NationStates Jolt Archive


PASSED: Repeal "Replanting Trees" [OFFICIAL TOPIC]

Jey
04-06-2006, 02:18
http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/1504/randr7nr.jpg (http://s9.invisionfree.com/Reveal_and_Repeal/index.php?)

Official R&R Legislation (http://s9.invisionfree.com/Reveal_and_Repeal/index.php?)

Repeal "Replanting Trees"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #23 (http://www.nationstates.net/74472/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22)
Proposed by: Adolf Barham

Description: UN Resolution #23: Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/74472/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the good environmental intentions of resolution #23, "Replanting Trees,"

EMPHASISING that this repeal is not an attempt to make it easier for companies to deforest trees wantonly,

NOTING that trees are measured by a numbered count and not in acres making the proposal very vague and ineffectual,

FURTHERMORE NOTING that it only states that the responsibility of replanting the trees is held by the person or the enterprise who cut them down and makes no obligation for the individual or the enterprise to ensure that the replanted trees are able to grow and that there is no power to enforce that the trees are able to grow,

CONSIDERING that there may not be ample land to replant the required amount of trees available,

ALSO CONSIDERING that no reason is given as to why the trees should be replanted and that all this resolution achieves is wasting the money of each nation,

NOTING that the resolution makes no allowances for any trees cut prior to the resolution passing,

CONSIDERING that, under this resolution, it is possible to cut down small batches of trees numbering below five acres and not replant, thereby rendering the resolution virtually useless,

STATING that the resolution makes no allowances for different varieties or types of trees grown, thus allowing companies to destroy biodiversity,

NOTING that no allowances are given for the deforested area to recoup in certain nutrients after the deforestation,

DEEMING Resolution #23 to be an ineffectual and inconsiderate resolution which fails to accomplish its goals,

REPEALS Resolution #23: Replanting Trees.

Co-Authored by: Jey

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

Current Resolution

Replanting Trees

Description: If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.

Votes For: 10,301
Votes Against: 4,638

Implemented: Wed Jul 2 2003
Gruenberg
04-06-2006, 02:19
My support for this is contingent on the status of A-B's "replacement". I consider this resolution very bad, and have tried to repeal it myself, but his replacement is far worse, so I would be forced to vote against if he continues with it.
Dancing Bananland
04-06-2006, 08:46
Where's the replacement?

As for this proposal, it is a pretty weak proposal and the reasons for repealing it are qutie convincing, however I feel nervous repealing it incase someone should come along and put a replacement opposite of the purpose of the origional resolution. I say, show us a convincing replacement, and you have your repeal Mac.
Compadria
04-06-2006, 13:09
STATING that the resolution makes no allowances for different varieties or types of trees grown, thus allowing companies to destroy biodiversity,

Incidentally, this is a big problem with wood-pulp producing tree plantations. Pines and conifers are best suited to this particular line of industry, yet they increase the acidity of the soil and severely reduce natural biodiversity and indeed render the areas near deserts (metaphorically and ecologically speaking).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Adolf-Barham
04-06-2006, 22:05
Gruenberg, the replacement is in a very early drafting stage and we will take all your opinions and create a decent proposal, so I would be grateful if you didn't just say that the replacement is very bad.

Anyway, it isn't actually a direct replacement - It doesn't just talk about replanting trees - it is an environment protection Act.

I would urge you to vote for the repeal because the replacement will become to Gruenberg's liking soon and will also be to everyone else's liking. I understand that Gruenberg is a very experienced member, so if he likes a proposal, it means that it is a very good proposal.

Gruenberg: Why don't you try and change the proposal yourself? I would be happy to step down as the author.
Jey
05-06-2006, 03:28
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Oh please stay there...I've seen this reach-quorum-very-late thing before...:(
Omigodtheykilledkenny
05-06-2006, 15:56
Where's the replacement?

As for this proposal, it is a pretty weak proposal and the reasons for repealing it are qutie convincing, however I feel nervous repealing it incase someone should come along and put a replacement opposite of the purpose of the origional resolution. I say, show us a convincing replacement, and you have your repeal Mac.http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/7011/maguire8xx.png
Jey
05-06-2006, 16:48
It's on R&R here (http://s9.invisionfree.com/Reveal_and_Repeal/index.php?showtopic=35)

It should be noted that the replacement is still very early in the drafting process, and we know how different early drafts can be from their finalized forms.
Callagon
05-06-2006, 17:03
Tell me I am reading this wrong but are you suggesting tree planting stops? Are you insane? My country has mass deforestation already and my national animal is running the risk of extinction because of it. Trees need replacing to counter all the environmental damage that companies cause. If they cant afford it, tough luck, dont cut them down. Its as simple as that.

If there are no trees, its gonna be one really messed up country. Pollution is going to be high, global warming.

Im really opposed to this idea.

And if ive got the wrong end of the stick, telegram me with this whole proposal rewritten in a nutshell and i might vhange my opinion but at the moment this sounds like another rubbish idea. :headbang:
Jey
05-06-2006, 17:08
Tell me I am reading this wrong but are you suggesting tree planting stops? Are you insane? My country has mass deforestation already and my national animal is running the risk of extinction because of it. Trees need replacing to counter all the environmental damage that companies cause. If they cant afford it, tough luck, dont cut them down. Its as simple as that.

If there are no trees, its gonna be one really messed up country. Pollution is going to be high, global warming.

Im really opposed to this idea.

And if ive got the wrong end of the stick, telegram me with this whole proposal rewritten in a nutshell and i might vhange my opinion but at the moment this sounds like another rubbish idea. :headbang:

This proposal doesn't ban tree planting. Its repealing a resolution that fails in its attempt to force individuals and companies to replant trees. Why does it fail? Read the proposal.
Gruenberg
05-06-2006, 18:28
This proposal doesn't ban tree planting. Its repealing a resolution that fails in its attempt to force individuals and companies to replant trees. Why does it fail? Read the proposal.
I suggest you telegram him.

I think I'll bite the bullet and support this one. The replacement is a separate issue.
Norderia
05-06-2006, 18:42
I would urge you to vote for the repeal because the replacement will become to Gruenberg's liking soon and will also be to everyone else's liking. I understand that Gruenberg is a very experienced member, so if he likes a proposal, it means that it is a very good proposal.

Gruenberg: Why don't you try and change the proposal yourself? I would be happy to step down as the author.


Now, now, don't suck up. Gruenberg's support =/= good Proposal. It may be a well-written one, but we've been diametrically opposed on some proposals. Well-written ones. So unless you plan on saying Norderia's support = bad Proposal, let's not be quick to call the experienced players infallable.

Norderia's vote is cast FOR this Repeal. R&R strikes again.

Tommo the Stout;
UN Ambassador;
Norderia;
North Sea
Gruenberg
05-06-2006, 18:44
Now, now, don't suck up. Gruenberg's support =/= good Proposal. It may be a well-written one, but we've been diametrically opposed on some proposals. Well-written ones. So unless you plan on saying Norderia's support = bad Proposal, let's not be quick to call the experienced players infallable.
Yes, sorry, I hadn't noticed that before. Ridiculous to suggest that any person's support automatically makes it a "good proposal".
Omigodtheykilledkenny
05-06-2006, 18:50
Norderia's vote is cast FOR this Repeal. R&R strikes again.Bah. What does R&R have better to do than repeal old shit only to replace it with new, even worse shit? Opposed.
Norderia
05-06-2006, 18:52
Tell me I am reading this wrong but are you suggesting tree planting stops? Are you insane? My country has mass deforestation already and my national animal is running the risk of extinction because of it. Trees need replacing to counter all the environmental damage that companies cause. If they cant afford it, tough luck, dont cut them down. Its as simple as that.

If there are no trees, its gonna be one really messed up country. Pollution is going to be high, global warming.

Im really opposed to this idea.

And if ive got the wrong end of the stick, telegram me with this whole proposal rewritten in a nutshell and i might vhange my opinion but at the moment this sounds like another rubbish idea. :headbang:


So long as you're willing to see the other side of things. Don't interpret a repeal as a swing of the pendulum to the other side. Believe me, any Resolution that aims to prevent reforestation and allow wanton destruction of the most sacred of terrains would be doomed to failure. I'm hard-pressed to think that one such Proposal would reach quorum.

Tommo the Stout;
UN Ambassador;
Norderia;
North Sea
Norderia
05-06-2006, 18:54
Bah. What does R&R have better to do than repeal old shit only to replace it with new, even worse shit? Opposed.

I don't think that R&R is replacing anything.

Hell, if the replacement sucks, Norderia will oppose it. But I think by now it's understood that OmfgKenny enjoys crappy Resolutions.

I should stop trying...

-sits back down in the hammock-

Tommo the Stout
Etc.
Norderia
05-06-2006, 18:58
Yes, sorry, I hadn't noticed that before. Ridiculous to suggest that any person's support automatically makes it a "good proposal".

Thanks for not taking that personally.
Jey
05-06-2006, 18:59
I don't think that R&R is replacing anything.

Your right, Norderia, R&R isn't going to endorse any replacement of this resolution. Any replacement will be a mission by Adolf Barham and any of his affiliates.
Gruenberg
05-06-2006, 19:01
Thanks for not taking that personally.
Huh? I didn't think I was taking it personally.
Forgottenlands
05-06-2006, 19:03
Huh? I didn't think I was taking it personally.

I don't think he was being sarcastic

I'm not sure why he'd be concerned but....yeah
Gruenberg
05-06-2006, 19:07
I don't think he was being sarcastic
Whoops.

Ok then, well thanks/sorry.

As for the resolution, it seems to be winning, but why are there so few votes? Did the update set in late?
Adolf-Barham
05-06-2006, 19:09
I'm not sure when the proposal was put infront of the whole UN, but there was no current resolution 2 hours ago. I think it might have came in late because it got to quorum late, but it might just be the update being late.
Dankism
05-06-2006, 19:13
There was nothing in quorum when UNSA1 failed, and still nothing up until this made quorum, so it skipped queue and when straight to vote.
Norderia
05-06-2006, 19:15
I don't think he was being sarcastic

I'm not sure why he'd be concerned but....yeah


I'm always concerned. Look at my country!

And yes, when I checked this morning (Central Time), there was nothing at vote. It's too early in the day here for people. Starting in about 4 hours, votes will start rising.
La Isla de Bojanglia
05-06-2006, 19:25
how does the present resolution and the new one take into account land clearing for farming and mining? What if replanting trees in the same place they where removed are not possible?
Gruenberg
05-06-2006, 19:27
how does the present resolution and the new one take into account land clearing for farming and mining? What if replanting trees in the same place they where removed are not possible?
That's the argument being made in the repeal - no consideration is made for that in the original resolution, which is why it should be struck out.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
05-06-2006, 19:38
I don't think that R&R is replacing anything.Oh, I'm sorry. Did you miss Post #8 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11096734&postcount=8)?

Hell, if the replacement sucks, Norderia will oppose it. But I think by now it's understood that OmfgKenny enjoys crappy Resolutions.You know, whenever you get up off that hammock to speak, I always try to ignore you -- sometimes I stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly -- but when you're right, you're right. I'm such a fucking idiot! I enjoy loading the UN books with shit way too much; I haven't any idea why I even authored all those repeals of some the shittiest resolutions that ever passed this body! Maybe another blame-America post will help me see the light?

I should stop trying...Considering you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I strongly suggest that you do.
Forgottenlands
05-06-2006, 20:37
*snip*

Who shat in your Alphagetti. Chill out!
Jey
05-06-2006, 20:37
Oh, I'm sorry. Did you miss Post #8 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11096734&postcount=8)?

Calm down Kenny, please.

Just because the replacement is being drafted on R&R is no indication that it will be endorsed by R&R. We welcome any proposal to be posted here, but that doesn't mean that R&R is endorsing it. It is Adolf Barham's proposal--not R&R's, and is an entirely different issue.
Callagon
05-06-2006, 20:43
Now thats better :) Every UN proposal needs someone to summarise it simply. Sometimes I look at these acts and think "What a load of gobbledegook". If this is to repeal an ineffective legistlation and impose a better more efficient environmental legislation in its place then I will withdraw my "Against" vote and will support this. Thanks for clearing this up for me! :D
Tzorsland
05-06-2006, 21:15
At the time I write this, I seem to be the lone Meh.
I can (and am presently doing so) live with it.
I can live without it.

I remember an old saying about a person who chopped down trees to build barns the old fashioned way. Naturally this required the cutting down of very old trees. His philosophy was that whatever he built with those trees should last longer than the time it would take for the tree plated when the tree was cut to replace it.

I've seen too many abuses of companies that are forced to comply with tree planting requirements. But that has nothing to do with this resolution here, and I'm sure that any replacement would equally not deal with those problems. So Meh.
Bolgaronopoto
06-06-2006, 00:51
I personally think this proposal should be scrapped, a new draft written in a more sensible form, and submitted as such as an addendum to the current one, with a proposal added that any nation that does not comply with these sandards set; should have any forestry industry found in non-compliance be fined at a reasonable rate by UN enforcement agents, to provide surplus re-forestation in other nations who have previously deforested themselves under previous rule.

As for this current proposal; it is vague and open to interpretation, which will only lead to further incidents of corporations taking advantage of these laws.

I vote Nay on this issue until something has been poposed which makes sense to the industry as well as the forests at stake.
Randomea
06-06-2006, 01:28
Calm down Kenny, please.

Just because the replacement is being drafted on R&R is no indication that it will be endorsed by R&R. We welcome any proposal to be posted here, but that doesn't mean that R&R is endorsing it. It is Adolf Barham's proposal--not R&R's, and is an entirely different issue.

That's what makes me hesitate on repealing. At least a R&R endorsed one might have value.
Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
06-06-2006, 02:50
with a proposal added that any nation that does not comply with these sandards set; should have any forestry industry found in non-compliance be fined at a reasonable rate by UN enforcement agents, to provide surplus re-forestation in other nations who have previously deforested themselves under previous rule..So what you are saying is rob Peter to pay for Paul's screwing up. Or if it Peter screwed up first rob Paul and pay Peter. Chances are if they both at a point where their forest are destroyed then it too late to do anything about it. They either have towns, mines, bases, lakes or whatever on that land and they will not want to give them up to plant dang trees on the land or lake.


Also I always like the term 'resonable' as figure 1 cent a tree cut down is 'resonable' to pay for doing it.
HotRodia
06-06-2006, 03:00
Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives to the United Nations,

As the Minister of Hospitality for the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia, I would like to note our nation's vote FOR the Repeal of "Replanting Trees" because, to put it simply, the repeal is far longer and more well-written than the original resolution. As our nation is essentially treeless, we have no vested interest in this repeal aside from eliminating poor-quality legislation from the set of UN Resolutions.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am
Etopid
06-06-2006, 03:03
I am personally inclined to think about negating this appeal because it just delivers the wrong message to us kids, and if this gets through, people wont care about problems such as global warming and things that help us are being destroyed. Think about it and tell me you have a reasonable agreement the other way. I think there is no argument for this appeal and will shut it down asap.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
06-06-2006, 03:24
Calm down Kenny, please.

Just because the replacement is being drafted on R&R is no indication that it will be endorsed by R&R. We welcome any proposal to be posted here, but that doesn't mean that R&R is endorsing it. It is Adolf Barham's proposal--not R&R's, and is an entirely different issue.Doesn't change the fact that Adolf Barham submitted a repeal with the full intention of replacing it, and you endorsed the repeal.

As for the "calm down" bit, we do not take random insults on our nation slightly. We like to think we have contributed something to these halls, and uninformed, spurious statements like "by now it's understood that OmfgKenny enjoys crappy Resolutions" will not be tolerated by this delegation.
Apollynia
06-06-2006, 04:59
This is an obvious, unobscured and awkward attempt to make the destruction of our oxygen-suppliers easy, cheap, and fun.

Voting for this amendment is a vote in favor of a global desert.
Jey
06-06-2006, 06:03
This is an obvious, unobscured and awkward attempt to make the destruction of our oxygen-suppliers easy, cheap, and fun.

Because this resolution protects against this, right? :rolleyes:

I am personally inclined to think about negating this appeal because it just delivers the wrong message to us kids, and if this gets through, people wont care about problems such as global warming and things that help us are being destroyed. Think about it and tell me you have a reasonable agreement the other way. I think there is no argument for this appeal and will shut it down asap.

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

:D
Norderia
06-06-2006, 06:07
Doesn't change the fact that Adolf Barham submitted a repeal with the full intention of replacing it, and you endorsed the repeal.

As for the "calm down" bit, we do not take random insults on our nation slightly. We like to think we have contributed something to these halls, and uninformed, spurious statements like "by now it's understood that OmfgKenny enjoys crappy Resolutions" will not be tolerated by this delegation.


Now now, perhaps the Norderian wit went over your head. There was no insult intended, and I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've sent an aide to purchase a bouquet from down the street to be promptly delivered.

Indeed, the comment was only meant to point out some of your more extreme views. And the fact that it appears you're opposed based on a possible replacement that hasn't actually been submitted yet. So far as I know, the issue being debated here is one of a Repeal of bad legislation. NOT its replacement.

And if EVER there was a way to lose the high ground in a personal spat, I certainly think

"You know, whenever you get up off that hammock to speak, I always try to ignore you -- sometimes I stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly -- but when you're right, you're right. I'm such a fucking idiot! I enjoy loading the UN books with shit way too much; I haven't any idea why I even authored all those repeals of some the shittiest resolutions that ever passed this body! Maybe another blame-America post will help me see the light?"

and

"Considering you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I strongly suggest that you do."

qualify as perfect examples. It seems that it takes as little to offend the good member to the point of receiving a caning as it does to offend a petty gang banger with a wounded pride.

Enough of this. There are more immediate matters at hand than any nation's UN ambassador's feelings.

This is an obvious, unobscured and awkward attempt to make the destruction of our oxygen-suppliers easy, cheap, and fun.

Voting for this amendment is a vote in favor of a global desert.

Keeping the Resolution that is being repealed is doing nothing to stop the easy, cheap, and fun destruction of our oxygen suppliers. If the problem is ever going to be fixed, the failed tool must be exchanged.
Apachah
06-06-2006, 10:59
(i'm sorry if i just seem like i'm babbling... i'm pretty new here) Surely isn't there a way to simply amend the Act in order to rid it of all these loopholes and make sure that corporations cannot get around it in any way? Repealing it seems pointless to me as that *will* make it easier for corporations to destroy forests whether you like it or not. (Yes I am aware that this was mentioned in the resolution). If someone could please explain to me how it wont allow corporations more freedom to destroy forests it would be much appreciated
Randomea
06-06-2006, 13:27
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/untitled9by.png
There's your answer.
Cluichstan
06-06-2006, 13:44
I am personally inclined to think about negating this appeal because it just delivers the wrong message to us kids...

"Us kids"? The nation of Etopid sent a delegation full of children to represent it in this austere body?
Tzorsland
06-06-2006, 13:51
A see that someone else has joined me in the Meh corner. (I wonder what would happen if a resolution got a majority of Meh votes? Oh yea, we wouldn't care less!) It's a close race, the norses are neck and neck down the stretch.

:) Votes For: 1,924
:mad: Votes Against: 1,421

You know it's been a long time since we have a resolution on the floor that I simply couldn't care less one way or another. This is fun! Now if you excuse me I'm going back to the UN Starbucks for my morning coffee in recycled paper containers.
Adolf-Barham
06-06-2006, 16:36
(i'm sorry if i just seem like i'm babbling... i'm pretty new here) Surely isn't there a way to simply amend the Act in order to rid it of all these loopholes and make sure that corporations cannot get around it in any way? Repealing it seems pointless to me as that *will* make it easier for corporations to destroy forests whether you like it or not. (Yes I am aware that this was mentioned in the resolution). If someone could please explain to me how it wont allow corporations more freedom to destroy forests it would be much appreciated

You can't edit resolutions. It is too much hassle for the moderators. The only way to get rid of all the loopholes in early resolutions is to repeal them - and then maybe replace them (if they're worth it)

Regarding, a replacement of this resolution - I tried, but have almost given up. I think people are mixed as to whether there should be a replacement or not.
Jillingham
06-06-2006, 16:37
As my Kingdom's primary export is wood chips it is necessary for us to re-plant anyway. I can see the argument that makes re-planting too onerous for other countries and conversely the need to prevent de-forestation.

The greater good in terms of the environment is that some form of encouragement to re-plant is needed.

Perhaps someone with greater experience within the UN would be kind enough to formulate an alternative that would be acceptable to the majority of members?

King Michael of Jillingham
Intangelon
06-06-2006, 17:37
I'm normally a lock for any halfway decent repeal, but this one isn't even halfway decent. The wording and reasoning strike me as childish and unsupported. Why is it not neceesary to replant? The one legitimate concern, measuring replants by number and not area, is hardly sufficient grounds for repeal. Replenishing resources is not a bad idea and it isn't that expensive.

Against.
Compadria
06-06-2006, 17:58
Were the honourable delegate and I reading the same proposal? I think this is one of the more mature and supportable repeals I've encountered in a long time and I'm surprised the honourable delegate does not agree.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Norderia
06-06-2006, 19:14
This thread needs to be stickified. Alert the mods!



Edit 2 minutes later: Wow... I've got POWA!

Or perhaps they just stickied it while I was reading the thread...
Al Thera
06-06-2006, 20:21
We of Al Thera, as much consideration, have agreed with the necessity of having this article struck from the Un. While we can commend some for wanting to preserve the enviroment, the current law does not take in many other factors. We also would like to point out that having cleaner water supplies would be a better tactic for those hoping to keep oxygen production up. While many people seem to think that the forests provide the world's oxygen, the greater part is provided by the orginisms in the ocean.

Striking this resolution does not endorse widespread deforestation, it merely strikes a bad resolution. New and better legislation can be implimented when this is off the books. I recommend that those undecided to stand behind this repeal and then continue the work towards a better resolution that actually serves and accomplishes what this resolution failed to do.
Jacobic
06-06-2006, 21:42
My nation is new here so forgive me if I have missed anything. As a whole this legislation sucks. There are too many loopholes that need fixing. But it is currently doing some good so repealing it before any fix has been proposed and passed seems a bit wrong.
Prime Minister Mo of Jacobic
Tzorsland
06-06-2006, 21:51
OOC: Actually the only thing this repeal will do technically is to invoke the repeal code for a Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses resolution which is the opposite but lesser effect. So the result is that every business in your nation will get some happiness out of the repeal, from wood chipping to the beef industry. Meh.
Adolf-Barham
06-06-2006, 23:20
My nation is new here so forgive me if I have missed anything. As a whole this legislation sucks. There are too many loopholes that need fixing. But it is currently doing some good so repealing it before any fix has been proposed and passed seems a bit wrong.
Prime Minister Mo of Jacobic

You can't edit current proposals!

You can't propose a resolution that blatantly contradicts a current resolution. Therefore, a replacement can't be proposed and passed before the repeal.

Therefore, the best way is to repeal a resolution and then replace it. I was working on a proposal on Reveal and Repeal, but I think I have almost given up on that now. If anyone wants this replaced, they are quite welcome to create a replacement themselves.
Hyradia
06-06-2006, 23:23
You cut a tree, you plant a tree!

Nature is not a game, namture make us all bale to breath and live.

vote NO to that !!!
Jey
06-06-2006, 23:45
You cut a tree, you plant a tree!

Nature is not a game, namture make us all bale to breath and live.

vote NO to that !!!

Because cutting down 4.999 "acres" of trees repeatedly isn't legal under this resolution? :rolleyes:
Lorien7
07-06-2006, 01:01
For my nation, trees are vital. However, I do see the need to repeal the old rule and replace it with a more efficient and effective one. Just be sure that someone, I'll write it if nobody else will, replaces it as soon as possible with a better one.
Forgottenlands
07-06-2006, 01:07
Nature is not a game, namture make us all bale to breath and live.

That's funny. I thought it was money that gets us bail for breath. Or is Namture the name of the lawyer?
Forgottenlands
07-06-2006, 01:08
On a side note, there's some new studies that have come to the conclusion that trees may actually be producing a lot of CO2. They found the emissions from the Amazon were huge and started doing studies. I'll have to see if I can dig that article up.
Tharkent
07-06-2006, 05:38
Whilst we feel that the current legislation is flawed in several ways, we are highly concerned with its proposed repeal. Whilst we appreciate that conflicting resolutions cannot be passed, and that current legislation cannot be edited, it strikes us as being a reckless act to repeal this with no replacement to hand.

Simply stating that further legislation can be brought in at a later date is an extremely weak argument when we have no idea as to timescale, quality, or for that matter even the definite existence of such a proposal.

If you aim is to improve upon something that you feel is currently lacking in quality then do so. We have looked at the proposal under development in R&R and would like to state for the record that we would have no interest in approving such a dithering piece of bumfodder. As things stand, whilst the current legislation is flawed, we see no better option being offered and feel that flawed protection is better than no protection at all.

We have not yet voted on this proposal and remain open to persuasion.

Yours ingratiatingly

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
UN Ambassador,
Principality of Tharkent


ps. We have just repealed our murder laws as they were a little flawed. Don't worry - we will probably introduce some better ones sometime in the future when we have thought about it a little more.

pps. So now's a good time to take a holiday in our beautiful (yet deforested) nation.
Norderia
07-06-2006, 06:25
Whilst we feel that the current legislation is flawed in several ways, we are highly concerned with its proposed repeal. Whilst we appreciate that conflicting resolutions cannot be passed, and that current legislation cannot be edited, it strikes us as being a reckless act to repeal this with no replacement to hand.

Simply stating that further legislation can be brought in at a later date is an extremely weak argument when we have no idea as to timescale, quality, or for that matter even the definite existence of such a proposal.

If you aim is to improve upon something that you feel is currently lacking in quality then do so. We have looked at the proposal under development in R&R and would like to state for the record that we would have no interest in approving such a dithering piece of bumfodder. As things stand, whilst the current legislation is flawed, we see no better option being offered and feel that flawed protection is better than no protection at all.

We have not yet voted on this proposal and remain open to persuasion.

Yours ingratiatingly

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
UN Ambassador,
Principality of Tharkent


ps. We have just repealed our murder laws as they were a little flawed. Don't worry - we will probably introduce some better ones sometime in the future when we have thought about it a little more.

pps. So now's a good time to take a holiday in our beautiful (yet deforested) nation.


We feel as though the current Resolution is flawed to the point where it the flawed protection is as good as no protection. Our trepidation, however, is akin to yours. Where is a decent replacement?

On a more important matter, do UN Ambassadors receive some kind of special vacation package in Tharkent? The time seems ripe for a certain few people to go on holiday there.



Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
Delegate of the North Sea
Whiplasham
07-06-2006, 07:07
Gruenberg, the replacement is in a very early drafting stage and we will take all your opinions and create a decent proposal, so I would be grateful if you didn't just say that the replacement is very bad.

Anyway, it isn't actually a direct replacement - It doesn't just talk about replanting trees - it is an environment protection Act.
.

As a professors of mine used to say "0.001 can appear as a very small number, but
it is nevertheless much more than 0".

So, Resolution number 23 is not perfect at all, but it is better than nothing.

The question is: why repealing Resolution number 23 instead of substituting it
with a better one?

The draft is in a very early stage, you said.
Well, we could have wait.
My vote is against this repealing.
Ventura-town
07-06-2006, 10:20
Hello. I'm new here.

I read the first four pages, but it's 2:15 am, and I can't read much more, so I figured I'd just reply so my voice can be heard. Thus, I aplogize if I'm simply repeating something that has already been said.

I definately think this resolution should be repealed. There are too many loopholes, not to mention it's a bad resolution in the first place. I think that instead of having to replant trees for every tree that is cut down, perhaps there are other things that can be done. For example, make a law that sets a limit on how much percentage of your trees you can cut down every year. Or maybe even something that binds each country to fund or research or contribute in some way to other forms of environmental clean-up for every time they cut down trees. If you have to cut down 5 acres for a new shopping mall, then you have to also go and clean up 5 acres of shoreland.

These are just some very basic ideas, and like I said, I'm new, so I don't know how everything works just yet.

Thank you for your time.
Some of Us
07-06-2006, 14:20
As ineffectual as the resolution may be, there is no indication that it is worse than no resolution. I cannot support a repeal without an alternative.
Cluichstan
07-06-2006, 14:32
As ineffectual as the resolution may be, there is no indication that it is worse than no resolution. I cannot support a repeal without an alternative.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg
Ausserland
07-06-2006, 15:23
Ausserland has voted no. NSUN Resolution #23 is, we think, a rather poor resolution. But its shortcoming is doubtful effectiveness. It does no harm. If we had any confidence that a more effective replacement would be offered, we would vote for its repeal. We don't.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large
Adolf-Barham
07-06-2006, 16:20
Ausserland has voted no. NSUN Resolution #23 is, we think, a rather poor resolution. But its shortcoming is doubtful effectiveness. It does no harm. If we had any confidence that a more effective replacement would be offered, we would vote for its repeal. We don't.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg
Cluichstan
07-06-2006, 16:25
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg

You fail at posting images.
Forgottenlands
07-06-2006, 16:53
You fail at posting images.

And being original
And posting something useful
And.....

Seriously, if a card was played only two posts before, you don't need to play it again.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
07-06-2006, 16:54
*snip*[OOC: Yes, it was roleplay; good morning to you also.

[I'm not sure whether I should be responding to your IC post, or your OOC remarks, which you edited out. OOC part first: It's a question of context, my dear. Given our "history" of sorts, I hope you'll understand how easily I can mistake repeated instances of what you term mere IC "silliness" as veiled insults. As for the "invective" bit, yeah, I'm rough on people. Welcome to the NSUN forum; it's hardly uncommon, nor do I think it should be. The quality of this body's work-product would deteriorate if awful legislation and bad arguments weren't given duly harsh appraisal. It's how my delegation operates, and I don't plan on changing it anytime soon. I very rarely insult people personally, but I do enjoy insulting their arguments. A lot. Please don't call actual debate of other posters' points of argument "invective."

[Now get ready for my foreign minister's total fucking awesomeness:]


We thank the ambassador for his gracious gift of dried Norderian posies. Our UN envoy took one whiff of them, and immediately had to be rushed to the hospital after suffering a near-fatal asthmatic episode. However, you shouldn't feel guilty about that, Ambassador; we're absolutely certain you knew nothing about Mr. Riley's allergy. [Looks warily over at Tommo the Magnificent, smugly lounging in his jury-rigged hammock.] ... Yes, we're slightly somewhat 35-percent absolutely certain ... you knew nothing about that. [Clears throat and shuffles papers in front of him.]

As for the matter in front of us, we cannot agree with the Norderian delegation's contention that the examination of repeals must remain sepearate from any prospective replacement legislation. Having spearheaded three repeal campaigns ourselves, we delude ourselves into thinking we know something about them. We have had far too much experience with "repeal/replace," and have seen far too many awful replacement proposals (Worldwide Media Act, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, Clinical Abortion Rights, etc., etc.) come down the pipe on the heels of convenient repeals, not to be wary of this present move to strike out (admittedly bad) environmental law. In this case, the sponsor of this repeal has offered up replacement legislation which we have deemed much, much worse than the standing resolution. We cannot take the risk that once this is repealed it will not be replaced. So we won't.

We maintain our opposition to the repeal of UNR #23: Replanting Trees.

Enough of this. There are more immediate matters at hand than any nation's UN ambassador's feelings.You're right. We have better things to do than worry over what some irrelevant foreigner thinks of our nation.

By Order of His Ultimate Fucking Kick-ass-iveness, "Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico"-ness, and President of the Federal Republic-ness, Manuelo Fernanda:
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State
Tzorsland
07-06-2006, 18:36
Well I'd love to write a replacement resolution.

But. :(

You see, the last time I wrote a resolution, some nice members of the UN came to me in a back alley and they assaulted me and made me promise never to do that again. I swear sometimes I think I'm secretly followed by penguins.
Forgottenlands
07-06-2006, 18:45
They're just Gnomes in Tuxedoes. Don't worry about them.
Randomea
07-06-2006, 19:25
On a side note, there's some new studies that have come to the conclusion that trees may actually be producing a lot of CO2. They found the emissions from the Amazon were huge and started doing studies. I'll have to see if I can dig that article up.
Indeed, a little bird told me a while ago that because trees perpetually respire and only photosynthesise during the daylight hours their CO2 removal is minimal. The most effective remover of CO2 on our planet is the ocean. It dissolves into the salty waves.

However, Randomea is attached to its leafy rainforests and would be sad that they would no longer be protected under UN law, even if they were under Randomean.
Trees are of more value than simply their photosynthesising capability, and it would be unfortunate that the blue wood of the Randomea Meanie tree, had we not limited its felling, be open to exploitation and possible extinction, preventing the rest of the world from being blessed with blue coffee tables.
Protecting trees and replacing them makes economic sense - reducing the availability makes it more valuable but an enduring supply of rare woods.

While there is not even a draft of a replacement we will join the 'meh' corner before making a decision.
Whiplasham
07-06-2006, 23:33
Indeed, a little bird told me a while ago that because trees perpetually respire and only photosynthesise during the daylight hours their CO2 removal is minimal. The most effective remover of CO2 on our planet is the ocean. It dissolves into the salty waves.



Try and write some mass balance, instead of listening to strange birds.
*grin*
Former Roman Provinces
08-06-2006, 01:06
The Former Roman Republics will go with the majority opinion here (having nothing to do with, of course, its practically nonexistant military and political influence, as well as a bit of a weak leader -

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

Foreign Minister Replaced - The F.R.R. would like to apoligise

Anyway, the FRR finds that any form of enviornmental protection is inherently superior to a lack of effort, even if this progress is at the expense of "big business". And so, the FRR votes down this resolution.

-James Schmitt
(New Foreign Minister of the FRR)
New Berkley
08-06-2006, 01:48
While I do think that Resolution 23 was poorly written and not a good solution to the problem, I think repealing it would be a bad move. Instead it needs to be replaced with one that fixes the problems stated in this new resolution.
Sweetnessoo7
08-06-2006, 09:47
Why would be against protecting the forest, and against replanting of trees?
Even if the resolution was week, insteading of repealing it, why not make it stronger?

Please response and tell me how you feel?
Enn
08-06-2006, 10:03
Why would be against protecting the forest, and against replanting of trees?
Even if the resolution was week, insteading of repealing it, why not make it stronger?

Please response and tell me how you feel?
We can't make it stronger. We aren't allowed to, under the UN rules. The only thing we can do is repeal and replace if we want a better version of the original.
Sweetnessoo7
08-06-2006, 10:43
Well, I do not see a better version. All I see, is an appealing stating that trees that are cut down cannot be re-grown (if that is the case, maybe the trees should not be cut down in the first place). In addition, gives no responsibility to the persons or groups who destroy these trees.

Resolution #23, states; that anyone who destroys more then five acres shall be held accountable for the replanting of the acres destroyed. Furthermore, why are against this resolution? Maybe it is the fact that this is a UN resolution and not a state resolution. This goes back to more freedom and individual power to that States. Maybe we just like big corporate industry in the earth moving business to topple acres and acres of wooded land and forest and not take reasonability.
Flowertot Garden
08-06-2006, 10:53
Repel the Motion

Do not allow Big Buisness to rape our lands without Re-Planting!!!!

Stingo Flowertot
Minister of Non-Industria
Flowertot Gardens
Sweetnessoo7
08-06-2006, 10:56
Repel the Motion

Do not allow Big Buisness to rape our lands without Re-Planting!!!!

Stingo Flowertot
Minister of Non-Industria
Flowertot Gardens

Repelling the Motion, would allow big business to rape our land without re-planting.

Secretary of Argiculture for Sweetness
The Most Glorious Hack
08-06-2006, 11:12
Well, I do not see a better version.Try looking. There's an intended replacement finished, which, incidentally, is why many people are opposed to this Repeal.

Resolution #23, states; that anyone who destroys more then five acres shall be held accountable for the replanting of the acres destroyed.And it's terribly easy to abuse that as it's really rather vague. Five acres at one time? Five acres all connected? What about 4.999999999 acres? Not to mention all the games you could play with the replanting.

Furthermore, why are against this resolution?Because it's a fluffy piece of crap that is too hole-riddled to be enforced, and too crippling if followed according to its spirit. Not to mention being based on feel-good hopes as opposed to reality.

Maybe it is the fact that this is a UN resolution and not a state resolution.Huh?

This goes back to more freedom and individual power to that States.I don't think a NatSov argument has much use here.

Maybe we just like big corporate industry in the earth moving business to topple acres and acres of wooded land and forest and not take reasonability.Of course. It's all big, evil business. Always the case, ain't it?
Sweetnessoo7
08-06-2006, 12:45
So a yes or no question. It is okay to destory major acres of woodland (such as forest, woods, and jungles), tear down tears and not take an effort to replace the enivorment?

Pretty what your saying is it is okay to tears down the enivorment?

Yes or No?
Tharkent
08-06-2006, 12:57
Where is this finished replacement, and can we read it? I followed a link to something that was described as being in an early draft stage (and read accordingly.) We are not voting on the replacement proposal here, but access to something in final form would be of great help in influencing the vote.

Respectfully

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob
Tzorsland
08-06-2006, 13:31
So a yes or no question. It is okay to destory major acres of woodland (such as forest, woods, and jungles), tear down tears and not take an effort to replace the enivorment?

It's a nice yes and no question, but what does it have to do with the current resolution? The resolution under consideration does nothing to address the "environment." The resolution does nothing to address forest, woods and jungles. The resolution is simply about trees. I'll give you a hint, there is more to a forest than trees.

There is nothing in the resolution that prohibits a person from clear cutting a rainforest and then planting in a logical and orderly structure a tree farm completely eliminating any possible habitat for the wildlife in the area, and completely eliminating the local vegitation that those wildlife depend on for nurishment.

So my answer is "no, it's not ok, but that is what the current resolution allows."
Enn
08-06-2006, 13:42
It also depends on what you count as 'trees', and makes no requirement that the same type of trees be planted.

Under the resolution, a nation could clearfell a mountainous conifer forest, then plant mangroves. In the mountains.

There's nothing wrong with that?
Cluichstan
08-06-2006, 14:22
OOC: Gotta love how this repeal's drawn the treehuggers out of the woodwork (yeah, I'm snickering here at my own wording :p ). How many posters have we seen here so far with a postcount in the single digits or low teens?

"ohnoes!!!!1 ur killing trees!!!eleven what do u have against trees? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: "
Woe-be-gone
08-06-2006, 14:29
The fact that a resolution needs strengthening does not constitute a good reason for repealing it. It makes one suspect the motives are other than strenthening. Also the reference to the use of tree count making it vague and ineffectual shows a lack of understanding of how forestry management works. It is done precisely by tree count by species based on both ground and aerial survey techniques. It is by far the most effective way of properly profiling a forest and is done as a matter of course every day.
Former Roman Provinces
08-06-2006, 14:47
Where exactly is the replacement proposal? Anybody can find faults in any proposal, but unless they suggest a better one, all they are doing is cutting away what little aaction there is so far. Again, having some protection is better than having none, and no amount of criticizing the earlier proposal can convince me otherwise.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
08-06-2006, 15:13
http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/7011/maguire8xx.png

Already played once in this discussion; bears playing again. :rolleyes:
Saturn Corp
08-06-2006, 15:18
Well, if you want a better replacement, you could always write one. In the meantime the current law is a joke and should be repealed.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
08-06-2006, 15:48
I don't want a replacement; I'm mocking people who can't bring themselves to repeal anything unless they see the replacement first.
Ausserland
08-06-2006, 15:56
Originally Posted by Ausserland
Ausserland has voted no. NSUN Resolution #23 is, we think, a rather poor resolution. But its shortcoming is doubtful effectiveness. It does no harm. If we had any confidence that a more effective replacement would be offered, we would vote for its repeal. We don't.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

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

The card, in case you didn't click on the link, reads: "Write it yourself... and stop whining." We have no intention of trying to write a replacement proposal. We don't have enough expertise in environmental matters or forestry management to do it properly. Unlike the representative of Adolf Barham, we recognize and accept our limitations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Cluichstan
08-06-2006, 16:01
The card, in case you didn't click on the link, reads: "Write it yourself... and stop whining." We have no intention of trying to write a replacement proposal. We don't have enough expertise in environmental matters or forestry management to do it properly. Unlike the representative of Adolf Barham, we recognize and accept our limitations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well put, my friend. :D
Sweetnessoo7
08-06-2006, 16:19
So what you are saying is, "Not only do not care, but we aren't smart enough to take some time ad do alittle research, to attempt to fake as though we know what we are talking about?"

Very interesting, my friend. Very Interesting.
Adolf-Barham
08-06-2006, 16:28
The card, in case you didn't click on the link, reads: "Write it yourself... and stop whining." We have no intention of trying to write a replacement proposal. We don't have enough expertise in environmental matters or forestry management to do it properly. Unlike the representative of Adolf Barham, we recognize and accept our limitations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I accept that you do not think that you have enough expertise in environmental issues and now accept that I do not either. However, at least I tried to write a replacement but because it has been knocked down by you and Gruenberg, I have stopped in that attempt. However, I just get annoyed with people who won't vote for a repeal unless there is a replacement.

Not all repealed resolutions need replacing and since I have tried and failed to create a replacement, if someone feels that a replacement is required, they can at least try and create one themselves.
Ariddia
08-06-2006, 16:46
A moot point in any case. Even if this repeal passes, it will still be illegal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) for UN member nations to chop down trees without planting new ones in their place.
Flibbleites
08-06-2006, 17:25
A moot point in any case. Even if this repeal passes, it will still be illegal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) for UN member nations to chop down trees without planting new ones in their place.
I wouldn't count on that being a viable option forever, there is an attepmt to repeal the World Heritage List in the works.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Cluichstan
08-06-2006, 17:36
I wouldn't count on that being a viable option forever, there is an attepmt to repeal the World Heritage List in the works.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yes, and one that I will revive once I've resubmitted the UN Counterterrorism Initiative and dealt with the necessary campaigning to get it to quorum.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Ariddia
08-06-2006, 17:42
I wouldn't count on that being a viable option forever, there is an attepmt to repeal the World Heritage List in the works.


Yes, I'm aware of that. It'll be viable for now, though.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA
Ausserland
08-06-2006, 17:54
So what you are saying is, "Not only do not care, but we aren't smart enough to take some time ad do alittle research, to attempt to fake as though we know what we are talking about?"

Very interesting, my friend. Very Interesting.

No, not quite. What we're saying is that there are some subjects we know something about and some we don't. We'll stick to writing and helping to write proposals on the subjects we know something about. And we do think we're smart enough to do some research, but we're not going to do it to "fake as though we know what we're talking about."

As for caring.... If we care about an issue, we want to see it handled properly and effectively. And not by us if we don't know enough to do a good job of it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Compadria
08-06-2006, 21:21
So what you are saying is, "Not only do not care, but we aren't smart enough to take some time ad do alittle research, to attempt to fake as though we know what we are talking about?"

Very interesting, my friend. Very Interesting.

I would be careful with your choice of delegates to insult "my friend". I think you'll find (with the exception of economics I believe, at his own admission) that Ambassador Olembe is one of the most studious and thoughtful contributors to these fora and usually has both the time and inclination to conduct research. Don't be so snide in future.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Sankta Harmonio
08-06-2006, 23:41
Please everyone, vote against this repeal! We must protect, and ensure that new forests will be replanted after they are destroyed. We will keep this until a better resolution comes along that cleary states that the trees will be ensured to grow, and monitored to make sure. Let's keep this one until we can vote on even tougher regulations.

I have experience with environmental issues and would be willing to write a better resolution.
Ventura-town
09-06-2006, 01:00
Please everyone, vote against this repeal! We must protect, and ensure that new forests will be replanted after they are destroyed. We will keep this until a better resolution comes along that cleary states that the trees will be ensured to grow, and monitored to make sure. Let's keep this one until we can vote on even tougher regulations.

I have experience with environmental issues and would be willing to write a better resolution.


"Hippies" need not apply.
Tharkent
09-06-2006, 02:42
However, at least I tried to write a replacement but because it has been knocked down by you and Gruenberg, I have stopped in that attempt. However, I just get annoyed with people who won't vote for a repeal unless there is a replacement.

Not all repealed resolutions need replacing and since I have tried and failed to create a replacement, if someone feels that a replacement is required, they can at least try and create one themselves.

Are we to presume that this was the 'finished replacement' proposal that was referred to earlier in this discussion? We are happy to acknowledge our junior status (as shown by our post count in the teens) though would like to comment that being loquacious should not be equated with being incisive.

The general tone of this discussion (unless we judge the zeitgeist poorly) is that the current resolution is poor as a result of its being ineffectual, rather than doing harm. It is supported in spirit, but its wording is poor.
The repeal on the table, then, is on the basis that a replacement is needed.

Given that the replacement now seems not to exist, the (very junior) Principality of Tharkent once again asks:

Should we really be repealing a law that is universally supported in spirit when there is no replacement, and where an absence of such a law could create the conditions in which serious environmental degradation could take place?
Flibbleites
09-06-2006, 06:57
Please everyone, vote against this repeal! We must protect, and ensure that new forests will be replanted after they are destroyed. We will keep this until a better resolution comes along that cleary states that the trees will be ensured to grow, and monitored to make sure. Let's keep this one until we can vote on even tougher regulations.

I have experience with environmental issues and would be willing to write a better resolution.
If you're willing to write a replacement then perhaps you should be voting FOR the repeal so that you can actually submit the replacement.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
HotRodia
09-06-2006, 09:42
Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am
St Edmundan Antarctic
09-06-2006, 10:20
A moot point in any case. Even if this repeal passes, it will still be illegal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) for UN member nations to chop down trees without planting new ones in their place.

Chop down a mature tree, plant a seedling, remove the seedling by some means other than cutting (such as simply pulling it up, roots & all), and that legal requirement's still met...
Hope22
09-06-2006, 15:01
In my oppinion, replating trees is a great idea. It helps put back trees that are being taken down and helps with further growth for our future. We unfortunately have to cut down trees because the help build houses and other things we need to go about our daily lives. It is also unfortunate that more people don't realize that cutting down trees hurts our enviroment more than most know or think. Yes, it is good that when lumber companies cut down trees they are suppose to be putting up new ones, but like the proposal said, these companies are under no obligation to put up trees and make sure they grow. The companies don't think and I don't believe they even realize by not replanting proper trees, they will not have a job in the future. I think the proposal, with a little work on wording would be great, but until the wording is right, I would have to say no, it is not a good idea.
Cobdenia
09-06-2006, 16:23
Won't you please, please tell me what we´ve learned?
Tharkent
09-06-2006, 16:41
not to eat yellow snow, juggle with chainsaws, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.

Nor, indeed, to replant trees that have been cut down.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob
Cluichstan
09-06-2006, 17:00
Won't you please, please tell me what we´ve learned?

OOC: Dear gawd, make it stop! lol
Cobdenia
09-06-2006, 17:28
not to eat yellow snow, juggle with chainsaws, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.

Nor, indeed, to replant trees that have been cut down.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

I know, it sounds abserd...
Jey
09-06-2006, 18:45
The resolution Repeal "Replanting Trees" was passed 6,764 votes to 4,832.

Thank you all for your support. :D
Adolf-Barham
09-06-2006, 22:15
I echo Jey's sentiments.

Next: Repeal Legalise Euthanasia - so many reasons to vote FOR!
Bolgaronopoto
09-06-2006, 23:45
You did not have my support on this issue.

But I will comply, nonetheless.
Jey
09-06-2006, 23:54
But I will comply, nonetheless.

Not exactly your choice on that one. ;)
Gruenberg
09-06-2006, 23:55
How do you "comply" with a repeal?
Ariddia
10-06-2006, 00:30
How do you "comply" with a repeal?

You don't, as far as I know. I imagine you can even keep the repealed resolution as part of your national legislation.
The Most Glorious Hack
10-06-2006, 05:40
You don't, as far as I know. I imagine you can even keep the repealed resolution as part of your national legislation.Pretty much.
Adolf-Barham
10-06-2006, 10:02
I suppose the ones who voted for would get rid of the legislation or change it and the ones who voted against would keep the original legislation, meaning that 4, 832 voters still have huge loopholes in their laws regarding replanting trees.:headbang: Ah well, not much more I can do. Maybe Golgothastan's replacement will go well.
Compadria
10-06-2006, 10:18
I would like to congratulate the honourable delegate for Jey for his hard work on this repeal and piloting it through with convincing arguments and well thought out debate. I would also like to congratulate my fellow delegates who cast their votes for this repeal and thus ended the life of a pseudo-environmental-protection resolution and paved the way for a more scientific, environmentally friendly, sustainable and sensible replacement.

I would also like to announce that this, the 1000th address of these esteemed halls by myself, Leonard Otterby, will be my last for some time. I will be taking a un petit sejour as the RL French like to say and won't be gracing you all with my presence, nor the blessings of Compadria's otters, for some time (a few weeks most likely, not until late-June or early July at earliest.

I am glad for my time here and look forwards with hope and anticipation to continuing the great role of the U.N. in providing a progressive beacon for all nations.

May the blessings of Tarkan the Great Otter be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
HotRodia
10-06-2006, 10:23
I would like to congratulate the honourable delegate for Jey for his hard work on this repeal and piloting it through with convincing arguments and well thought out debate. I would also like to congratulate my fellow delegates who cast their votes for this repeal and thus ended the life of a pseudo-environmental-protection resolution and paved the way for a more scientific, environmentally friendly, sustainable and sensible replacement.

I would also like to announce that this, the 1000th address of these esteemed halls by myself, Leonard Otterby, will be my last for some time. I will be taking a un petit sejour as the RL French like to say and won't be gracing you all with my presence, nor the blessings of Compadria's otters, for some time (a few weeks most likely, not until late-June or early July at earliest.

I am glad for my time here and look forwards with hope and anticipation to continuing the great role of the U.N. in providing a progressive beacon for all nations.

May the blessings of Tarkan the Great Otter be upon you all.

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

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Ambassador Otterby,

I hope your vacation from the United Nations goes well and that you are able to come back refreshed. My office is sending you a bottle of the finest HotRodia Tequila to aid in enjoying your petit sejour.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am
Adolf-Barham
10-06-2006, 12:06
I would like to congratulate the honourable delegate for Jey for his hard work on this repeal and piloting it through with convincing arguments and well thought out debate.

Ah, I feel insulted. :confused: What about me? Only joking:p - clearly just forgot the author. Anyway, hope your holiday goes well and thankyou for your support with the repeal.
Adolf-Barham
10-06-2006, 12:08
I hope your vacation from the United Nations goes well and that you are able to come back refreshed. My office is sending you a bottle of the finest HotRodia Tequila to aid in enjoying your petit sejour.


Is that the same bottle that I refused to accept when you offered it to me for my first and best proposal, 'Murder and Manslaughter Laws'?:)
Compadria
10-06-2006, 13:43
Ah, I feel insulted. :confused: What about me? Only joking:p - clearly just forgot the author. Anyway, hope your holiday goes well and thankyou for your support with the repeal.

OOC: Sorry, congratulations too. Very sorry about the omission and thanks for your kind message of support.

And thanks for the tequila Hotrodia, I'll make sure Otterby put's it to good use. :D
Jey
10-06-2006, 17:17
We greatly thank the representative from Compadria for their kind words and hope their vacation goes well.
HotRodia
11-06-2006, 03:50
Is that the same bottle that I refused to accept when you offered it to me for my first and best proposal, 'Murder and Manslaughter Laws'?:)

No. This is the high-quality stuff. The bottle you would have gotten was much lower quality. You should go on vacation and you can get a high-quality bottle. :)