NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #172

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: The Black Market HQ

Description: For too long humans have been emitting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which effect the ozone that protects us. Most of CFCs come from the industry. If CFCs continue to be emitted we will not have enough ozone to protect us.

Ozone protects us, it prevents the majority of UV(Ultra-Violet) rays from reaching our surface. Too many UV rays and you get skin cancer.

The Ozone is depleted so much over the south pole and the north pole that almost 100% of UV rays reach the surface.

If we don't stop emitting CFCs the 'hole'(area of significantly depleted ozone) will continue to grow until it covers the entire earth.


Therefore all businesses must reduce emitions of CFCs by 50% within five years and 90% within thirty years. It is still possible for businesses to work effectively even though they have to reduce the amount of gas they release.

If there is a reduction in CFCs, the ozone will stop depleting, there will be a significant reduction in skin cancer and therefore a reduction in medical costs. It will also help endangered animals as animals suffer from the same problem.

Basically by reducing CFC emitions we make the world a better place.



Votes For: 9,028
Votes Against: 6,191

Implemented: Fri Aug 25 2006

This repeal understands the importance of ensuring that the Ozone that protects us from the Sun's harmful rays is itself protected from destruction by harmful chemicals that are sent out by U.N member states industries. A resolution should be better written to deal with the Ozone depletion of our environment and how we have to protect that valuable resource.

In repealing this resolution, the author does not explain or educate other U.N delegations what CFC's are. The resolution is also lacking because the author indicates that harmful effects to the ozone may occur from CFC production and that it mostly comes from industry. The resolution fails to go after all chemicals and harmful (stuff) industries produce that weakens and destroys the Ozone, therefore ensuring that the Ozone will continue to be decompleted.

Faulty information is also given as the worst areas that are effected by Ozone depletion, are not the NP or SPbut elsewhere where the holes are actually centered. The NP and SP are effected by different issues that are 'warming' them.

The author does not prove the medical results that would occur from the stopping of CFC production and its goals are unreasonable if nations are using CFC's as their main component in their industries effecting their economy emmensly.

Resolution 172 should be thus repealled and another resolution dealing with Ozone depletion and all chemicals, not just CFC's should be written.

We're all for a repeal of this particular piece of rubbish, but don't expect us to support a replacement.

That said, however, we also don't have too much of a problem with the resolution remaining on the books either, as once the government of Cluichstan realised that it was likely to pass, we massively stepped up our production of CFCs such that the scaled reduction over time really has no net effect whatsoever on us.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If I removed that section, would that be acceptable to most??

If I removed that section, would that be acceptable to most??

Actually, I wouldn't remove it. You're more likely to get votes for it if people think you're going to replace it with something more comprehensive.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Anyone else?

You can't mention RL places in repeals.

You can't mention RL places in repeals.
... which in this case only refers to New Zealand. We've previously established via mod ruling that the world(s) of NationStates almost certainly have North and South poles. That is a function of physics, not political division, and therefore permitted.

... which in this case only refers to New Zealand.
I know.

EDIT: i.e. I was talking about NZ. That said, I think Anoriv should at least put NP/SP in lower case, to make it clear he is not talking about the specific RL poles.

I know.

* slaps Gruenberg with a large trout *

I know you know. I'm sure you know I know you know. I wanted to be sure young master Anoriv knows, and now you know and I know he knows. Know what I mean?

Ellelt opposes this repeal.

True the argument is sound if one does not take into consideration the fact that there are character limitiations on proposals. The current number is 3500 characters including spaces, I believe.

Given that fact, there is no way that one proposal could possibly cover every single chemical that harms the ozone layer. Therefore, I would assume that the author of the resolution chose the one that did the most damage

Also due to length considerations it is possible that the author did not have the space to give a full scientific explanation of why or how CFC's harm the ozone layer. However, this is why we have floor debates here in the UN forum. In the forum we have an unlimited amount of space in which to explain the reasons behind a proposed resolution, and also to hear sides both for a proposal and against it.

Concerning the mentioning of New Zealand, that is an area for the mods to decide.

Concerning the mentioning of New Zealand, that is an area for the mods to decide.

:confused: um...Fris is a mod....

* slaps Gruenberg with a large trout *
*Schmitty looks in Bob's cooler and notices that Bob's trademark trout is missing*

You better put that back when you're done.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

OOC: :p

:confused: um...Fris is a mod....

That is a fact of which I am aware. Having read the proposal just now on the NS website, it does not contain reference to NZ in the actual body of the text.

But we still oppose this repeal, and considering that voting on it ends 23 November, and it is lacking support by 73 delegates (at the time of this post) I do not think it will be queued.

In my previous post I mearly explained why I opposed the repeal. If someone is concerned about banning other substances which are not CFC's but also deplete the ozone layer they are free to pass a resolution banning or reducing that substance.

* slaps Gruenberg with a large trout *

I know you know. I'm sure you know I know you know. I wanted to be sure young master Anoriv knows, and now you know and I know he knows. Know what I mean?

Know.:p

That is a fact of which I am aware. Having read the proposal just now on the NS website, it does not contain reference to NZ in the actual body of the text.
That's because that repeal is Ithalia. Try reading the one we are actually talking about.

... which in this case only refers to New Zealand. We've previously established via mod ruling that the world(s) of NationStates almost certainly have North and South poles. That is a function of physics, not political division, and therefore permitted.

I do remember that ruling, but not where. It was for one of the Environmental resolutions, and we could archive that ruling via NSWiki ...finding it though may be a pain.

I do remember that ruling, but not where. It was for one of the Environmental resolutions, and we could archive that ruling via NSWiki ...finding it though may be a pain.It was in a thread associated with the Resolution in question.

I have updated it.

That's because that repeal is Ithalia. Try reading the one we are actually talking about.

That is the repeal that is currently on the docket of the UN. As far as Im concerned if it aint on the docket, and there isnt a formal draft thread on the forum...it doesnt matter,as it doesnt exist, but I would oppose any attempt to repeal the ozone resolution, there is no need to. Further, I have yet to see a formal repeal resolution written here on the forum. So sir it seems to me that that resolution which is currently on the docket, and will probably be removed sometime today lacking support would be the one he is talking about unless he is drafting an other one.

As I have said, if the argument is, "well it doesnt cover x, y, and z." Then write a resolution that does. UNR172 does not prevent that in any case what-so-ever.