NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Grand Leeds

Description: If passed all UN members must reduce there deforestation for ANY purposes by 40%.

Argument:
The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.
The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.
The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process, this will reduce tax and make your citizens respect and appreciate you.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jul 2 2006

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

Category: Environmental

One of the problems with the environmental category is time and again, people try to ram an environmental proposal that doesn't consider the complexity of the problem. Let's see if this is an exception.

Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Grand Leeds

On a side note - seeing as this proposal is about deforestation, your industry would be woodchipping, not all.

Description: If passed all UN members must reduce there deforestation for ANY purposes by 40%.

Deforestation? Deforestation is the issue where, due to methods used, forests are cut down and don't regrow. This could be due to the soil being inadaquet or because people want to use it for other purposes (such as....substinance). The issue is something that can be measured over several years, not a handful of days. I would be curious how you measure deforestation. Can you, for example, not replace the trees you cut down by regrowing them in other areas? By normal uses of the term deforestation, the answer is actually no. However, that is a much more pragmatic allowance

And of course, says who deforestation is a problem in every nation - or is even an unwanted problem. If the only reason deforestation is happening is because of urban expansion, it might be difficult to tell residents "listen, we can't give you places to live because the UN won't let us get more land to build an apartment complex."

Argument:
The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.

1) The word you're looking for is sure. Shore is where the land meets the water. Yes, that includes a beach - a beach is a type of shore that we can put to recreational use.
2) Deforestation is a deterioration of the environment. Unless it is completely eradicated, the world will not "stay" environmentally friendly. It'll be more environmentally friendly.....IN THAT ONE AREA. Environmental considerations range from wildlife populations to wildlife diversity to pollution to waste to resource exhaustion to.... Deforestation is only one area of consideration.

The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.

False. If hunting increases while the deforestation decreases, you'll still see extinction. In fact, you'll see it happen faster because deforestation is a long-term cause of extinction (since the creature will have to finish its life before you see the effect) whereas hunting is much much faster.

The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process,

Which is normally spent by corporations to try and create a profit. When the net is positive, I fail to see how the reduction in spent money is a good thing.

this will reduce tax and make your citizens respect and appreciate you.

What?

1) Not everyone actually has taxes
2) Environmental laws are actually more costly to society than just leaving things the way they are. Environment laws require investment from the government and often give a blow to the economy. Stupid argument.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jul 2 2006

Going back to my earlier comment, this isn't an exception.

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Grand Leeds

Description: If passed all UN members must reduce there deforestation for ANY purposes by 40%.

There are several problems with this statement. Firstly, you neglect to define deforestation. For all we know, you could be referring to logging, even if conducted in a sustainable environmentally friendly fashion. Equally, deforestation isn't always done by the hand of man, so how are we to enforce natural deforestation due to climatic variation (i.e. drying or rising humidity in the regional climate)?

Secondly, deforestation can be beneficial, reducing tree cover can encourage the growth of new species of sub-boreal plants, i.e. bushes, flowering shrubs, etc, which can result in the development of new ecosytems. Sometimes, additionally, alien tree species will be targeted by deforestation, due to their potentially damaging impact upon the native biosphere. Is it desirable that we halt such activities?

Finally, let's consider the question of local economy. Stopping excess irresponsible logging is desirable under any circumstances, but what about sustainable logging in fast replenishing envirionments? Considering you haven't defined what your term "deforestation" applies to, we could be talking about bamboo for all we know.

Argument:
The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.

Grammar Nazi Obersturmfuhrer Forgottenlands got there first unfortunately. Damn him, stealing my fun! Equally, you don't say why?

The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.

It's not necessarily that simple. What if selected deforestation is required to preserve a habitat, like the RL Appalachian Balds.

OOC: Reference Bill Bryson's "A Walk in the Woods" if you want to learn more.

The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process, this will reduce tax and make your citizens respect and appreciate you.

Wait. What? How does that make sense? If your deforestation programme is causing you a net economic loss, then why would you continue it? (regardless of how much you care for the environment).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Grammar Nazi Obersturmfuhrer Forgottenlands got there first unfortunately. Damn him, stealing my fun! Equally, you don't say why?.Since they taking about SHORE figured they might mean palm trees here along our beaches... Agree with Compadrai there is no reason why given in any of the clauses. It needs to be added to clear up why we are to approve this one at all.

Argument:
The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.
The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.
The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process, this will reduce tax and make your citizens respect and appreciate you.Also; why are we proposing to ARGUE on this issue I thought a proposal was to give an end to any arguements on an issue and have members do something about it besides argue about it? Thus they come back and argue when they want to repeal it...

As far as the respect of the citizens.. those who don't respect our government and the laws applied buy them; can do one of two things here; 1) Leave 2) Apply as rope tester with our Nation Hangman Assiciation

Since they taking about SHORE figured they might mean palm trees here along our beaches... Agree with Compadrai there is no reason why given in any of the clauses. It needs to be added to clear up why we are to approve this one at all.

Also; why are we proposing to ARGUE on this issue I thought a proposal was to give an end to any arguements on an issue and have members do something about it besides argue about it? Thus they come back and argue when they want to repeal it...

As far as the respect of the citizens.. those who don't respect our government and the laws applied buy them; can do one of two things here; 1) Leave 2) Apply as rope tester with our Nation Hangman Assiciation

Considering we repealed Abortion Rights because it gave no arguments (or, at least, that was one of the arguments for its repeal), I think it would be fair to argue that we should have arguments in our resolution.

Considering we repealed Abortion Rights because it gave no arguments (or, at least, that was one of the arguments for its repeal), I think it would be fair to argue that we should have arguments in our resolution.True but this one simply gives statements under the term arguments.. with no solution to those statements to debate or argue about... Not sure how that fits or works as would think it needs to have some statements on how to do things..

Bad arguments are still arguments, just not very good ones. Those statements you mention still qualify as arguments.

Spelling...Spelling...Spelling


Jim Johnson
Understudy
to the UN Deligate

Logically, an argument is a claim supported by evidence, so if the claim is that something should be done, a Resolution can be an argument.

Also, to the author, it doesn't do any good to submit a proposal before introducing it to the forum, as there is nothing we can do to help it (if it's helpable). When next you author something, make a thread in the forum here before submitting it, and if there is a workable idea inside of it, we'll offer some constructive help to get it into a proposal.

Logically, an argument is a claim supported by evidence,.I thank you! As believe this is what we have here three claims with no evidence..



Claim 1) The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.
Claim 2) The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.
Claim 3) The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process, this will reduce tax and make your citizens
So what we need is the evidence to complete it.

OOC: Glad somebody is awake in here...

Yeah, I realize that others have already weighed in on most of what I'm about to say, but I feel like talking.

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Grand Leeds

Description: If passed all UN members must reduce their deforestation for ANY purposes by 40%.

(typo fixed for ya there)

Argument:
The resolution will make shore that the world stays environmentally friendly.
The resolution will make shore that Animal extinction is reduced.
The resolution will save the money spent of the deforestation process, this will reduce tax and make your citizens respect and appreciate you.

We have come into the habit of seeing supporting arguments for the claims made within proposals the we pass judgement upon. These claims are more than a little debatable and more than a little naive.

Logically, an argument is a claim supported by evidence, so if the claim is that something should be done, a Resolution can be an argument.

Logically, I would agree. Unfortunately, not all arguments are logical.

So what we need is the evidence to complete it.

Good luck finding evidence to support this one.

Logically, I would agree. Unfortunately, not all arguments are logical.

Clearly not. When I say logically here, I mean relating to the scholarly subject of logic, which has definitions and such.

In order for an argument to be an argument, it has to have both conclusions and premises, and then good stuff like cogency, soundness, validity... I digress.

Repeals are where you're more likely to find actual arguments though. Conclusion: R### should be repealed. Premises: It's ineffectual, it's overbroad, it's ignorant of reality.

Resolutions written as arguments are not likely to be complete, as conclusions/claims are generally either statements of facts or suggestions. A good resolutions is likely to have mandates as well.

.... I didn't undigress after I said "I digress," did I?

On a side note - seeing as this proposal is about deforestation, your industry would be woodchipping, not all.Nah, it's "all", as more than just woodchipping would be affected by this. Most any buisiness could clear cut forests; a prime example would be agriculture. It could be put under Woodchipping, but that would open up a loophole for non-woodchipping industries.

Clearly not. When I say logically here, I mean relating to the scholarly subject of logic, which has definitions and such.

In order for an argument to be an argument, it has to have both conclusions and premises, and then good stuff like cogency, soundness, validity... I digress.

Good points. Thanks.