NationStates Jolt Archive

Adolf Barham has done it again - including paying no heed to the criticisms made of this proposal when it was drafted months ago.

CONSIDERING that trees and plants are needed to provide oxygen for humans
Not true. When trees die, they rot. This process uses up oxygen. Forests have about zero output in terms of oxygen: they don't use it up, but they don't produce much surplus. We don't depend on them as the world's lungs.

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a forest as a group of 20 trees or more
I hope it's apparent why this is absurd? 20 trees...in what proximity? You're suggesting that 20 trees in 20 acres is a forest just as 20 trees in 1 acre would be? That if I planted 20 trees next to one another, squeezing for room, that'd have exactly the same ecological status as if I strewed the seeds all the way around Gruenberg?

MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;
Doing it by % area is interminably stupid. Most of the nations in the Antarctic Oasis probably have no trees: but let's say they manage to rustle up 10. Would cutting all 10 down be ecological disaster. Argh! The end times are upon us! Compare that to a densely forested nation in which cutting down ninety percent of the forest area is somehow fine?

FURTHERMORE NOTES that this area of forest must not be cut down by any individual member, company, organisation or group within the nation or a combination of any of these
This is where it gets even more perplexing: apparently felling is not banned, it's just got to be outsourced.

MANDATES that any area of forest where citizens live in or a high amount of birds or mammals live must not be cut down. This adds on to the 10% of protected forest;
Now the UN is going to actively encourage tree squatters? And what's a high amount of birds or mammals? Ten? A hundred?

MANDATES that if a nation cuts down 25% of their total forest area, all logging must be stopped until this 25% has been replanted;
"this 25%"

Pause, and consider that.

You're mandating we replant the trees we have just cut down. You get a bop on the head - bop.

THEREFORE URGES nations to use sustainable logging where almost every tree cut down is replanted. This would ensure that the nation never gets to the situation of the above clause;
Again...when you cut a tree, you kill it. Replanting it makes no sense whatsoever: why do you want the UN's nations to exist as themeparks of rotting vegetation?

1. To use UNCoESB's (resolution 119) ruling on whether or not an animal or a plant is endangered
I find this questionable. UNCoESB has no authority concerning plants: almost reads like an amendment.

NOTING that the same rules apply to any foreign company who has leased any area of land in any UN member nation
Yes, but not to foreign companies working on land leased by another agent within that member nation.

CONCLUDING that this proposal protects endangered species and plants, as well as natives and the environment in general
It really doesn't.

This is such utter crap. Don't suppose it crosses into Bloody Stupid?

Don't suppose it crosses into Bloody Stupid?

I don't really see how it can't.

Afterthought. Referencing UNCoeSBCFYOBGYN would create a minor HoC. If we ignore the HoC by ignoring the parts that references it, then it creates a committee that has no powers and does nothing at all except use up UN resources. I think I'd just call it plain illegal, before the Bloody Stupid part kicks in.

Aside from that, it would be so easy for any nation to CSA loophole their way past this, because of the definition of forest, that this garbage isn't worth the paper it's written on.

It's stupid, but it doesn't rise to the level of Bloody Stupid, sorry.

Also, I don't consider it an HoC violation because that clause seems to do all of nothing. It's using the UNCoESB's definitions, but it doesn't say how it's using those definitions. Nowhere does the text mandate any particular actions regarding endangered species. It's little more than a pointless backreference.

Of course, it looks like some of this is missing, so I can't make a full ruling. Still, this looks like yet another supid-and-fuzzy-headed-but-legal Proposals.

Actually it's plants are needed to provide oxygen for animals (and not just numans) although nothing beats the output of a few good volcanoes. (The O2 content was far greater during the age of the dinosaurs which was why they never bothered to requie diaphrams to power their lungs and why they started dying out just before the asteroid struck.)

Trees are quesitonable, although some are suggesting that old growth forests do tend to produce more O2 than they consume and being old growth they tend not to rot. Other plants can fix carbon into the soil so they too are negative carbon emitters, even after the plants are harvested and burned as fuel. Switchgrass comes to mind and this has been proposed as an alternative (but still expensive) green fuel source.

I have to agree with Hack, this resolution is stupid, not bloody stupid. I can hear the cat girls crying in pain, but not enough to cause serious death tolls.

(NB: The RWHPTRP - Retired Werepenguin Hydroponic Tree Research Project - began growing pine trees in hydroponic greenhouses starting in 2014 for reasons that are technically classified. Note also I will deny strongly any accusaiton that I have revealed the futrue in any way. Sincerely, The Meddling Monk, President of Tzorsland, who is not technically sneaking into the mind of Retired Werepenguins by writing this, who in turn will deny any knowledge of this note.)

I have to agree with Hack, this resolution is stupid, not bloody stupid. I can hear the cat girls crying in pain, but not enough to cause serious death tolls.

Speaking of which...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/catgirls4hn.jpg

:D

CONSIDERING that trees and plants are needed to provide oxygen for humans
Not true. When trees die, they rot. This process uses up oxygen. Forests have about zero output in terms of oxygen: they don't use it up, but they don't produce much surplus. We don't depend on them as the world's lungs.

Here gruenberg goes again. :headbang: Stop brainwashing other members with lies! Plants and trees clean the air. They are the best known filters for human CO2 emissions and breathe out oxygen giving us one of our most practical supplies of clean air.

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a forest as a group of 20 trees or more
I hope it's apparent why this is absurd? 20 trees...in what proximity? You're suggesting that 20 trees in 20 acres is a forest just as 20 trees in 1 acre would be? That if I planted 20 trees next to one another, squeezing for room, that'd have exactly the same ecological status as if I strewed the seeds all the way around Gruenberg?

Sorry and granted. Yes, I haven't defined a forest very well. However, it would be common sense for each nation to sensibly define a forest adding to my weak definition.

MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;
Doing it by % area is interminably stupid. Most of the nations in the Antarctic Oasis probably have no trees: but let's say they manage to rustle up 10. Would cutting all 10 down be ecological disaster. Argh! The end times are upon us! Compare that to a densely forested nation in which cutting down ninety percent of the forest area is somehow fine?

No and then yes. It is not stupid whatsoever in doing it by % area. Any other way would mean that some nations are allowed to cut down more trees than others, whcih is unfair. But sorry, granted that I could make an exception for nations that have a very small number of trees in the first place. This is only a minor issue however......

FURTHERMORE NOTES that this area of forest must not be cut down by any individual member, company, organisation or group within the nation or a combination of any of these
This is where it gets even more perplexing: apparently felling is not banned, it's just got to be outsourced.

Look, I am not banning felling. I am only cutting it down (excuse the pun ;) ). This clause explains the previous clause. Each nation must define 10% of trees within their nation (from anywhere in their nation) and this 10% are protected trees which can never be cut down. This stops nations getting rid of all their trees (unless they had none to begin with)

MANDATES that any area of forest where citizens live in or a high amount of birds or mammals live must not be cut down. This adds on to the 10% of protected forest;
Now the UN is going to actively encourage tree squatters? And what's a high amount of birds or mammals? Ten? A hundred?

What are you on Gruenberg? Where has this clause encouraged tree-squatting? Stop lying (or twisting the truth as you may call it) to everyone. This clause merely states that if by chance, there are any nations where the inhabitants live amidst many trees and require the trees as part of their home, then these trees must not be cut down. This makes sense. The same applies if there are a large number of mammals or birds there. This clause protects the animals from destruction. As for the 'high amount', each nation can define how high, high is.
If I defined every little thing and left no leeway, I am pretty damn sure that Gruenberg would be moaning at me for that!

MANDATES that if a nation cuts down 25% of their total forest area, all logging must be stopped until this 25% has been replanted;
"this 25%"

Pause, and consider that.

You're mandating we replant the trees we have just cut down. You get a bop on the head - bop.

OMFG gruenberg. Are you purposely acting dumb or are you actually stupid?
Yes, of course you replant the trees that have just been cut down. That is the whole point of an Environment Protection Act. To protect the environment from being destroyed. This 25% is a maximum limit where if you destroy 25% of the total trees in the nation, you must replant them all. This way, you can never get to a stage where you have too little or no trees.

THEREFORE URGES nations to use sustainable logging where almost every tree cut down is replanted. This would ensure that the nation never gets to the situation of the above clause;
Again...when you cut a tree, you kill it. Replanting it makes no sense whatsoever: why do you want the UN's nations to exist as themeparks of rotting vegetation?

Sustainable logging is a sensible idea. It helps the environment in that there will always be trees there. I don't know what you do in Gruenberg, but I am pretty sure that most nations will get rid of a felled tree and will not leave the nation in 'rotting vegetation' as you so strangely put.
This clause urges nations to use sustaiable logging, so that they never reach the absolute limit of cutting down 25% of their trees. Again, it makes sense to benefit loggers and the environment.

1. To use UNCoESB's (resolution 119) ruling on whether or not an animal or a plant is endangered
I find this questionable. UNCoESB has no authority concerning plants: almost reads like an amendment.

Sorry again, clearly I did not mean to put plant there. I only meant animals. This isn't a problem though because: as UNCoESB makes no ruling on whether or not a plant is endangered, it can simply be ignored.

NOTING that the same rules apply to any foreign company who has leased any area of land in any UN member nation
Yes, but not to foreign companies working on land leased by another agent within that member nation.

Okay, okay. Picky Gruenberg found another little loophole. But come on, seriously, would one nation really lease land for another nation to use within another nation, purposely to cut down trees. It sounds ridiculous. Although, I can imagine Gruen doing it just to spite me..........

Gruen, I admire your powers of persuasion in being able to make everyone believe that a decent proposal is bloody stupid. For once people, ignore Gruenberg. He is wrong on all the major issues although I have to admit that he found a few minor errors.

(I can just imagine Gruen's reply to that last paragraph: They didn't need much persuasion because your proposal is crap. I am not wrong, you are shit etc etc etc.........)

I have no idea what this proposal is aimed at doing but the quotes presented show the author has almost no command of the English language and next to no science back ground.

The oceans rather than the trees produce the most oxygen on the planet. Trillions upon trillions of Phytoplankton, corals, kelps, and other sea plants produce more oxygen than the largest rain forests. Further Grasslands produce more oxygen with fewer carbon emissions than forests.

Also Ellelt is densely forested mostly in the eastern sections which are too cold to live in except by convicts who are sent there to extract our vast mineral resources, but I fail to see how if we cut down 90% of those forests we could be helping the world environment. I also don't understand the idea about replanting trees once they've been cut down, unless he means that the cleared area needs to be replanted with new tree seedlings, which is none of the UN's Business anyway.

If the nations want to tree farm as Ellelt does in its lands not suitable for growing crops for direct human consumption, they are already doing so and don't need the UN to come in and tell them that they should...well cause they are already doing it. Likewise if they want to clear cut forests...its their forests and none of anyone else's business. I know I don't care how many Ubangistanis (fictional country--I think) die in a mudslide because the morons didn't replace the trees with an other plant to hold the soil in place.

V. Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The proposal is badly thought out, badly written, and one more attempt to cram a single, questionable requirement down the throats of 29,000 nations, whether it makes sense in their ecological circumstances or not.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

MANDATES that any area of forest where citizens live in or a high amount of birds or mammals live must not be cut down. This adds on to the 10% of protected forest

This single clause renders us in complete opposition to the draft as stated. If you already have designated 10% of forest land as untouchable, and then declare that any forest "where citizens live" is untouchable, and then add "a high amount of birds or mammals" to that, you could easily render huge sections of a country untouchable under this clause. Altanar favors a balance between environmental preservation and economic prosperity; this draft would be anything but balanced, and would favor one greatly over the other to the detriment of nations.

Oh, good grief!
If this gets passed then my government will be glad that all of our territories are treeless...

This single clause renders us in complete opposition to the draft as stated. If you already have designated 10% of forest land as untouchable, and then declare that any forest "where citizens live" is untouchable, and then add "a high amount of birds or mammals" to that, you could easily render huge sections of a country untouchable under this clause. Altanar favors a balance between environmental preservation and economic prosperity; this draft would be anything but balanced, and would favor one greatly over the other to the detriment of nations.

Look, there is a fantastic balance between environmental preservation and economic prosperity:

10% of forest land: Untouchable
Forests where people, mammals or birds live: Untouchable (This is very unlikely to be all of the other 90%: more likely to be around 0-50%)

Therefore, there is 40-90% of forest land that loggers and logging companies can still cut down. This is plenty. Also, as my proposal states, if 25% of this is cut down without a single tree being replanted, logging must stop until this 25% is replanted. Therefore, the effects of my proposal will be as follows:

Logging companies will be more likely to start using sustainable logging, so that they never reach this 25%
Therefore, they will have a constant flow of trees to cut down.
Therefore, their business does not fail: quite the contrary. It will flourish.

Think wider implications, people. My proposal works from many points of view. Think, god damnit rather than just criticisng everything you see.

Think wider implications, people. My proposal works from many points of view. Think, god damnit rather than just criticisng everything you see.

I am in full agreement with Minister Olembe. And I would like to mention to the author that it is precisely because we are considering the wider implications that we are opposed to it, precisely because we are thinking that we deem it ridiculous. Perhaps the author could take his own advice rather than just arguing against everything we say.

Hellar Gray

Think wider implications, people. My proposal works from many points of view. Think, god damnit rather than just criticisng everything you see.

Your childish little tantrum, taking the name of the deity in vain, is thoroughly offensive and does absolutely nothing to argue for your proposal. It's precisely because we take a wider view than you seem capable of -- recognizing that there are undoubtedly many, widely varied ecological conditions in the 29,000+ member states of the NSUN -- that we firmly reject the force-feeding of a one-size-fits-all requirement, based on questionable science and logic, on all of them.

We don't criticize everything we see. We do criticize badly developed, badly written legislation. Your proposal qualifies quite well.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Look, there is a fantastic balance between environmental preservation and economic prosperity:

10% of forest land: Untouchable
Forests where people, mammals or birds live: Untouchable (This is very unlikely to be all of the other 90%: more likely to be around 0-50%)

Therefore, there is 40-90% of forest land that loggers and logging companies can still cut down. This is plenty.

You're throwing out some wonderful numbers based on wonderful assumptions, but I have to wonder what you're basing all this on. On what basis do you derive your figure that your proposal leaves "40-90% of forest land" free to use for logging? And on what basis do you determine that that amount, as unsupported as it is, is "plenty"? Your proposal, even on that basis, could still declare up to 60% of a nation's forests unusable for anything. The economic implications of that are staggering, and yet, you claim this is balanced?

Think wider implications, people. My proposal works from many points of view. Think, god damnit rather than just criticisng everything you see.

As requested, we did think about it again. And it's still less balanced than an escapee from a mental asylum. And we're still opposed.

Stop brainwashing other members with lies! Plants and trees clean the air. They are the best known filters for human CO2 emissions and breathe out oxygen giving us one of our most practical supplies of clean air.
They don't "breathe out" oxygen. Respiration is a process that uses up oxygen and produces carbon dioxide, whether it's occuring in plants or animals. Surely you know this kind of basic science?

Next, you're ignoring the rather significant contribution of the oceans to the earth's atmosphere. Algae produce oxgyen too, you see, whilst the seas dissolve carbon dioxide. The process isn't simply: we breathe out, they suck it up for us. And how do they "filter" our CO2 emissions?

Finally, you're going to have to back up your wild, unfounded assertions with some hint of evidence (that would include explaining the set amounts you use).

Sorry and granted. Yes, I haven't defined a forest very well. However, it would be common sense for each nation to sensibly define a forest adding to my weak definition.
Which is exactly my point: it renders the resolution meaningless. Nations can define it to mean whatever they like, including "20 trees within one square inch". That means none of Gruenberg's forests counts.

Nyerrzzzzzzthud.

(Sorry, chainsaw noises don't come across so well in type.)

No and then yes. It is not stupid whatsoever in doing it by % area. Any other way would mean that some nations are allowed to cut down more trees than others, whcih is unfair.
It's not black-white, though. There are other ways of gauging it. Any kind of percentage or quota system is going to be unfair, and not work. There are nations who should not be allowed to cut down 10% of their trees, because that's still a massive amount; there are those for whom it's so negligible as to have no international relevance. It doesn't make sense.

But sorry, granted that I could make an exception for nations that have a very small number of trees in the first place. This is only a minor issue however......
Only someone as completely fucking clueless as you would think that banning industry is a minor issue.

This clause explains the previous clause. Each nation must define 10% of trees within their nation (from anywhere in their nation) and this 10% are protected trees which can never be cut down. This stops nations getting rid of all their trees (unless they had none to begin with)
No, you misunderstand. You're only prohibiting their being cut down by people from that nation: that doesn't rule out companies from other nations being brought in to do it.

Where has this clause encouraged tree-squatting?
If people claim to live in the trees, they can't be cut down (well...see above).

This clause merely states that if by chance, there are any nations where the inhabitants live amidst many trees and require the trees as part of their home, then these trees must not be cut down.
Are you totally unaware of how some environmental protesters operate? Where do you think the phrase "tree hugger" comes from? They will occupy the trees, and stall development.

The same applies if there are a large number of mammals or birds there. This clause protects the animals from destruction. As for the 'high amount', each nation can define how high, high is.
So again, meaningless. We've decided high is "two bajillion". Since there are no instances of two bajillion animals living in any tree in Gruenberg...

Nyerrzzzzzzthud.

If I defined every little thing and left no leeway, I am pretty damn sure that Gruenberg would be moaning at me for that!
Again, it doesn't have to be black and white. I'm against restrictive definitions where common sense applies. I'm against unenforcable legislation that is ridden with loopholes. I think there's plenty of room for compromise in there, and yours doesn't meet it.

Yes, of course you replant the trees that have just been cut down.
That's absolutely hilarious. Do you understand that when you cut a tree down it dies? Your biology does stretch to that, yes? So if you replant them, then they will sit in the ground and rot. It also, quite obviously, means no trees would be cut down, because their wood couldn't be used.

What you mean is "plant new trees where the logged ones where taken from". That's not what the resolution says.

Sustainable logging is a sensible idea.
I agree.

I don't know what you do in Gruenberg, but I am pretty sure that most nations will get rid of a felled tree and will not leave the nation in 'rotting vegetation' as you so strangely put.
I'm pretty sure most nations will do what we do in Gruenberg: plant a new tree where the old one was taken from. That is not what your resolution does, though.

Sorry again, clearly I did not mean to put plant there. I only meant animals. This isn't a problem though because: as UNCoESB makes no ruling on whether or not a plant is endangered, it can simply be ignored.
Yet again you acknowledge mistakes in your proposal: are you ready to admit it is flawed, have it deleted, and redraft it with help from other UN members?

Okay, okay. Picky Gruenberg found another little loophole.
You think the entire circumvention of your entire resolution is a "little loophole"? What would a big one be?

But come on, seriously, would one nation really lease land for another nation to use within another nation, purposely to cut down trees. It sounds ridiculous.
No, read what I said, and read what you did. The following is not prohibited: hiring a firm from another country to come in and conduct logging operations. It's quite common to do this anyway, if they're cheaper: it'll go from being a fairly standard business practice to what everyone, not just the spiteful, does to get around this appalling resolution.

Oh this (http://z11.invisionfree.com/New_Democracy_Forum/index.php?showtopic=47) is funny.
Some very active and excellent proposal writers,(tzorsland, gruenberg, st. edmunds) had some complaints about this proposal when I showed it to them about 5 months ago, but I've forgotten what they are.

Are you sure that this proposal is absolutely perfect for submission yet?
That post was made two hours after the initial posting of the proposal, and based on exactly one response: "Looks good." That's it.

Two hours later, no further comments, so he goes for the TG campaign. The way some people's minds work, I will never understand.

HW/AB, take a look at all the criticism you've received here. There are so many calls of logic errors / implementation problems / poorly defining words that I think you should start approaching proposal writing in a different manner. You can't paste a proposal from months ago (one which was criticized by at least 3 prominent proposal writers, even), "forget" the past criticism, get one compliment and then post it with a telegram campaign.

You need to start paying more attention to the drafting process and keep an open mind to these more experienced players. If all these suggestions in this topic were applied to your proposal, imagine how much better it could have been! The proposal, I would imagine, would no longer have a one-size-fits-all approach, and have a feasible implementation process. (Not saying I would still necessarily agree with it, but still)

That being said, should this come to vote, we will be voting against it. And, should this pass (*sigh*)...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/new8ey.png

Only someone as completely fucking clueless as you would think that banning industry is a minor issue.
Gruenberg, we've cut you a lot of IC slack for quite a long time, but you're clearly not taking Hack's subtle hints (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450344) to heart, and you've crossed over into OOC flaming once too often.

Official Warning, flaming. Knock it off, Gruenberg. None of us wants to ban you, but keep pushing the limits and we'll have no choice.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Duly noted; I apologise to homophobic Warriors.

This proposal also fails to take into account small nations situated entirely on forested land - they would only be able to clear 25% of it to contain all of their agriculture, industry, and housing, unless one is able to live, work, and farm inside the forest. I could see this as a challenge for many economically developing locations.

Thanks Fris, you don't know how close I was to going into a tirade about plant "respiration." It's generally not a good thing to dis your own regional rep, especially in a public forum, but the cat girls were pleading me to protect them from gruen's "bad science."

I also feel the need to point out that chlorophyll is exceptionally efficient (I forget the percentage off hand but it is better than 50% in converting sunlight ... compare this to modern photovoltaic systems that are at best 20%) at converting light into usable energy. The only real question is the ratio of chlorophyll surface to plant body and the ability of the plant to "fix" carbon back into the soil (or liquid environment) which it is located in.

Thanks Fris, you don't know how close I was to going into a tirade about plant "respiration." It's generally not a good thing to dis your own regional rep, especially in a public forum, but the cat girls were pleading me to protect them from gruen's "bad science."
Sorry, what? Of course plants respire. They are after all alive.

I also feel the need to point out that chlorophyll is exceptionally efficient (I forget the percentage off hand but it is better than 50% in converting sunlight ... compare this to modern photovoltaic systems that are at best 20%) at converting light into usable energy.
Utterly irrelevant to whether forests are oxygen producers.

The only real question is the ratio of chlorophyll surface to plant body and the ability of the plant to "fix" carbon back into the soil (or liquid environment) which it is located in.
The only real question about what? And you're using the word fix in a totally misleading way. Not that I can see any of this being relevant either.

On another note: thanking him for warning me? Cute.

I understand that there are criticisms, but I simply do not like the way that Gruenberg puts them. He makes the proposal seem a whole lot worse than it actually is, for example, by trying to even argue that plants do not take in CO2 and do not send oxygen back into our atmosphere. Seriously, anyone knows that Gruen is wrong on this issue.

I'm pretty sure that Gruen could argue that the sky is green if he wanted to!!!

So, I accept Jey's and others' criticisms, but leave out Gruenbergs until he puts them in a kinder way and without adding in new criticisms that don't actually exist.

I haven't got much time now, so I will post here again later.....

I understand that there are criticisms, but I simply do not like the way that Gruenberg puts them. He makes the proposal seem a whole lot worse than it actually is, for example, by trying to even argue that plants do not take in CO2 and do not send oxygen back into our atmosphere. Seriously, anyone knows that Gruen is wrong on this issue.

I'm pretty sure that Gruen could argue that the sky is green if he wanted to!!!

So, I accept Jey's and others' criticisms, but leave out Gruenbergs until he puts them in a kinder way and without adding in new criticisms that don't actually exist.

I haven't got much time now, so I will post here again later.....

I'm sorry, but you're just completely wrong. Gruenberg, despite his usual acerbic style, has raised legitimate issues with your proposal, and frankly I agree with most of them.

It would behoove you to take them into consideration and not brush off what he said just because the mods told him to watch the language. It's silly to ignore valid criticisms, and even more pig-headed to kick someone when they are down.

I challenge you to refute any of the statements that Gruenberg made about your proposal, refutations that don't involve his character or his style.

I understand that there are criticisms, but I simply do not like the way that Gruenberg puts them. He makes the proposal seem a whole lot worse than it actually is, for example, by trying to even argue that plants do not take in CO2 and do not send oxygen back into our atmosphere. Seriously, anyone knows that Gruen is wrong on this issue.
That's not what I'm saying: I'm not talking about individual plants, but about the earth as a whole. Which seems a fairly sensible consideration for a resolution that will be binding over it. The oceans are CO2 sinks, and forests take in oxygen. That's all I'm saying.

So, I accept Jey's and others' criticisms, but leave out Gruenbergs until he puts them in a kinder way and without adding in new criticisms that don't actually exist.
Fine, I am sorry if I was overly abrasive in my tone. But it is incredibly frustrating to have made these same points five months ago, have you ignore them, and now see them ignored in a proposal that is at queue. It's arrogant to assume your proposal needs no drafting and is simply ready to go; that attitude engenders this one.

So, pretty please with a fairy on top, would you mind justifying some of your assertions? Would you provide something to back up your numbers? And would you consider having the proposal deleted, so that we can - nicely - help you redraft it into something suitable of passing?

On another note: thanking him for warning me? Cute.

Yes. It's like in baseball where one pitcher deliberately hits the batter and the umpire gets mad and gives a warning. Yes the warning is for the pitcher, but it's mostly for the pitcher of the other team as well, a reminder to get back to the game and not the tit for tat retaliation of personal attacks.

During the day photosynthesis O2 production in plants generally exceeds normal metabolism C02 production and so plants do in fact emit 02 into the air. During the night, there is no photosynthesis and thus they generally emit CO2 during this time. Most plants perform respiration through pores in the bottom sides of the leaves. Trees that shed all their leaves in the winter obviously don’t perform respiration during this time.

Because trees generate both O2 ad CO2 and do so through pores in the bottom of leaves it is extremely hard to measure the net effects, especially in cases of very large trees as are founding old growth forests. Some people do actually try to do this though; it’s a critical factor when one is considering a carbon trading system.

Eh, even if it passes, theres enough loopholes so that we don't have to follow it.

Cutting 25% of your Total amount of tree's mandates you replant them all back.

Lets say you have 1000 trees, to make this easy. You cut 20% or 200 trees. Now you have 800. Your new total tree amount is 800. Keep shaving off 20% to your hearts desire and you technically don't have to plant them back.

I'll vote against and find enough loopholes if it does pass.


Edit: Not that i don't enjoy trees, i hate seeing trees just plowed down and i love forests. Yet this proposal has enough loopholes and too many generalities, making it not worth passing.

Lets say you have 1000 trees, to make this easy. You cut 20% or 200 trees. Now you have 800. Your new total tree amount is 800. Keep shaving off 20% to your hearts desire and you technically don't have to plant them back.Ah, Zeno. We hardly knew ye.

Ah, Zeno. We hardly knew ye.


Eh?

Wow. Looks like this is about to come up to vote tomorrow.

Pardon my language, but that's just fan-fucking-tastic. You know what really sucks? That this piece of garbage will probably pass. Hideous flaws, sucking chest wound loopholes, science worse than anything I've ever had the misfortune to witness before, with an author that acknowledges all of these shortcomings and still refuses to have it removed so that it can be redrafted into something worthwhile. All of that, and a can of poisonous gas, and this drivel will probably pass as a result of the sheer number of voters who may not have the time to fully study the ramifications.

These are busy people. National leaders who have too much on their plate to spare the time to give every scrap of paper the attention that it might deserve, and they are about to be completely hoodwinked by this - this - abhomination to legislative efforts. It looks pretty, it has a friendly sounding title, it appears to protect some of the good things in nature. It does nothing more than destroy the chance for future legislation to properly deal with the matter without getting rid of this first. And we've all seen how difficult it can be to get rid of friendly sounding legislation, no matter how hideously flawed or disastrous it might be.

While we, ourselves, are also somewhat preoccupied with other matters at this time that need our personal attention, be well aware of our negative vote towards this biohazardous fecal by-product, as well as our intention to argue against it at every opportunity for the duration of its voting cycle. We will endeavor to remain rational and even handed in our arguments, but we will not allow this idiocy to go unopposed. Regardless if that will make a difference or not towards the outcome, we would not be able to look at ourselves in the mirror or sleep properly were we to do otherwise.

The authors of this desecration to environmental matters ought to be ashamed of themselves for even contemplating that this, as currently written, was something worthy of UN attention. Even further shame upon them for continually ignoring the numerous declarations that it is in desperate need of a rewrite, and continuing on with this, heedless of what this will do to true efforts at environmental reform. We are disgusted with every aspect of this proposal, and we doubt that we are alone in these feelings. I wager that there will be many who will refuse to remain silent upon this matter once it reaches vote.

We are utterly abhorred by the fact that this proposal was allowed to get to quorum. We promise to fight tooth and nail against this travesty of legislation, with all the powers we have at our disposal.

Garbage of this sort is not befitting a dumpster, much less the halls of the United Nations.

We are utterly abhorred by the fact that this proposal was allowed to get to quorum. We promise to fight tooth and nail against this travesty of legislation, with all the powers we have at our disposal.

Garbage of this sort is not befitting a dumpster, much less the halls of the United Nations.

There's always the "reverse" telegram campaign - tougher given that the proposal is coming up for vote, but still possible.

I tried sending some to its endorsers, but it didn't make much impact. Counter campaigns don't make much difference once it's gone to vote, so I think all we can do is invest hope in the sense of the General Assembly.

Of course, the last time I did that, I woke up five grand down in a Mexican hotel room with a shattering headache and something small and purple lodged in an unpleasant location, but still...

Also, in fairness to hW, he should be allowed to start a clean thread for his resolution.

Also, in fairness to hW, he should be allowed to start a clean thread for his resolution.

Ya think?