision should be made by those who must live with the consequences, which is all of us. Now you tell us that you don't care at all about the repercussions at all. Which is it?

If the former it be, then vote FOR and help us all out.

If it be the latter, then abstain and leave the decision to those of us who care.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

I am in no way contradicting myself, I do not believe in any kind of environmental regulation.

However I do care about the soil I stand on, for example I wouldn't want housing projects ravaging the countryside because they put an unsightly blot on the landscape.

If you care about the soil you stand upon, then wouldn't it be rational to make some effort to protect it from the ravages of the carelessness of others?

If you care about the soil you stand upon, then wouldn't it be rational to make some effort to protect it from the ravages of the carelessness of others?

Yes, but this resolution is too strong, any environmental regulations I impose would be guidelines rather than law.

Yes, but this resolution is too strong, any environmental regulations I impose would be guidelines rather than law.

Which would help how exactly? They would be far too toothless to work and wouldn't be nearly as flexible as the rules of this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

If citizens were worried about the environment they could decide to trade with only corporations that follow these guidelines. This could then in turn act as an incentive to market competitors to become environmentally friendly.

If citizens were worried about the environment they could decide to trade with only corporations that follow these guidelines. This could then in turn act as an incentive to market competitors to become environmentally friendly.

The market can be a wonderful thing, but it also has its weaknesses. The main problems stem from the fact that a capitalist system, as is its design, functions with the aim of maximising the usage potential of capital and labour (i.e. a high degree of efficiency and economies of scale), as well as maximising the output and production of capital and profit. Under some circumstances this is useful and beneficial to consumers. The problem is that this system is designed to take into account economic variables and to make as much profit as is possible under the circumstance. Social variables and environmental issues (for instance) do not fit exactly into this model and this means that the system cannot compensate very well.

In theory, all corporations would try and adjust themselves to the needs of consumers. Some do. In practice, all they'll do is conceal the less desirable aspects of their production process, mislead consumers and then complain the regulation is responsible for their inefficiencies. Most do this.

Therefore it's not a matter of consumer choice, because given the choice between re-branding and altering themselves to the tune of millions of dollars (as would almost certainly be required), which might please consumers in the short term and then the option of just making it seem that they are doing so or doing the absolute minimum necessary, most corporations will choose the second option. Furthermore in the long run prices may rise as a result of environmental protection and ethical practices. Consumers will complain, companies will drop prices and scrap any voluntary pro-environment measures they took (if they took them at all) and the situation will be the same as at the beginning.

In short, regulation of some kind is required. Now what this amounts to or what degree it should take is debatable and to a great extent this resolution tries to acknowledge this with its flexibility. Personally, I believe that heavy regulation to compensate for the excesses of the capitalist economy is essential and desirable, aiming at achieving a balance of the tremendous dynamo that is a capitalist market economy and the less quantifiable needs of humanism, social welfare, environment and worker's rights. It is difficult and others have different approaches, but the most important thing to remember is that as far as solutions go "leave it to the market" is not a solution. It's a recipe for neglect.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

To add to Compadria's point, I think the market actually works better when corporations don't have to make the decision to be environmentally sound. If you give corporations the moral freedom to do what they want, within the bounds of the legal restrictions, then you can let corporations, without needing to worry about the environment, pull out all the stops to get more profit, without actually harming the environment, because the government/UN did it for them.

The resolution Waste Disposal Covenant was passed 9,108 votes to 3,547, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Our congratulations to the distinguished author of this excellent resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We second the honourable delegate of Ausserlands comments and congratulate the submitter of this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Ladels and jellyspoons of there here fine United Nations,

*snip*

But no, we are voting against, so you'll just have to clean up after this bill's opponents on your own.


The resolution Waste Disposal Covenant was passed 9,108 votes to 3,547, and implemented in all UN member nations.

-Breaks out the Paulie Shore- Choo looose!

[/childish gloating and opportunistic ribbing of omfgkenny]

I voted against this proposal, since it took hits at the economy.
But I guess we can't always have it our way. =P

(Wow, I left this thread alone just in time.)

Anyway, thanks again to all that supported this resolution, and to Kenny for the only coherent (and amusing) against post in the thread. A very special warm greeting goes to all delegates who turned the debate into a flamefest.

A very special warm greeting goes to all delegates who turned the debate into a flamefest.

And for a change, I wasn't one of them. ;)

We need to clean up I hate it when there is trash on my yard its grrrr:gundge:

We need to clean up I hate it when there is trash on my yard its grrrr:gundge:

Thank you for your brilliant remark.