NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

CONSIDERING recycling to be both an environmentally friendly method of waste disposal and a valuable source of tradable goods,

RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling through UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

HENCE, ALSO RECALLING its UN Resolution #139, "Repeal "Mandatory Recycling"", and its call for a replacement,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the differing economic, technological and environmental circumstances of member nations,

RECOGNISING that a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good,

FULLY AWARE that the development of the industrial recycling sector is vital to ensuring sufficient levels of recycling are achieved,

WISHING to expand the global market in recycled goods, in hope that such measures will stimulate industrial involvement in recycling:

1. DECLARES its support for responsible recycling practices;

2. ESTABLISHES the UN Recycling Commission, as a central data resource, through which government agencies, businesses, NGOs and individuals can:
- list resources available for recycling;
- detail planned or ongoing recycling projects;
- list recycled goods;
- share recycling methods and technologies;

3. PROMOTES international efforts in research and development of more efficient recycling methods, and in augmenting the profitability of markets for recycled goods;

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;
- make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices;
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring recycled goods and recycling technologies meet agreed safety standards;

5. AUTHORISES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any disputes arising from the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies;

6. ENDORSES the practice of rewarding individual citizens and companies for separating recyclable waste materials themselves;

7. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that plans for the development of the recycling sector will be incorporated into future multilateral trade and aid agreements.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands

Comments welcome.

Titawon just skimmed this resolution as we are busy people, but Titawon believes this resolution is a very well thought out. At this time Titawon whole heartly supports this resolution.

Vernon McKay
Titawon Ambassador to the United Nations

The people of Cluichstan are stunned.

I welcome this introduction of a progressive, pro-environment and attractive proposal into this forum for discussion by the U.N. I now wish, as per my duties as a delegate, to analyse it and pose questions where necessary:

1. DECLARES its support for responsible recycling practices everywhere;

Agreed.

2. ESTABLISHES the UN Recycling Commission, as a central data resource, through which government agencies, businesses, NGOs and individuals can:
- list resources available for recycling;
- detail planned or ongoing recycling projects;
- list recycled goods;
- share recycling methods and technologies;

Agreed.

3. PROMOTES all efforts at international cooperation in the research and development of more efficient, affordable, environmentally-friendly mechanisms and methods of recycling;

Could economically profitable and marketable solutions be included as one of the descriptors in this clause, so as to attract nations concerned about the cost to their economies?

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;
- make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices;
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring recycled goods and recycling technologies meet agreed safety standards;

Agreed.

5. AUTHORISES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any disputes arising from the trade of recycled goods;

Does this included raw materials where the process of recycling and re-manufacturing recycled materials has been off-shored by the nation or company in question?

6. ENDORSES the practice of rewarding individual citizens and companies for separating recyclable waste materials themselves;

Agreed.

7. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that plans for the development of the recycling sector will be incorporated into future bilateral or multilateral trade and aid agreements.

Agreed.

We congratulate the authors and wish them well.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Could economically profitable and marketable solutions be included as one of the descriptors in this clause, so as to attract nations concerned about the cost to their economies?
Excellent idea. The whole point of this proposal is to do such - Gruenberg is in fact one of those nations concerned about the cost to their economy - so spelling it out can't hurt. Edited.

Does this included raw materials where the process of recycling and re-manufacturing recycled materials has been off-shored by the nation or company in question?
I'm not clear what you mean. Probably, though, this would be a matter for the UNFTC to rule on. I was trying to make it clear their arbitration only extended to recycled goods, not the raw materials.

Gruen and FL working together?!?!

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/852/giantrun6rv.gif

The United Nations,

Yep, that's us.

CONSIDERING recycling to be both an environmentally friendly method of waste disposal and a valuable source of trade,

I would say it is a valuable source of tradable goods, rather than trade.

RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

Quoting the Res # might make the claim easier to verify.

FURTHER RECALLING its previous motion to repeal "Mandatory Recycling", and its call for a replacement,

Idem.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the differing economic, technological and environmental considerations of member nations,

Circumstances rather than considerations.

RECOGNISING that a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good,

FULLY AWARE that the development of the industrial recycling sector is vital to ensuring sufficient levels of recycling are achieved,

Indeed.

WISHING to expand the global market in recycled goods, in the hope that such measures will prove an inducement to the stimulation of greater industrial involvement in recycling:

'In the hope' could be 'in hope.'
'An inducement to the stimulation of greater' sounds terribly redundant. I would just keep one of the three.

1. DECLARES its support for responsible recycling practices everywhere;

'Everywhere' seems redundant.

2. ESTABLISHES the UN Recycling Commission, as a central data resource, through which government agencies, businesses, NGOs and individuals can:
- list resources available for recycling;
- detail planned or ongoing recycling projects;
- list recycled goods;
- share recycling methods and technologies;

Agreed.

3. PROMOTES all efforts at international cooperation in the research and development of more efficient mechanisms and methods of recycling, and in the creation of more profitable markets for recycled goods;

This could be made crisper. How about:

3. PROMOTES international efforts in research and development of more efficient recycling methods, and in augmenting the profitability of markets for recycled goods;

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;
- make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices;
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring recycled goods and recycling technologies meet agreed safety standards;

INSTRUCTS maybe?

5. AUTHORISES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any disputes arising from the trade of recycled goods;

And recycling technologies, I assume.

6. ENDORSES the practice of rewarding individual citizens and companies for separating recyclable waste materials themselves;

Bah. Too fluffy.

7. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that plans for the development of the recycling sector will be incorporated into future bilateral or multilateral trade and aid agreements.

Could be just HOPES. Multilateral includes bilateral.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands

Yeah, what Cluich said.

---

Needless to say, we support this effort to tackle an environmental issue in a realistic and pondered way.

Another treatise brought to you by the fine folks in Fonzoland.
Fonzoland - commited to your reading enjoyment!

I would say it is a valuable source of tradable goods, rather than trade.
Changed.

Quoting the Res # might make the claim easier to verify.

Idem.
Changed.

Circumstances rather than considerations.
Changed.

'In the hope' could be 'in hope.'
Changed.

'An inducement to the stimulation of greater' sounds terribly redundant. I would just keep one of the three.
I'll go for stimulation. That's always nice.

'Everywhere' seems redundant.
Removed.

3. PROMOTES international efforts in research and development of more efficient recycling methods, and in augmenting the profitability of markets for recycled goods;
Suggestion added.

INSTRUCTS maybe?
Why? I wasn't aware of any difference in force between the two, and in terms of tone, I prefer "requires".

And recycling technologies, I assume.
Added.

Bah. Too fluffy.
...you suggested it?

Could be just HOPES. Multilateral includes bilateral.
Second point change; left as "expresses..." however. I just prefer that.

Another treatise brought to you by the fine folks in Fonzoland.
Fonzoland - commited to your reading enjoyment!
No objections from me.

Also: counter-treatise!

Why? I wasn't aware of any difference in force between the two, and in terms of tone, I prefer "requires".

No difference in force. Just felt more adequate, but it is just taste.

...you suggested it?

Exactly!

I am certainly pleased with the UN's recent concern over the environment.

I and Caratia support this proposal.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

In short, I will support this. I like it.

FURTHER RECALLING its previous motion to repeal "Mandatory Recycling", UN Resolutionand its call for a replacement,

Nonono.

WISHING to expand the global market in recycled goods, in hope that such measures will prove a stimulation of industrial involvement in recycling:

...in hope that such measures will stimulate industrial involvement in recycling:

Nonono.
Erk. I navigated away to look up the res number, and forgot about it. Changed.

...in hope that such measures will stimulate industrial involvement in recycling:
Changed.

This will probably be submitted sometime this week, because there aren't enough proposals in the queue already.

I agree with this. I beleive that UN countries should be required to recycle. I will support this bill whole-heartedly if it goes to the polls.

As head of Monumental Proportions, I hereby support this resolution.

OOC: Are you going to keep referring to yourself as "Head of Monumental Proportions"? Cool. :D

The government of St Edmund approves of, and will support, this proposal.

OOC: Are you going to keep referring to yourself as "Head of Monumental Proportions"? Cool. :D

LMFAO!

The government of St Edmund approves of, and will support, this proposal.

Just two seconds ago in another thread I stated that I agreed with Eco. Now I'm agreeing with St. Edmund. What is this world coming to?

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

OOC: Are you going to keep referring to yourself as "Head of Monumental Proportions"? Cool. :D
Don't start getting ahead of yourself...

ic: RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling through UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

FURTHER RECALLING its previous motion to repeal "Mandatory Recycling", UN Resolution #139, and its call for a replacement,
Are these two different resolutions or just a mistake?

Perhaps it should be required that the State offers some form of recycling facility for its citizens and businesses which they can choose to use - although it could be a privately owned franchise.

ooc: I haven't had time to check...was it repealed or not? If not ignore part two.

ya, they are two seperate. 139's the repeal of 13.

Well then that sentence needs to be clearer.

RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling through UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

HENCE, ALSO RECALLING its previous motion to support the "Repeal of Mandatory Recycling", UN Resolution #139, and the said Repeal's call for a replacement,

That sound better?

As leader of The Empire of Lord Hollingsworth and UN delegate of Semitotalitarian I hereby approve.

Well then that sentence needs to be clearer.

RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling through UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

HENCE, ALSO RECALLING its previous motion to support the "Repeal of Mandatory Recycling", UN Resolution #139, and the said Repeal's call for a replacement,

That sound better?
I'm not sure about that. You're probably right: I'll ask if someone else could verify that your clause would make more sense. Thanks for the suggestion.

The original phrasing makes it sound like there was a repeal of Res 139. Randomea's rewrite makes it clear where you are talking about the original, and where the repeal.

Why can't we recall the repeal, instead of the motion to repeal?

Example:
RECALLING its previous motion to support recycling through UN Resolution #13, "Mandatory Recycling", and the deficiencies thereof,

HENCE, ALSO RECALLING its UN Resolution #139, "Repeal of Mandatory Recycling," and the said Repeal's call for a replacement,

Aside from the fact that UNR #13 is total crap and we had been dieing to repeal it for a while and are quite happy it's off the books (with our only regret of no true successors holding much more intelligence and practicality until now with WDC and this), it is a game mechanics issue. Quite simply, repeals can't be repealed.

No, FL, by "recall the repeal" Caratia didn't mean "repeal the repeal". He meant to use his alternate phrasing - which I probably will do.

This has been submitted using Caratia's suggested rewording of the preamble. Delegates can approve it here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=recycling).

*cough* you forgot to leave out 'its' *cough* >_<

Yes, yes, another very keenly added clause striking out tariffs in the united nations. Every proposal seems to have these nowadays, even Waste Disposal Covenant?! (though we voted for that, completely for its ability to bring about a ton of repeals, namely resolution #11 :rolleyes: ). We do not understand at all the reason for all this anti-tariff legislation, or how extremely fair tariffs like ours somehow prohibit free trade, and express concern that a proposal dealing with recycling somehow warrants a free trade category over, say, an environmental one.

Because tariffs stifle the free flow of goods. The objective of this proposal is to increase trade in recycled goods, and exchange in recycling technologies, to incentivise 1. industrial involvement in recycling and 2. specialisation in recycling.

For example, some nations may have little use for recycled paper, as they have plentiful supplies of wood, and so may not recycle paper. Nor do they have any particular reason to. Knock down barriers to trade, however, and suddenly nations that do need supplies of paper will be more inclined to trade with them, and as such the recycling sector of the nation will grow.

Furthermore, the tariffs can remain on non-recycled goods. In the above example, then, there is a clear incentive to trade in recycled, rather than new, paper, for economic reasons, which coincidentally happen to also be environmentally-beneficial.

...or how extremely fair tariffs like ours somehow prohibit free trade...
I agree completely with Gruenberg, but I have to point out that the reason tariffs prohibit free trade is that if you restrict it, it's not free anymore!

I agree completely with Gruenberg, but I have to point out that the reason tariffs prohibit free trade is that if you restrict it, it's not free anymore!

Our tariffs are in no way a restriction to free trade. They are, in essence, a "parking fee", if you will for using our ports and other resources when trading with us. Tis the same for all imported goods, even if they be Jevian made somehow.

Our tariffs are in no way a restriction to free trade. They are, in essence, a "parking fee", if you will for using our ports and other resources when trading with us. Tis the same for all imported goods, even if they be Jevian made somehow.
Don't the companies pay the ports for their usage?

There is no such thing as a fair tariff. In order to have fair trade, you must have free trade; tariffs effect the people of the poorer nations, and help the advanced nations. It is treating people from another country as inferior because they are not from your country. All tariffs do is say "we don't want your stuff even though it is cheaper and better, we want to use our stuff because our people are more important than those who need it"

OoC: I'm not sober, but by God, that's how I feel. Tariffs are racist.

Don't the companies pay the ports for their usage?

They pay the ports, yes, which are owned by other private companies, not the government. The tariffs are there so that the government can also gain from the trade.

No, FL, by "recall the repeal" Caratia didn't mean "repeal the repeal". He meant to use his alternate phrasing - which I probably will do.

Oh, whoops

They pay the ports, yes, which are owned by other private companies, not the government. The tariffs are there so that the government can also gain from the trade.
At the expense of the companies, thereby making the trade unfree.

They pay the ports, yes, which are owned by other private companies, not the government. The tariffs are there so that the government can also gain from the trade.

That makes no sense. The government gains from trade by imposing sales taxes. Why do you feel the need to tax products different simply because of national origin?

I'm supporting it.

I'm supporting it.
Thank you.

That makes no sense. The government gains from trade by imposing sales taxes. Why do you feel the need to tax products different simply because of national origin?

I'm not doing so. The "tariff" or perhaps it will be more clear if I call it an import tax is the exact same for every imported item, no matter what country.

I'm not doing so. The "tariff" or perhaps it will be more clearer if I call it an import tax is the exact same for every imported item, no matter what country.
Not true. It's different for products from Jey, and products from Gruenberg.

Not true. It's different for products from Jey, and products from Gruenberg.

Exactly.

I'm not doing so. The "tariff" or perhaps it will be more clear if I call it an import tax is the exact same for every imported item, no matter what country.
And why would you export something and then import it back?

And why would you export something and then import it back?Ever hear of a colony? Send the raw materials, buy back the finished goods.

There is no such thing as a fair tariff. In order to have fair trade, you must have free trade; tariffs effect the people of the poorer nations, and help the advanced nations. It is treating people from another country as inferior because they are not from your country. All tariffs do is say "we don't want your stuff even though it is cheaper and better, we want to use our stuff because our people are more important than those who need it"

OoC: I'm not sober, but by God, that's how I feel. Tariffs are racist.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what about the tariffs levied by poorer nations against wealthier nations to prevent the swamping of their own infant industries from foreign competition, thus destroying the home economy and employment. Are the acceptable? Could they (tariffs) be used as a compensatory factor in international trade between unequally matched parties?

Also, what about quota's? Are they any better?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what about the tariffs levied by poorer nations against wealthier nations to prevent the swamping of their own infant industries from foreign competition, thus destroying the home economy and employment. Are the acceptable? Could they (tariffs) be used as a compensatory factor in international trade between unequally matched parties?

Also, what about quota's? Are they any better?
Any assessment of their fairness has been rather steamrollered by your emotional rhetoric, but certainly, one could argue such tariffs don't make a lot of sense. If industries can't compete in the global market, then no amount of taxes or subsidies or whatever are ultimately going to keep them effective, and so it would be better for the poorer nation to specialise into areas in which they can outcompete the wealthier nations.

As President Perry of Teruchev said, "Those seatbelts aren't made in Detroit."

Ever hear of a colony? Send the raw materials, buy back the finished goods.
You're not exporting it back, then, you're buying the other nation's goods, which may have come from something you gave them.

I see your point though.

Any assessment of their fairness has been rather steamrollered by your emotional rhetoric, but certainly, one could argue such tariffs don't make a lot of sense. If industries can't compete in the global market, then no amount of taxes or subsidies or whatever are ultimately going to keep them effective, and so it would be better for the poorer nation to specialise into areas in which they can outcompete the wealthier nations.

As President Perry of Teruchev said, "Those seatbelts aren't made in Detroit."

Fair point sir, I only wish others were so sagacious in their analysis.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

This now requires 2 more approvals. Approve it or I'll RECYCLE YOUR FACE.

Ahem.

1. DECLARES its support for responsible recycling practices;

Is this legislation?

2. ESTABLISHES the UN Recycling Commission, as a central data resource, through which government agencies, businesses, NGOs and individuals can:
- list resources available for recycling;
- detail planned or ongoing recycling projects;
- list recycled goods;
- share recycling methods and technologies;

As you may know from different threads I hate extra bureaucracy, so wouldn't it be easier to just use a nation's already existing government department for the environment or similar/equivalent or indeed department for trade as this would affect businesses.

3. PROMOTES international efforts in research and development of more efficient recycling methods, and in augmenting the profitability of markets for recycled goods;

Research is good; enhances the economy.

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;
- make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices;
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring recycled goods and recycling technologies meet agreed safety standards;

What constitutes a reasonable effort, 'nation a' may be lazy, but 'nation b' may have a strong work ethic.
Free trade; good.
Continuing safety standards; good.

5. AUTHORISES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any disputes arising from the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies;

Fine.

6. ENDORSES the practice of rewarding individual citizens and companies for separating recyclable waste materials themselves;

No, this is too vague and hard/expensive to implement.

7. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that plans for the development of the recycling sector will be incorporated into future multilateral trade and aid agreements.

Fine.

I must admit Gruenberg that after reading past 'UN Recycling Commission', I found more that I liked than I thought I would.

Is this legislation?
Well, yes and no. Yes, if it's passed, it would have legal force; no, it has no specific meaning. It's for states to interpret.

Basically, this clause is saying "recycling is good". However, given the different circumstances of nations, rigidly supporting or really taking any position on any specific area wouldn't be practical. So it's motioning a support of all efforts nations make in this area, but leaving some trust in nations to actually implement it.

As you may know from different threads I hate extra bureaucracy, so wouldn't it be easier to just use a nation's already existing government department for the environment or similar/equivalent or indeed department for trade as this would affect businesses.
The point of the UNRC is that anyone can list things on it, not just state departments. I actually envisaged it as being something like eBay, or Wikipedia - certainly, it would be online, rather than anything physical. Furthermore, it doesn't actually require much administration, because the UN is only acting as a medium, not a middle-man. Buyer meets seller; all ends happily under a valentine moon. So I don't think it would be overly bureaucratic.

And if it is, well, you don't have to contribute to it, invest in, or even acknowledge its presence.

What constitutes a reasonable effort, 'nation a' may be lazy, but 'nation b' may have a strong work ethic.
Again, that's for nations to decide. You're quite right in that it allows for 'nation a's to get round it. But look at that whole clause: it's about separating waste categories. If you don't do that, you can't recycle well, so you won't benefit from the free trade area. So, it's in your interests to make that reasonable effort very reasonable.

No, this is too vague and hard/expensive to implement.
It's vague for a reason: you don't have to do it. "Endorses" means sticks up an approving thumb to, not orders to happen. So if you run these sort of projects, the UN pats you on the back. If you don't, so be it. You're not in non-compliance.

I must admit Gruenberg that after reading past 'UN Recycling Commission', I found more that I liked than I thought I would.
Thank you.

Yay! Good job Gruen.

Thank you, and thank you to all delegates who approved this.

Official topic needed? ;)

Quorum? Congratulations...

OOC: Since I'm in a musical mood at the moment (as regulars to the Strangers Bar will have noticed), I thought I'd put on a song appropriate for the occasion.

"Congratulations", Sir Cliff Richard

"Congratulations and celebrations
When I tell everyone that you're in love with me
Congratulations and jubilations
I want the world to know I'm happy as can be

Who would believe that I could be happy and contented
I used to think that happiness hadn't been invented
But that was in the bad old days before I met you
When I let you walk into my heart

Congratulations and celebrations
When I tell everyone that you're in love with me
Congratulations and jubilations
I want the world to know I'm happy as can be

I was afraid to think that you thought you were above me
That I was only fooling myself to think you'd love me
But then tonight you said you couldn't live without me
That round about me you wanted to stay

Congratulations and celebrations
When I tell everyone that you're in love with me
Congratulations and jubilations
I want the world to know I'm happy as can be

Congratulations and jubilations
I want the world to know I'm happy as can be

I want the world to know I'm happy as can be".

I didn't think the proposal was that bad.

OOC: Since I'm in a musical mood at the moment (as regulars to the Strangers Bar will have noticed), I thought I'd put on a song appropriate for the occasion.

"Congratulations", Sir Cliff Richard
<snip>
ooc: AARG!
Makes me think of the restaurant Frankie & Benny's. Everytime there's a birthday they play on the speakers a big intro, Happy Birthday then Congratulations. Except the first time is normal speed, then they do the chorus really slow, then really fast.:headbang: You are guaranteed at least one birthday a night.

*attempts to get it out of her head, so sings along to 'Ruby Tuesday'*

There has been some questioning of the free trade element in this. Gruenberg will make clear its position on this: we believe people in other countries do have a right to work.

we believe people in other countries do have a right to work.

That's too NatSov for our liking, we oppose unless you add on "with the permission and only after lengthy supplications to the U.N.".

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Any assessment of their fairness has been rather steamrollered by your emotional rhetoric, but certainly, one could argue such tariffs don't make a lot of sense. If industries can't compete in the global market, then no amount of taxes or subsidies or whatever are ultimately going to keep them effective, and so it would be better for the poorer nation to specialise into areas in which they can outcompete the wealthier nations.

As President Perry of Teruchev said, "Those seatbelts aren't made in Detroit."
"Ooh, I've been quoted!"

Any assessment of their fairness has been rather steamrollered by your emotional rhetoric, but certainly, one could argue such tariffs don't make a lot of sense. If industries can't compete in the global market, then no amount of taxes or subsidies or whatever are ultimately going to keep them effective, and so it would be better for the poorer nation to specialise into areas in which they can outcompete the wealthier nations.

As President Perry of Teruchev said, "Those seatbelts aren't made in Detroit."
Or, alternatively, the protection is there for young - not failed - industries.

Or, alternatively, the protection is there for young - not failed - industries.
If we were to have a global free trade agreement, I would support protection for young industries, agreed.

Hahaha, that's really funny. I actually laughed out loud and the bullshit you're spewing. You're going to lecture me about how truly beautiful free trade is and you don't even know what it is. Free trade does not translate into equal competition. When free trade exists, jobs go to where the labor is the cheapest. Not exactly a fair deal.

I also find it real god damned amusing that you accuse me of biggotry and "protectionism" (you say it like it's an insult) when you've got the country with no social welfare and extraordinary inequality between the sexes.

Why don't you go worship Ann Rand you nitwit.
It's "Ayn Rand", not "Ann Rand".

And I wouldn't dream of worshipping her. She was an Objectivist. That means putting rational self-interest before all else: selfishness. Tariffs are selfish - she would approve of a country enacting protectionist measures, because it shouldn't allow other countries to get a foot on the ladder. Now, if Gruenberg drops its tariffs, our textile industry will fold. Textile factories in poorer countries will always outcompete us. That doesn't sound very selfish to me?

Your problem is you're stuck in the mentality of nations. I'm not interested in nations - I'm interested in people. People should be able to compete fairly, no matter what country they live in. Subsidies mean a French farmer will always do better than a Nigerian farmer, no matter what, and that's based solely on where they live. That doesn't seem fair to me: you don't choose where you're born, and you don't choose who your government is during your childhood, by which time you're stuffed if they're no good. Why should that decide how well your business does? Your business success should depend on how good you are. In a free market, a good company will always beat a bad one. In a protectionist environment, companies that aren't truly competitive get propped up by corporate welfare.

I don't think free trade is the answer to all the world's problems. I think it's better than the alternatives, but I'm not about to pretend some people won't lose out. They always will, under any economic system. The thing about free trade, though, is that even if you do lose out, you can always try again: specialise into a new area, and you'll outcompete everyone.

~Gruen

Gruenberg, is this your official topic, or did you want to start a new one?

The Republic of Aoimoku has reviewed this proposal and plans to vote for it when it comes up for a UN vote. I hope more UN possible resolutions are this conscientious, progressive, and well thought out.

Gruenberg, is this your official topic, or did you want to start a new one?
This one is fine. Thanks for the sticky.

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;


I'm tired of some members of the UN always trying to force their own economic system on the rest of the world. This resolution is about recycling, not trade. I will keep my tariffs, as they are an important revenue for Vosgard. Our import tariffs keep our income tax low, and the forced removal of those tariffs would have a devestating effect on our economy. History has shown that "free trade" does not benefit smaller nations as some argue, but instead benefit large multi-national corperations who can undercut local competition. I strongly urge all nations which do not believe the UN has a right to determine your economic system and who want to avoid empowering multi-national corperations even further to oppose this resolution.

As an admittedly liberal nation, it may seem a bit out of character for us, however, I believe that this resolution allows enough leeway that nations which do not wish to actively participate will be allowed to go their own way. Their is nothing wrong with the concept of free trade, and the recycling portions of this resolution are in accordance with the environmental policies of Nova Hyberniah.

Ordinarily, Ecopoeia opposes measures to enforce tariff reductions. However, I can see great advantages in this field for such action. It seems to me that it is too easy to be blinded by ideology in such matters. There are occasions when a greater good that is served by casting aside one's political instincts and here, I suspect is a good example of such an occasion. We will probably vote in favour of this resolution.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

There is no lee-way given. This resolution REQUIRES that all member nations remove all tariffs on recycled goods. I have no problem with the rest of the resolution. The free trade portion is unneccessary and has nothing to do with recycling.

Sen Sulla looks up from the May issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine he was reading.Clearing his throat he says,
"After reading this proposal, my first instinct is to vote no. After all the proposal is a little too fluffy for my taste, and the taste of my Emperor. However after careful reflection, I've decided not to be hasty. Besides, I might be able to make a small profit." *reaches under desk, and pulls out a very large empty Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar* "I hereby announce that the Palentine's votes are up for sale. The best offer gets my votes." *places jar on desk.*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

There is no lee-way given. This resolution REQUIRES that all member nations remove all tariffs on recycled goods. I have no problem with the rest of the resolution. The free trade portion is unneccessary and has nothing to do with recycling.
Yes it does. It will stimulate trade in recycled goods, thus increasing the involvement of industry in recycling.

Furthermore, I don't understand your point about tariffs substituting for income tax. Why not simply charge a sales tax on goods?

Ok, I realize that some may think that recycling is good for the environment, but it's really not. It costs a lot more to reuse than to make from scratch, and when you recycle used plastic and paper, than you are sending more deadly fumes than if you were making new ones from scratch, hence forth you are destroying the environment faster. And the idea that using paper saves trees is bullshit. The more trees that are cut down for paper, the more trees get planted, so you are really destroying the population of trees by being in favor of recycling. I'm begging people to vote against this!!

Reke agrees the functions of the Commision, however the requirments put on nations is a power that should be left up to the nation and its people to decied. It is not the place of the UN to put such requirements on it members.

Ok, I realize that some may think that recycling is good for the environment, but it's really not. It costs a lot more to reuse than to make from scratch, and when you recycle used plastic and paper, than you are sending more deadly fumes than if you were making new ones from scratch, hence forth you are destroying the environment faster. And the idea that using paper saves trees is bullshit. The more trees that are cut down for paper, the more trees get planted, so you are really destroying the population of trees by being in favor of recycling. I'm begging people to vote against this!!
Are you going to provide any evidence to back up your wild assertions? If not, then clearly we're allowed to use completely unsubstantiated "facts".

Opposing this proposal kills puppies!

The issue of tarriffs with regard to the import of recycled goods in itself is not particularly problematic for the Confederacy of Reidalia, but the language in Article 4 sub-clause 3 is problematic. This sub-clause of Article 4 requires members to, "remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas," and Reidalia finds three problems with this language.

The requirement to "remove all protectionist devices" is open ended, it includes, but is not limited to a list of such devices, thus leaving members open to specious charges of protectionism. Reidalia would prefer to see a definitive list of disallowed actions.
The list of protectionist devices includes subsidies, and this seems to conflict with the Resolutions many calls for members to foster recycling and recycling industry, including Article 4's first sub-clause calling on members to "promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities," and subsidies are a time honored tool to foster the creation of new technologies and industries. It also conflicts with the Resolutions recognition that, "a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good."
The sub-clause does not deferentiate between recycled raw materials and finished goods containing recycled materials, indeed the Resolution's language appears to more specifically address finished goods than raw materials. Reidalia does not wish to be forced to import finished goods that do not meet our cultural or other standards simply because they contain recycled materials or technologies.


If these three items of language can be addressed then Reidalia will be very pleased to support this resolution.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Chair

The requirement to "remove all protectionist devices" is open ended, it includes, but is not limited to a list of such devices, thus leaving members open to specious charges of protectionism. Reidalia would prefer to see a definitive list of disallowed actions.
Not possible within the confines of an NSUN resolution. However, note clause 5. If a trade dispute arises, and you think another nation is underhandedly instituting protectionist devices, then the UNFTC has authority to arbitrate such disputes. It can be definitive.

The list of protectionist devices includes subsidies, and this seems to conflict with the Resolutions many calls for members to foster recycling and recycling industry, including Article 4's first sub-clause calling on members to "promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities," and subsidies are a time honored tool to foster the creation of new technologies and industries. It also conflicts with the Resolutions recognition that, "a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good."
A subsidy is a protectionist device, and it hinders the free trade of goods. There are plenty of ways to stimulate the creation of the recycling sector without resorting to subsidies. Furthermore, subsidies by their nature hinder the development of more efficient recycling sectors in other nations: given the global nature of this problem, that is undesirable.

The sub-clause does not deferentiate between recycled raw materials and finished goods containing recycled materials, indeed the Resolution's language appears to more specifically address finished goods than raw materials. Reidalia does not wish to be forced to import finished goods that do not meet our cultural or other standards simply because they contain recycled materials or technologies.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you draw a starker distinction between "recycled raw material" and "finished good containing recycled materials", please?

Regarding "raw materials" vs. "finished goods", recycled aluminum is a raw material while a car containing recycled aluminum is a finished good.

The Reidalian Syndic Council is considering the rest of the Gruenbergian representative's statement and will have a response later today.

I see. Well, in that case, I don't see that there is anything to stop you setting particular standards for certain goods, so long as such standards are applied equitably to both foreign and national goods.

[LIST=1]
The requirement to "remove all protectionist devices" is open ended, it includes, but is not limited to a list of such devices, thus leaving members open to specious charges of protectionism. Reidalia would prefer to see a definitive list of disallowed actions.

That's for the UNFTC to arbitrate, as Gruenberg stated. Also, what's to say that the list of disallowed actions would have too narrow a scope and let off nations who are insufficiently committed to the free trade protocols of the resolution.

The list of protectionist devices includes subsidies, and this seems to conflict with the Resolutions many calls for members to foster recycling and recycling industry, including Article 4's first sub-clause calling on members to "promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities," and subsidies are a time honored tool to foster the creation of new technologies and industries. It also conflicts with the Resolutions recognition that, "a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good."

It might be better to encourage private initiative through means such as tax breaks, so long as they are applied equitably. In fact, subsidies could still be used, so long as they are applied fairly to non-national and national companies. Or you could let the state develop the technology involved (like Compadria), which would avoid this problem.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Sen Sulla looks up from the May issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine he was reading.Clearing his throat he says,
"After reading this proposal, my first instinct is to vote no. After all the proposal is a little too fluffy for my taste, and the taste of my Emperor. However after careful reflection, I've decided not to be hasty. Besides, I might be able to make a small profit." *reaches under desk, and pulls out a very large empty Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar* "I hereby announce that the Palentine's votes are up for sale. The best offer gets my votes." *places jar on desk.*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"A fine synthetic otter pelt for Senator Sulla" called out Otterby "and get the Department of Trade and Industry to approve that logging deal we had with the Palentine, it's been held up in committee far too long".

Otterby turned to Senator Sulla:

"Well Senator does that help incline you towards voting in favour"?

"A fine synthetic otter pelt for Senator Sulla" called out Otterby "and get the Department of Trade and Industry to approve that logging deal we had with the Palentine, it's been held up in committee far too long".

Otterby turned to Senator Sulla:

"Well Senator does that help incline you towards voting in favour"?

"In God we Trust, all other must pay Cash....sorry old boy, but this is strictly a cash deal. Unless of course we're talking about a large supply of drinking whiskey, or CPESL vouchers.":D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

"P.S. How much is said pelt worth on the open market?"

While we support the general thrust of this proposal and most of its provisions, and had intended to vote for it, one comment by the representative of Reidalia has given us pause. Our response to his comments should explain our concern.

The requirement to "remove all protectionist devices" is open ended, it includes, but is not limited to a list of such devices, thus leaving members open to specious charges of protectionism. Reidalia would prefer to see a definitive list of disallowed actions.

While, ideally, specific, definitive language is desirable in resolutions, it's often just not practical within the space limitations imposed on proposals. We do not consider this a substantial flaw in this particular resolution.

The list of protectionist devices includes subsidies, and this seems to conflict with the Resolutions many calls for members to foster recycling and recycling industry, including Article 4's first sub-clause calling on members to "promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities," and subsidies are a time honored tool to foster the creation of new technologies and industries. It also conflicts with the Resolutions recognition that, "a 'one size fits all' approach to the promotion of recycling is likely to do more harm than good."

We must agree with the honorable representative here. We believe that subsidies and other types of subventions, tax advantages, preferential contracting by the government, etc., are by far the most powerful tools available for promotion of a domestic recycling capability. And they would, in most cases, clearly be "protectionist devices" and prohibited by this resolution. We are afraid that the resolution's requirement to "remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies" is too broad in this instance.

The sub-clause does not deferentiate between recycled raw materials and finished goods containing recycled materials, indeed the Resolution's language appears to more specifically address finished goods than raw materials. Reidalia does not wish to be forced to import finished goods that do not meet our cultural or other standards simply because they contain recycled materials or technologies.

We believe this objection is reaching beyond the plain language of the resolution. The resolution specifies "recycled goods." It says nothing about "finished goods containing recycled materials." And we do not agree that the nation would be "forced to import finished goods that do not meet our cultural or other standards." Bars on import of substandard, hazardous, or culturally offensive materials are not protectionist devices, as they are not imposed for the purpose of giving advantage to domestic producers.

We will withhold our vote here and in our regional forum pending the opportunity to consider the comments of the author and other members.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

as my country has no private sector how would i reward corporations for doing this? other than that i whole heartedly support this proposal

Good evening, fellow UN members.
First of all, I would like to introduce myself, I am buckmanno, of the Republic of Buckmanno, and i would like to say thank you whoever decided to make me a part of this great Organization.

Now, I will get back on topic, and say that i think that this is a great thing, to promote recycling, however, recycling is not the issue.
The real issue is what is being released by our nations into the atmosphere.
As children, I am sure we have all done this, or seen someone do this, we have experimented burning things, and you may have noticed, a thick black smoke when you melted down plastics, or other things. This mysterious black smoke, I think, is the real problem. So, in conclusion, I think this would be great for recycling metals like aluminum and such, however, plastics are an issue. They take up more resourses than it takes to make new plastics from scratch.

I think we should pick and choose what we decide is good to recycle, not just recycle everything we can get our hands on.

Thank you for your time.

"P.S. How much is said pelt worth on the open market?"

Depending on your supplier, they can fetch up to 125,000 strachans, which is about 40,000 of your currency I believe.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Yes it does. It will stimulate trade in recycled goods, thus increasing the involvement of industry in recycling.

Furthermore, I don't understand your point about tariffs substituting for income tax. Why not simply charge a sales tax on goods?


How is that lee-way? It still requires that all nations remove all tariffs on recycled goods! Member nations have absolutely no choice in the matter. So, where's this lee-way again?

as my country has no private sector how would i reward corporations for doing this? other than that i whole heartedly support this proposal

Corporations could be publicly owned so you could reward departments of your government for accomplishing that goal or, perhaps, multi-nationals that might be in your nation.

Regardless, you can still deal with the "rewarding individuals" part and it is an "AUTHORIZES" clause instead of a "MANDATES" clause, so if it doesn't apply to you, the UN legally permits you to ignore it.

How is that lee-way? It still requires that all nations remove all tariffs on recycled goods! Member nations have absolutely no choice in the matter. So, where's this lee-way again?
What lee-way.

Now, answer my question:

Why not simply charge a sales tax on goods?

----

We must agree with the honorable representative here. We believe that subsidies and other types of subventions, tax advantages, preferential contracting by the government, etc., are by far the most powerful tools available for promotion of a domestic recycling capability. And they would, in most cases, clearly be "protectionist devices" and prohibited by this resolution. We are afraid that the resolution's requirement to "remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies" is too broad in this instance.
I disagree, and I think you're looking at this from too narrow a perspective.

In most countries, there will already be recycling programs that will be entirely unaffected by this resolution, because they're very local and small-scale. Such programs will, hopefully, continue and grow. But I don't ultimately consider them worthy of international attention. Furthermore, prohibiting subsidies and tariffs is unlikely to affect them, as they are not involved in international trade anyway.

This resolution talks about the international and industrial aspect of recycling. There, free trade is desirable, because although as you point out the removal of subsidies may be detrimental to some sectors, it will lead to the development in a global context of the most efficient sectors, which is obviously a good thing.

So whilst I do see your concern - it's something I considered in drafting - I think my provisions are necessary. As much as anything, eliminating tariffs but not subsidies heavily favours richer governments, whose recycling sectors are more likely to be developed anyway.

Why not simply charge a sales tax on goods?

i do charge sales tax on imported goods, in addition to tariffs. what gives you the right to determine how my citizens are taxed?

i do charge sales tax on imported goods, in addition to tariffs. what gives you the right to determine how my citizens are taxed?
So let me get this straight. You impose tariffs, and you also charge a sales tax on imported goods, and further you don't charge a sales tax on domestic goods? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So let me get this straight. You impose tariffs, and you also charge a sales tax on imported goods, and further you don't charge a sales tax on domestic goods? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

oops, don't know why the word is imported their. i charge a sales tax on all goods (save food), and have tariffs on imported goods.

For!

For!
That's a point. No poll.

In general I support this proposal, but, as I noted earlier, there is one sub-clause of Article 4 that gives me pause, I copy the sub-clause below and highlight the item that causes me concern:

- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;

What causes my concern is that subsidies are a traditional tool for nations to foster new and emerging technologies and industries, so this resolution may well undercut one of its own goals of encouragins such new developments. Also, the definition of subsidy is often in the eye of the trade competitor. For example, all venture capital in Reidalia comes from communal investment banks funded from the Social Welfare and Equality budgets, so any new Reidalian Syndicates devoted to recycling technologies and/or production would be initially funded by Reidalian taxes and might well be seen as subsidies.

What are the thoughts of this proposal's authors and the UN authorities on the definition of subsidies in this context?

Regards,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

Depending on your supplier, they can fetch up to 125,000 strachans, which is about 40,000 of your currency I believe.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Then we shall keep your offer in mind, Mr. Otterby. So, my esteemed collegues...do I have any other offers? Remember the price is now more than 40,000 Greenbacks.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I like this Resolution, but highly dislike its founder. Therefore, I will hold my vote. If you can persuade me, Gruenburg, I might agree to vote yes. At the moment I prefer to stay neutral.

I like this Resolution, but highly dislike its founder. Therefore, I will hold my vote. If you can persuade me, Gruenburg, I might agree to vote yes. At the moment I prefer to stay neutral.

Childish. :mad:

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well I agree with it that this proposal is a good idea for recycling in the UN nations.

Well I agree with it that this proposal is a good idea for recycling in the UN nations.

We also agree with this proposal, well written

REQUIRES member nations to: ...remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations

We cannot allow the United Nations to have such power as the ability to determine what international trade can and cannot be taxed. Such power has always been firmly in the province of the individual state. What is to stop the United Nations using this measure from increasing it's power over other aspects of sovereign rule? Already it has too much power in determining the rule of independent powers, recent legislation notwithstanding. And being a small, ineffectual nation ourself, this is the only place to put our concerns. We do not have the power or ability to do other than vote against the current resolution.

We cannot allow the United Nations to have such power as the ability to determine what international trade can and cannot be taxed. Such power has always been firmly in the province of the individual state. What is to stop the United Nations using this measure from increasing it's power over other aspects of sovereign rule? Already it has too much power in determining the rule of independent powers, recent legislation notwithstanding. And being a small, ineffectual nation ourself, this is the only place to put our concerns. We do not have the power or ability to do other than vote against the current resolution.

Don't you think it's a little late to start worrying about the U.N. increasing its powers over sovereign rule?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Ausserland
Deadly


Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 666

OOC: Feeling somewhat demonic Ausserland?;)

Childish. :mad:

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


And how is that childish? The only way something was childish was the way Gruenberg responded to me on the Nuclear Energy Topic, where he cursed and rambled on about my messages rather than the Topic itself. I withhold my delegate vote.

I have posted an against vote for this resolution, and I really wanted to explain why. (Not that anyone will read this :headbang: )

Reason #1: I really have no idea what a resolution about recycling is doing affecting 'Free Trade'. Someone please explain.

Reason #2: I don't think this resolution covers how smaller or poorer nations can afford to implement these recycling technologies. It simply says that nations will share recycling technologies, but not how they will afford them.

I think the resolution makes a good start but it needs to go further and explain more. :sniper: :mp5:

Thus, I vote against.

Good!

And how is that childish? The only way something was childish was the way Gruenberg responded to me on the Nuclear Energy Topic, where he cursed and rambled on about my messages rather than the Topic itself. I withhold my delegate vote.

It's little Tommy's birthday. He's brought candy bars to share with his first grade classmates. As the teacher passes them out, little Kenny sits with his arms folded and a scowl on his face. He loves candy bars. And, in fact, the ones being passed out are his favorites. As the teacher goes to hand him his candy, he whines: "No! I don't want any! I don't like Tommy! He said mean things to me on the playground last week!"

Failing to support a resolution one admits is a good one because of a grudge against its author seems a lot like little Kenny to us. It certainly isn't action based on mature consideration of the merits of the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I voted against this due to the fact that recycling does not truly work. If it did it would not need government subsidies to maintain it's own infrastructure.

We the people of Venz are concerned about our environment and support this all the way!

I voted against this due to the fact that recycling does not truly work. If it did it would not need government subsidies to maintain it's own infrastructure.

So what's your solution, keep sailing onwards blindly?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I voted against this due to the fact that recycling does not truly work. If it did it would not need government subsidies to maintain it's own infrastructure.
Just pointing out that this resolution bans government subsidies on recycling. I think it does indeed work.
Reason #1: I really have no idea what a resolution about recycling is doing affecting 'Free Trade'. Someone please explain.
This resolution gives companies incentives to recycle by freeing up the recycling market, which I think is a very good idea.
Reason #2: I don't think this resolution covers how smaller or poorer nations can afford to implement these recycling technologies. It simply says that nations will share recycling technologies, but not how they will afford them.
Uhhh...invest in technologies to make them cheaper...get richer...

I think the resolution makes a good start but it needs to go further and explain more.
You know, it's a bit hard to explain every detail in 3500 characters. You can just make up your own explanation.

Enrique Lopez
Assistant to the Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs
Congressional Republic of Ceorana

It's little Tommy's birthday. He's brought candy bars to share with his first grade classmates. As the teacher passes them out, little Kenny sits with his arms folded and a scowl on his face. He loves candy bars. And, in fact, the ones being passed out are his favorites. As the teacher goes to hand him his candy, he whines: "No! I don't want any! I don't like Tommy! He said mean things to me on the playground last week!"

Failing to support a resolution one admits is a good one because of a grudge against its author seems a lot like little Kenny to us. It certainly isn't action based on mature consideration of the merits of the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


Heh heh, any particular reason you chose the name "Kenny" to be the childish one? Tee hee!



Norderia is voting for this Resolution, despite the frequent anti-protectionist clauses being stuck into Resolutions as late. There is enough good being done by this Resolution to make me look the other way, albeit with a scowl on my face.

G'luck.

Heh heh, any particular reason you chose the name "Kenny" to be the childish one? Tee hee!I presume, to give you the opening for a cheap shot?

Now, now children, be nice to one another.:rolleyes:

I said before that I would support a replacement to mandatory recycling. But I will NOT support one that relies so much on private enteprise.

Such a good proposal, with one major flaw...

It "requires" removal of all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies.

There are just too many ways that this is damaging, and too many ways that countries can use it to get around protective tarifs that keep smaller economies from being innundated by bigger ones.

If, perhaps, it ENCOURAGED the removal, it would be acceptable, but as it stands, I must vote no.

To Fellow UN Member Nations:

The Holy Empire of Edvardus does not have a problem with supporting this bill. Recycling is an imporant issue in production, especially for industrialised nations.

Sincerely,


Dmitri Nowak
Ambassador of His Imperial Highness to the UN
Prime Minister of Edvardus

Such a good proposal, with one major flaw...

It "requires" removal of all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies.

There are just too many ways that this is damaging, and too many ways that countries can use it to get around protective tarifs that keep smaller economies from being innundated by bigger ones.

If, perhaps, it ENCOURAGED the removal, it would be acceptable, but as it stands, I must vote no.

As a representative of Emeralds Seas I agree with Upper Botswavia. This proposal if passed will destroy Emerald Seas important automobile industry. There is no way we can vote yes.

Heh heh, any particular reason you chose the name "Kenny" to be the childish one? Tee hee!



Norderia is voting for this Resolution, despite the frequent anti-protectionist clauses being stuck into Resolutions as late. There is enough good being done by this Resolution to make me look the other way, albeit with a scowl on my face.

G'luck.

The government of the Principality of Ausserland wishes to formally state that any resemblance between notional characters in our comment and any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Of course, the possible influence of the subconscious can never be entirely discounted. :rolleyes:

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

DAMiTT's trade deficit: $279 billion
Estimated cost of the AFTA defeat on DAMiTT's economy: ~$2 trillion
Estimated value of NERA to DAMiTT's economy: ~$4 trillion
DAMiTT's teddy bear market: ~$2 trillion
VIP Pass to Kenny's Super-special Gentlemen's Club (including free lapdances from retired Stripper Commandos): $400
Cost to Sen. Sulla, upon voting for this legislation: $0
Tricking NSUN fluffies into supporting free-trade legislation: pricelessThe Federal Republic, by way of the Dictatorial Anarchy of Mark Tom and Travis, will support this resolution.

~Jack Riley
Secretary for Usurping Sovereign Nations' UN Contingencies
Avowed "Sovereigntist"

DAMMiT's trade deficit: $447.9 billion
Estimated cost of the AFTA defeat on DAMMiT's economy: ~$2 trillion
Estimated value of NERA to DAMMiT's economy: ~$4 trillion
DAMMiT's teddy bear market: ~$2 trillion
VIP Pass to Kenny's Super-special Gentlemen's Club (including free lapdances from retired Stripper Commandos): $400
Cost to Sen. Sulla, upon voting for this legislation: $0
Tricking NSUN fluffies into supporting free-trade legislation: priceless


Not even going to ask about the reference to Stripper Commandos. And I thought the Armed Republic of Schartlefritzen's Mad!Clone!Army was unusual.

No. It's the "free trade" aspect; although we are mindful of the potentially environmentally harmful effects of recycling plastics and painted metals also. Adherents of Base Perfidy trust that the proposed UNRC would eventually address such issues, if in the short-term only by promoting secondary usage of products without the harmful effects caused by trying to render them back into truly raw materials.

The removal of domestic market protection cannot but advantage those producers whose countries of origin have a well developed infrastructure and are thus able to take advantage of economies of scale. Country A may have the roads to connect multiple areas to rail-heads and the bulk transportation to depots that facilitates, while country B may have a single well maintained metalled road to which goods must be brought in hand carts, even there to be less efficiently transported via smaller loads. A's scenario involves a lot less person/hours of labour than B's and thus costs less.

Furthermore, a rich country can afford the widespead practice of "export guarantee" whereby a company's own government actually underwrites a foreign debt, whereas a poor country cannot afford this on any sufficiently large scale to affect international trade. This practice is nothing less than free commercial insurance and is itself, therefore, a subsidy.

As Jack Riley from Mark Tom and Travis states, this is nothing more than piggy-backing "free trade" onto recycling in the same kind of cynical maneuver in which it was foisted onto food to create the UNFTC originally, in res #130.

The role of the UNFTC should be reconsidered also: not to promote the removal of protectionist measures, but rather to investigate the real differences in production costs within differing nations and administer tarrifs accordingly, to make trade fair. Otherwise poorer nations will never be able to afford the infrastructure and wealth such generates enjoyed by others, but will be forever relying on aid to provide the meanest improvements, often contingent on ideological parity and/or political support in other, often unconnected, areas.

Otherwise, we would support it.

~ Innit Bwoy
Hounds of Poon Syndic (rulers in rotation)

The removal of domestic market protection cannot but advantage those producers whose countries of origin have a well developed infrastructure and are thus able to take advantage of economies of scale. Country A may have the roads to connect multiple areas to rail-heads and the bulk transportation to depots that facilitates, while country B may have a single well maintained metalled road to which goods must be brought in hand carts, even there to be less efficiently transported via smaller loads. A's scenario involves a lot less person/hours of labour than B's and thus costs less.

Not necessarily, it could also result in A exporting new technology to B, in order to expand its recycling market. With the free-trade aspect of this resolution, the ease with which technological transactions can be undertaken and exchange of ideas conducted, is greatly increased. Thus, this offers an opportunity for development for both nations.

As Jack Riley from Mark Tom and Travis states, this is nothing more than piggy-backing "free trade" onto recycling in the same kind of cynical maneuver in which it was foisted onto food to create the UNFTC originally, in res #130.

I too share concerns about piggy-backing, but in this case it offers greater benefits than detriments. As for the commercial insurance claim, the export guarantees ensure that companies have a compensatory mechanism in the event of instability in an invested nation and also can serve as an incentive for a nation to clean up its act, which regards to foreign investors.

The role of the UNFTC should be reconsidered also: not to promote the removal of protectionist measures, but rather to investigate the real differences in production costs within differing nations and administer tarrifs accordingly, to make trade fair. Otherwise poorer nations will never be able to afford the infrastructure and wealth such generates enjoyed by others, but will be forever relying on aid to provide the meanest improvements, often contingent on ideological parity and/or political support in other, often unconnected, areas.

Differential tariffs are attractive, but ultimately they would have to be set at such high levels that they might end up doing more harm than good. There are some circumstances in which they can be excellent trade policy, but I doubt that recycling is one of them.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

this resolution is appallingly excellent, I approve of it! ;)

although my nation is fairly recycled daily and has no problems...I can agree with this proposal

although my nation is fairly recycled daily and has no problems...I can agree with this proposal

Pardon me honourable delegate, but did you just say that your nation is recycled daily. Your efficiency impresses me.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The Emperor of the Empire of Tolkienism supports this resolution.

this resolution is appallingly excellent, I approve of it! ;)

Oh the irony...

Hmm, looks like Mr. Otterby has the best offer out, so I shall take him up on the offer and vote for this legislation.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Thank you kind sir, I applaud your fine taste and discretion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Not necessarily, it could also result in A exporting new technology to B, in order to expand its recycling market. With the free-trade aspect of this resolution, the ease with which technological transactions can be undertaken and exchange of ideas conducted, is greatly increased. Thus, this offers an opportunity for development for both nations.Precisely. New technology from a rich country to a poor one. Technology it doesn't need, because in a poor country, nothing that has any value or potential re-use is wasted anyway. Nobody could afford the three layers of packaging around individual food portions or flashy consumer goods with built in obsolesence that creates the need for recycling in rich countries, and incidentally contributes needlessly to global warming. Given the infrastructure in rich countries, including the universities/R&D facilities in which this new tech might be invented, which direction do we seriously expect any products/technologies of recycling to flow in? Base Perfidy submits it would be, quite obviously, A to B.I too share concerns about piggy-backing, but in this case it offers greater benefits than detriments. As for the commercial insurance claim, the export guarantees ensure that companies have a compensatory mechanism in the event of instability in an invested nation and also can serve as an incentive for a nation to clean up its act, which regards to foreign investors.What is commercial insurance if it is not "a compensatory mechanism in the event of..." anything that might go wrong with a transaction? So you want rich countries to keep a subsidy as well as the commercial advantage offered by their basic infrastructure whilst enshrining in law the removal of poor countries ability to protect their domestic economy from being flooded by cheap foreign junk.Differential tariffs are attractive, but ultimately they would have to be set at such high levels that they might end up doing more harm than good. There are some circumstances in which they can be excellent trade policy, but I doubt that recycling is one of them.I am sure I speak for most of the Collectives of Adherents to Base Perfidy when I say I am pleased you recognise that differential tarrifs would have to be set unfeasably high, however "fair trade" is not a subject with only two options: unworkable tarrifs or no tarrifs. We Hounds of Poon will address it again, as I am certain our other Collectives will, as they take their rotation as rulers.:fluffle:

~ Innit Bwoy
Hounds of Poon Syndic (rulers in rotation)

4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;

Nowhere is the cost mentioned here. This issue is too minor to be belittlingly wasting money. I encourage you all to give no support on this issue

Nowhere is the cost mentioned here. This issue is too minor to be belittlingly wasting money. I encourage you all to give no support on this issue"Promoting" doesn't necessarily mean spending money. The government could give tax incentives, pretty certificates or anything else to companies working on recycling technology.


Technology it doesn't need, because in a poor country, nothing that has any value or potential re-use is wasted anyway.What, are all poor nations full of mythical nobel savages? Tell me, what do they do with turkey guts? Or cow teeth? Every nation generate waste, not just us evil rich ones. Furthermore, poor countries could benefit the most from the right kind of recycling technology. I'm not talking about that blue-bag bullshit that the fluffies like to promote and pretend that it does anything aside from waste everyone's time. I'm talking about real recycling. I'm talking about thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization). It's affordable, and doesn't require any exceptionally advanced scientific knowledge, and it turns damn near any kind of waste into something usable: oil.

Man... I could have sworn I've made this speech before...

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

Tell me, what do they do with turkey guts? Or cow teeth?Boil them up for soup or feed them to the dogs.

What, are all poor nations full of mythical nobel savages? Tell me, what do they do with turkey guts? Or cow teeth?

A lot depends on the particular animal and the incentive for the farmer to make boatloads of money. Nothing is wasted, for example, from the Long Island duck, as there is always a market for bizzare animal organs in China. On the other hand, pig farmers in "upstate" New York do waste a tremendous amount of valuable product, from the skin to the knuckles, even though there are a number of places where such products are commonly used.

Hack, the article you cited on thermal depolymerization only cites turkey offal and sewerage sludge, not animal body parts. This is a good thing, because knowing the people of NationStates, someone is bound to propose an issue that would solve the cemetary problem by turning loved ones into gas. :p

Hack, the article you cited on thermal depolymerization only cites turkey offal and sewerage sludge, not animal body parts. This is a good thing, because knowing the people of NationStates, someone is bound to propose an issue that would solve the cemetary problem by turning loved ones into gas. :p

OOC: There's already an issue about turning them into fast food...

ooc:
Hack, the article you cited on thermal depolymerization only cites turkey offal and sewerage sludge, not animal body parts.Turkey offal is animal body parts. Feathers, intestine, and feet, to be exact. Also, if you read further, you'll see that the process can work on almost anything save radioactive material. It's just that the pilot plant in question is running on turkey offal (what with being next to a Butterball processing plant and all...).

Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.

As for the rest... well... the good Doctor sometimes exaggerates.

We here at the holy empire believe that recycling should be voluntary and not be forced. Our population is environmentally friendly because they believe that it is whats best for themselves and thier God, James Lee P.B.U.H.
Because of this i urge you all vote against this bill.

OOC: I am sorry I was away for much (all) of this debate, in the end, and was unable to respond to the points.

IC: In light of his recent absence, Ambassador Bausch will be unable to respond to individual points, but would like to make some general concluding statements.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Advisor
Minister of Sandy Vaginas

Firstly, I would like to thank those who have voted for, supported, and contributed to this resolution, which now appears almost certain to pass (Wena willing), and pffffffffffffft to those who voted against. A few points of explanation.

1. What it actually does

This proposal does not form a committee with unlimited powers. There is in fact NO committee formed. Clause 2 appears to have been widely misinterpreted. It is a 'data resource', not an empowered body. Think of it as a Recycling eBay, Recycling Wikipedia, and Recycling Jolt forum all wrapped into one. And yes, it could actually be online, perhaps hosted by a server for the ULC. Governments, companies, organizations, and individuals, can, if they want, use it to find out information, share research, get involved in projects, or trade resources. Perhaps it could also be used to advertise jobs or academic opportunities. It's really up to the people who use it. But it absolutely cannot force any nation to do any recycling.

The other parts of the proposal do force nations to do something, however. But the whole point of recycling is sustainable development. So they don't force fixed standards: instead, they ask governments to do everything that is economically feasible. Arguments to the effect of "I can't afford this" are moot, because if you can't afford it you don't have to do it. That would be counter-productive.

2. The free trade bit

Yes, on reflection, perhaps this should have been split into two proposals: one for the commission, one for the free trade area. They are essentially separate. But no matter.

Firstly, the UN does have authority in trade matters. National sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a place and a people. Trade transcends places and peoples. For solely internal matters, this has no effect - you can have a command, a market, a whatever economy you want. For necessarily international matters, then national sovereignty is irrelevant. You do not have the right to obstacle other nations' passages.

Secondly, the free trade bit is important, because we need to accept that small community projects can be useful in cleaning up trash, but aren't going to save the planet. There is no reason for industry to get involved. But by creating a free trade area in recycled goods, it is hoped a lucrative market will open up, and that this will attract industrial involvement. Consider it: at the moment, why on earth would agrochemical firms undercut their own business by investment in compost? But, after this passes, tariffs can remain on non-recycled goods. So trade in compostable waste will be more lucrative than trade in chemical fertilizers.

3. Specifically, subsidies

There has been some complaint that whilst tariffs and import quotas are fair game for removal, subsidies should have been allowed to remain in place, because they're useful for stimulating what will always be a desirable sector. Here is my rationale for including them in the exclusion (yeah, I know):

Subsidies hamper and suppress trade, just like any other protectionist device. On a small, local scale, that might be negligible...but there are other ways to stimulate local projects, such as tax incentives. The emphasis of this proposal is international industry. And there, it is in the interests of all to develop specialised recycling sectors. As this happens, waste can be recycled more efficiently.

My one disappointment in this proposal was the subsidies line, and if someone is able to propose a better alternative, I will gladly support them in it.

It's little Tommy's birthday. He's brought candy bars to share with his first grade classmates. As the teacher passes them out, little Kenny sits with his arms folded and a scowl on his face. He loves candy bars. And, in fact, the ones being passed out are his favorites. As the teacher goes to hand him his candy, he whines: "No! I don't want any! I don't like Tommy! He said mean things to me on the playground last week!"

Failing to support a resolution one admits is a good one because of a grudge against its author seems a lot like little Kenny to us. It certainly isn't action based on mature consideration of the merits of the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


You were not there, and did not know what the situation was like. As for your little story, I find it most humiliating that you can say these lies without being there. I do not "love" this resolution, and it is not my "favorite", which makes it hold even less water. Thank you, and goodbye.

The resolution UN Recycling Commission was passed 9,077 votes to 3,335, and implemented in all UN member nations.

I was against (for purely tarriff reasons), but well done anyway, Gruen. :)

ooc:
As for the rest... well... the good Doctor sometimes exaggerates.
Originally Posted by Discover Magazine
Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.
ooc: Ah reminds me of one R.E. lesson where we were told how many boxes of matches, bars of soap, bowls of soup etc could be made from a human body.

it sounds good to me:)