NationStates Jolt Archive

So, it would appear that the repeal of Replanting Trees will pass, fairly comfortably. There seems to be a great deal of opposition to the "replacement", and the author indicated that he probably wouldn't be going any further with it.

For an environmentalist, my position on this might seem somewhat anathema: I don't particularly think the UN need ban deforestation - at all. I don't believe trees have rights, and I don't think cutting them down is a great violation of nature. I do think that deforestation creates problems, but to an extent, these are secondary, and should be treated as such. Further, in terms of simply reducing tree numbers...not my call. If one country wants to chop down all their trees, then they can do so. When they then have no trees, their soils are dying, their rivers polluted, their biodiversity gone - not to mention a valuable resource extinguished - they shouldn't expect us, with our carefully managed forests, to have an ounce of sympathy for them.

So, although "concerns of nature" are sometimes seen as running counter to "national sovereignty", I think here there is a good case for respecting sovereignty, except where the effects have an international impact. For example, excessive logging damages soil, and this can cross borders. In that case, the UN should legislate. But for forests that have no impact on other nations, I don't think there's any need to mandate preservation: any sensible nation will look after them anyway, and it's so hard to accommodate for the different sizes and biomes of nations that I'm not sure how limits could be placed anyway (the idea of inflexible set proportions being patently absurd).

Of course, the cop-out is to create some committee to deal with each case individually. (I do know the WWP already exists.) That might be effective: but it's excessively bureaucratic, and given the size of the UN, probably no better than leaving each nation to deal with the problem themselves.

All of which leads back to: let's not replace Replanting Trees. It did little, and what it did it did the wrong way. Mandating nations replace trees, or stop deforestation, is unlikely to work, and it seems counter-productive for the UN to override local forestry agencies, who are much more qualified to consider the individual problems posed. That leaves the possibility of nations abusing the trust to be placed in them...but I say, fuck 'em. If they cut down all their trees, then they're too stupid to be worth bothering with. Preservation of resources is intuitive to the most rapacious hypercapitalism: indeed, I know some economic libertarians who argue the free market is better at preserving resources than government regulation ever could be.

Still, I think it'd be good to get something on the books. Not "for the sake of it", not "because we should replace everything", but because there's plenty of scope for international legislation in promoting biodiversity, in combatting pollution, in preserving resources, and so on.

Note: those wanting a no net deforestation mandate, sorry to disappoint. So far as I can see, the best argument for that in international terms is the "CO2 sink" one - but given that is disputed scientifically (and I don't have the time or inclination to dredge through all that) I'm not willing to base legislation on it.

So, ideas for a proposal? Here are mine:
general endorsement of no net deforestation
general endorsement of responsible forestry practices
requirements/encouragements to prevent deforestation in sub-threshold populations, or where it would be excessively environmentally/economically damaging
penalties for nations whose deforestation practices cause damage to other nations
any entity wishing to engage in [industrial?] deforestation required to obtain permission from relevant sovereign authority
general promotion of afforestation
support for initiatives to replant fast-growing varieties, usable and useful varieties, and ecologically suitable varieties
support and development of wood alternatives, and of methods of wood reuse/recycling
possible prohibition on slash and burn

And if someone ping-pongs this whole post back at me, I swear...

So, it would appear that the repeal of Replanting Trees will pass, fairly comfortably.

It will, but it won't have the slightest effect (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) (see the bottom of the list). The joys of the loophole in the World Heritage List resolution. ;)

It will, but it won't have the slightest effect (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) (see the bottom of the list). The joys of the loophole in the World Heritage List resolution. ;)
Oh God, what's been added now.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Forgottenlands (should he post) will pingpong it in spite. I will watch and giggle.


This seems supportable. Give it a shot. My only suggestion is to be sure you're giving the Resolution enough teeth to be sure something is actually done about wanton deforestation. I would also support the slash and burn prohibition.

The more I think of the resolution that is doomed to die, the less I like it. My OOC experiences hunting bear in Maine showed me some of the dark sides to the lumber (or wood chipping as we call it here) industry and how simple regulations to simply plant trees can cause more harm than good.

(Basically they were required to replant, so they wanted to plant fast growing pine trees. Unfortunately, as far as saplings go, those slow growing trees actually get a head start on life because while they are small, their leaves are relatively larger and thus they can quickly form shade over the pine tree saplings. So the lumber industry created a poison that kills those types of trees and allows only the pines to survive. Animals that eat those poisioned trees suffer. I saw a young moose that clearly was not in his moosy mind.)

On an old "this old house" there was an episode where someone was making an old fashioned barn. The craftsmen had to cut down some very old trees to get the proper lumber. His philosophy was that he had to make a structure that would last longer than the time it would take for the replacement tree to reach the size that the original tree was when it was cut down. That is a proper replacement attitude, and a proper respect for trees.

Instead of promoting replacement we should be promoting growth. We should be supporting organizations that promote and encourage the growth of naturally occuring regional trees. Instead of having the company do the replanting, they should contribute to these organizations. Sometimes you have to cut down an area because the land will no longer be available. It might be flooded for an atrificial lake, or converted into a shopping complex. Some areas might be devistated due to natural conditions, but they need to be populated by someone.

And grandfathers. We need to preserve the mighty trees that are prime examples of their species and who have endured the centuries.

Some things to think about when hugging a tree. Also make sure that there is no posion ivy. And carpenter ants. It would really be embarrasing to hug a tree only to have it collapse on you.

The more I think of the resolution that is doomed to die, the less I like it. My OOC experiences hunting bear in Maine showed me some of the dark sides to the lumber (or wood chipping as we call it here) industry and how simple regulations to simply plant trees can cause more harm than good.

(Basically they were required to replant, so they wanted to plant fast growing pine trees. Unfortunately, as far as saplings go, those slow growing trees actually get a head start on life because while they are small, their leaves are relatively larger and thus they can quickly form shade over the pine tree saplings. So the lumber industry created a poison that kills those types of trees and allows only the pines to survive. Animals that eat those poisioned trees suffer. I saw a young moose that clearly was not in his moosy mind.)

On an old "this old house" there was an episode where someone was making an old fashioned barn. The craftsmen had to cut down some very old trees to get the proper lumber. His philosophy was that he had to make a structure that would last longer than the time it would take for the replacement tree to reach the size that the original tree was when it was cut down. That is a proper replacement attitude, and a proper respect for trees.

Instead of promoting replacement we should be promoting growth. We should be supporting organizations that promote and encourage the growth of naturally occuring regional trees. Instead of having the company do the replanting, they should contribute to these organizations. Sometimes you have to cut down an area because the land will no longer be available. It might be flooded for an atrificial lake, or converted into a shopping complex. Some areas might be devistated due to natural conditions, but they need to be populated by someone.

And grandfathers. We need to preserve the mighty trees that are prime examples of their species and who have endured the centuries.

Some things to think about when hugging a tree. Also make sure that there is no posion ivy. And carpenter ants. It would really be embarrasing to hug a tree only to have it collapse on you.


Here here!

The example of poisoning non-usable trees is shameful. But, it's one incredibly specific abuse. There are a thousand and one other ways to be Evil To Trees, and any proposal aiming to prohibit them all is going to fail. Besides, like I say, I think that sort of thing can only be handled more locally. I don't see how one proposal can accommodate all of the possible problems associated with deforestation.

Further, the point about replanting is well-made, but again contextual. In certain situations, it's better for the land to be put to alternative use, and new forests started. In others, straight replanting should be promoted. I'm not particularly bothered who does it, so long as it's done. So I think it'd be difficult to incorporate some of those ideas in an especially strong sense, without being heavily exclusive.

Simple, proper planting methods to prevent future incidents like the one Tzorsland described. Not that I don't see the point of his post, far from, but Golgothastan also makes a good point. Replanting trees, usually, is better than not. Of course, perhaps there is a better system, like tree-farms of some sort.

I would be very thankful for a decent replacement to be made, especially if you could do it before Friday because so many repeal are saying, 'where's the replacement?' and are voting against when I say there isn't one. I did try to create a replacement but failed in the attempt because experienced members didn't like it.

support for ... ecologically suitable varieties
You mean we can't just keep on planting mangroves in the desert after bulldozing a conifer forest, as allowed under the current resolution? Sounds like an idea.

Forgottenlands (should he post) will pingpong it in spite. I will watch and giggle.

Pingpong? I'll have you know that I lack the ability to get the ball to the table with ping pong and any claims that I can have any part in anything related to ping pong are outrageously false.

We need to preserve the mighty trees that are prime examples of their species and who have endured the centuries.

And all the birds in the trees

general endorsement of no net deforestation
general endorsement of responsible forestry practices
requirements/encouragements to prevent deforestation in sub-threshold populations, or where it would be excessively environmentally/economically damaging
penalties for nations whose deforestation practices cause damage to other nations This is the big one for me
any entity wishing to engage in [industrial?] deforestation required to obtain permission from relevant sovereign authority
general promotion of afforestation
support for initiatives to replant fast-growing varieties, usable and useful varieties, and ecologically suitable varieties
support and development of wood alternatives, and of methods of wood reuse/recycling
possible prohibition on slash and burn

Going simple. I've bolded what I would readily support. My opinion can be swayed on these issues as I am not well versed in lumbering. These are simply starting points for me.

I think that a lot of the issues with your proposed resolution and, indeed, a lot of problems with the UN is a lot of "leaning" but no "doing". What I mean by that is that you state that there should be "general endorsement" and "support" of various ideas, but you do nothing to actually state that anything will be done. The trouble with saying "you should do this" is that, in the cynical world we live in, no one is going to listen. So you get an ineffective organization that proposes bills that affect almost no one, and countries are free to ignore (which, by some accounts, is what we have).

I understand the other point - that "businessess can be more effective than the government". The only real problem with that mentality is that no business is guaranteed to do anything. A business or businessess can choose to support the environment in one way or another, but there is nothing stating that they are forced to do so. The real issue with leaving things to the people is that, more often than not, the people aren't going to do anything anyway.

There are two ways to deal with this. The first is that you provide some sort of incentive; maybe a "UN Seal of Approval", a stamp of some sort. Many corporations would simply accept that line of thought because that's another way to advertise their produce. The "Hey, we got a UN Seal of Approval! Buy our wood benches, that help the environment when they are made" type of thing. That could be effective, especially if there are mandatory tests to see who passes and who doesn't.

But a "seal of approval" may be too soft. Take American car advertising for an example (I'm not sure if you are familier with this area, but I'm tired, and it's all I can think of). If Mitsubishi starts sending ads about how great they are because they got J.D. Power and Associates Award in Highest Performance, Ford can simply look at another niche of the market to advertise about, say, gas prices (where Ford loses anyway. :p ). So, you could make it mandatory to get the "seal of approval", or put companies that don't on a timetable to get it, or whatever.

Then, you can always make the government do it. Apart from this, I really like the porposed ideas, especially the "Damage to other nations", the "permit for industrial deforestation", the "requirements to prevent deforestation in sub-threshold populations", and the last two.

My $0.02.

Thanks for all the comments. However, I have tried to get this into proposal shape, and can't get anything close to even twice the requisite character count without making it as "toothless" as some have warned against. As such, I probably won't be pursuing this.

However, there might be merit in one (or more) more specific proposals on the subjects of: slash and burn; replanting; international effects of deforestation; other stuff. But, I don't know. What do you lot think?

How to Hug a Tree

You've heard the phrase before, but have you ever taken a moment out of your day to do this? Although some trees, like people, are more huggable than others, they all need a hug now and again.

Difficulty Level: easy Time Required: 10-30 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's How:
Find yourself a quiet park, forest, or woodland area.
Walk among the trees until you feel comfortable in their presence.
Feel the different bark textures with the palms of your hands.
Smell the scent of the various woods.
Absorb their life's energies as you look upwards to the sprawling branches overhead.
Find the perfect tree that fits your mood. You will know which one is right for you.
Vertical Tree Hug: Encircle it with your arms while gently pressing your cheek to the trunk being careful not to scratch your face. Squeeze tightly. Sigh deeply. Be one with your tree.
Full Body Tree Hug: Sit upon the ground wrapping your legs around the base of the tree and at the same time embracing it with your arms.
Up in the Air Tree Hug: Climb a tree. Sit upon a strong limb and straddle it with your legs. Bend forward and place your belly against it while wrapping your arms about it.

Tips:
Feel free to hug more than one tree if the mood strikes. Besides, other trees might get jealous.
You may like to take home a fallen leaf or nut as a keepsake from your new friend.
Be sure to return each season to visit your tree. And don't be afraid to talk to it as trees are good listeners.

Thanks for all the comments. However, I have tried to get this into proposal shape, and can't get anything close to even twice the requisite character count without making it as "toothless" as some have warned against. As such, I probably won't be pursuing this.

However, there might be merit in one (or more) more specific proposals on the subjects of: slash and burn; replanting; international effects of deforestation; other stuff. But, I don't know. What do you lot think?
Perhaps put up what you have done and others can divide it up/be influenced, with credit to you of course.

Thanks for all the comments. However, I have tried to get this into proposal shape, and can't get anything close to even twice the requisite character count without making it as "toothless" as some have warned against. As such, I probably won't be pursuing this.

I might try my hand at this if I ever get the free time. The solution is not to worry about the "damage" but to push with the solution. I mean what harm can there be with an overabundance of trees? The resolution should promote forests and the creation of sustainable woodlands; with the reccomndation that planting new growth in areas of recent development should be encouraged. Thinking only in terms of damage control is minimialistic and overly complex. If a tree falls in Brooklyn, but a dozen trees are planted in the Bronx isn't that a net gain?

However, there might be merit in one (or more) more specific proposals on the subjects of: slash and burn; replanting; international effects of deforestation; other stuff. But, I don't know. What do you lot think?

I'm all for it. But, I hug trees in my spare time too.

That tree hugging thing at the top of this page is BEAUTIFUL!

I've always been a bit nervous about hugging trees. One of these days, that tree is going to hug me back. :eek: