NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the author has yet to post this...

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Woodchipping
Proposed by: Homophobic Warriors

Description: BELIEVING that protecting our environment is very important and that wanton deforesting of any trees has to be controlled;

CONCERNED that the forests and the animals living in forests are being harmed by logging companies

CONSIDERING that trees and plants are needed to provide oxygen for humans

WORRIED that nations are destroying their beautiful countryside and wildlife

The United Nations,

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a forest as a group of 20 trees or more

MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;

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

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;

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

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;

CREATES the United Nations Environment Protection Foundation (UNEPF), which has the following tasks:

1. To use UNCoESB's (resolution 119) ruling on whether or not an animal or a plant is endangered
2. To protect animals and plants which are deemed to be endangered (recalling resolution 119 UNCoESB) by preventing any individual person, company, organisation, group or any combination of the former from destroying their natural habitat
3. Keep a record of the area of forest in each nation in square kilometres, to ensure that they can carry out the above clauses

MANDATES that anyone who breaks the laws set out in this resolution must be punished

URGES nations to punish anyone who breaks the laws set out in this resolution, in a serious way

NOTING that the same rules apply to any foreign company who has leased any area of land in any UN member nation

CONCLUDING that this proposal protects endangered species and plants, as well as natives and the environment in general

Opposed!

Likewise. But, given the current state of inebriation of our delegation's leader (brought on by her attempts to deny that anyone would knowingly perpetrate clauses 2 and 3 ... oh, and 4) we will not comment at length for fear of unpleasant scenes.
__________________________

Bast

Feline Advisor to the Office of the Presidents of Ardchoille

While finding the suggestion cute and cuddly, the Rowancasterdaleish nation of tree huggers opposes international involvement in the administration of its Rowan trees. We shall recommend to our friends to do likewise.

Opposed for a multitude of reasons, including our nation's libertarian ideals and the definition of a forest.

Are the twenty trees in my yard a forest? I think not! Are twenty random trees that I pick out and call a group of trees a forest? Surely not. With the trampling of our rights as a nation and such a loose definition of a forest, I cannot support this resolution.

Having griped enough, I would support this resolution if rewritten so as to encourage member nations of the UN to preserve as much of the environment as possible and support nations that do so.

The Goverment of Kurtrier is against this resolution. We admire an intact Envionment highly, but we need to reserve our freedom to make here desicions unbounded by a UN-Resoultion.

Euphobes is against it. We can, and do look after our environment without this proposal. The definition of a forest as 20 trees seems absurd Euphobes.

Once I get Waterana back into the UN, it will be voting against this resolution.

The reason is, for this sort of subject, I don't like seeing mandated percentages and numbers. Every nation is different, and has different forestry needs. There is also no leeway for sustained forestry or other logging practices that take environmental concerns into account. It is just straight 'you will' and you won't'.

I'm hoping this will fail at vote, and be rewritten so it isn't so stringent about its mandates, gets rid of the percentages, and gives individual nations more options that take into account how they want and need to use their forested areas.

the Community of AnarchoAkrasia would like to be the first to publicly support this resolution.

Given that the biosphere is commonly owned and the environmental damage in one country has a huge effect on the welfare of others on the other side of the globe, this measure is the minimum step that should be taken to protect our planet and ultimately, our own habitat.

To member Confederate Memorial in particular, your own nation has a terrible environmental record and this is down to deforestation and your 'Free market' ideology which does not address the 'externality' costs associated with high impact industries such as mining and logging.

Libertarianism without any environmental protections, amounts to a system that heavily subsidizes polluting industries by taking something of value from every citizen (and future generations) and giving it at no cost to corporations who use it up for a short term profit and then dump wastelands back onto society without doing anything to clean it up.

This resolution ensures that logging companies address the external consequences of their actions. It ensures that they have to replace the resources that they take. It still amounts to a subsidy, if they can take a high quality natural resource and replace it with a cheap low quality 'managed forest' somewhere else. but it is a better measure than nothing, so I urge all members with any kind of social conscience to support this resolution.

The government of Kivisto is strongly opposed to the easily abusable claptrap, and will be viciously defending that position for the course of the debate.

I just like to burn trees.

Oh, and I oppose this, as does the Hack. For those of you that care.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We strongly oppose to the proposd resolution. We won't accept any meddeling with our internal affairs. The forrests in our country are our own bussiness and with bussiness I mean bussiness.

Me first, who care about the others?

Opposed!

Where can I say against? *Some Mumblin' Happens*

Thanks.

This is a terrible resolution, and my vote is against it. Maybe a better written one would do better.

My government, though not completely set on the 20 tree deffinition of a forest, will suport this resolution.

Individual nations are known to not give a crap about their own environments. Legislation from the UN that would actually accomplish somthing is a refreshing change.

Nay! Even if Sirat cared about the environment (which it doesn't), we couldn't support this proposal!

You sir, are a fool. I am voting against this to help other nations out. I am going to mention the antarctic Oasis.

MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;

Go down to the Antarctic and find me a country that has trees PERIOD, It would be hard, because trees don't do well without the nutrients in soil. Frozen water doesn't have any nutrient, so by saying the definition above, and than forcing at least 10% of your land to be forests, you can easily make it where some countries are in a situation where they either have to plant trees in 10% of their country, or they have to leave the UN. That's not a good idea. So, as I said above, the nation of Havvy has voted against this resolution.

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

OOC: The vote is 300 to 354. Does that mean that we are going to have a close race?

I am For the proposal.
I think everyone is focusing on the wrong issue here. Sure 20 trees seems like a silly number, but if the government doesn't control deforestation then industry will just come in and cut down whatever they want!

And seriously its only 10%!

You sir, are a fool. I am voting against this to help other nations out. I am going to mention the antarctic Oasis.



Go down to the Antarctic and find me a country that has trees PERIOD, It would be hard, because trees don't do well without the nutrients in soil. Frozen water doesn't have any nutrient, so by saying the definition above, and than forcing at least 10% of your land to be forests, you can easily make it where some countries are in a situation where they either have to plant trees in 10% of their country, or they have to leave the UN. That's not a good idea. So, as I said above, the nation of Havvy has voted against this resolution.

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

OOC: The vote is 300 to 354. Does that mean that we are going to have a close race?


It would seem to me the key word is "Forest" not land. If the antarctic doesn't have any trees, there can be no forests and thus this "mandate" would not apply.

No, it MANDATES that 10% of your land has to be a forest. I don't know about you, but that seems to me like an impossible stunt for nations in antarctic regions and regions that are complete wastelands.

Opposed!

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones, KCRC LOG
Cobdenian Representative-Plenipotentiary to the UN


F**k 'em, they're only trees

Able Seaman Dusty Miller, GN
Assistant to the Defence Attache

Actually, I've noticed a glaring loophole that makes this worthless.

As a forest is defined as a group of 20 trees, we just need to divide the woodland up into groups of trees 19 or less for bureaucratic purposes, thus turning our woods into a series of not-quite-forests...

thats basically what I was trying to point out when I said that the key word is forest. Since it defines forest as a group of 20 trees, if there are not enough trees to constitue a forest, no protection would be mandated. It does not require nations to plant trees to if there are none already there - only to replace trees that ARE there when this proposal takes effect (or not).

Yes, but if you have, say, 30 trees in one place, you could just claim that, in actually fact, it is not a group of 30 trees, but two groups of fifteen.

Thereby allowing the burnings to continue

I have the time, so I wil explain my objections.BELIEVING that protecting our environment is very important and that wanton deforesting of any trees has to be controlled;Meh.CONCERNED that the forests and the animals living in forests are being harmed by logging companiesMehCONSIDERING that trees and plants are needed to provide oxygen for humansMeh.WORRIED that nations are destroying their beautiful countryside and wildlifeBit late for some nations.DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a forest as a group of 20 trees or moreDefine “group.” Within 2 inches of one another? Within a trillion miles of one another?MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;Define “area.” Is that by the range of the trees (such as their roots, or foilage) or their trunk?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 theseOnly cut down? What about demolished, crop sprayed, set on fire etc?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; Define “high amount,” define how close citizens have to be.MANDATES that if a nation cuts down 25% of their total forest area, all logging must be stopped until this 25% has been replantedEh? You’ve protected it, why are you putting this in?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;They shouldn’t anyway, if they are listening to earlier sections. Moreover, define “almost” – 1 in 2? 1 in 3?CREATES the United Nations Environment Protection Foundation (UNEPF), which has the following tasks:

1. To use UNCoESB's (resolution 119) ruling on whether or not an animal or a plant is endangered
2. To protect animals and plants which are deemed to be endangered (recalling resolution 119 UNCoESB) by preventing any individual person, company, organisation, group or any combination of the former from destroying their natural habitat
3. Keep a record of the area of forest in each nation in square kilometres, to ensure that they can carry out the above clausesDoesn’t UNCoESB already do most of this? That created a committee already.MANDATES that anyone who breaks the laws set out in this resolution must be punishedTripe! Compliance is not an issue.URGES nations to punish anyone who breaks the laws set out in this resolution, in a serious wayMore tripe!
NOTING that the same rules apply to any foreign company who has leased any area of land in any UN member nationIrrelevanceCONCLUDING that this proposal protects endangered species and plants, as well as natives and the environment in generalThis proposal fails to do so, because it fails to define a lot of stuff. It’s wide open to abuse.

Also how does it protect “natives”?

Actually, I've noticed a glaring loophole that makes this worthless.

As a forest is defined as a group of 20 trees, we just need to divide the woodland up into groups of trees 19 or less for bureaucratic purposes, thus turning our woods into a series of not-quite-forests...

Exactly right. The poor construction of this proposed resolution, coupled with the simple ignorance of its science, practically ensures its abuse and/or impotence. At this time Macdogma plans to vote "Nay."

Mayhaps a re-written, better researched resolution would serve the world better.

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

This proposal is so full of holes and gray areas, I'm surprized to see it actually up for vote.

We most loudly vote NO to this line of crap. And it seems that since the author of the proposal hasn't even taken the time to respond to these protests, the author doesn't really take it seriously.

The author needs to learn how to write in legalese, and take constructive criticism from member nations.

I'll play a few more.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/sofluffy7tp.jpg

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

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

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpg

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

I believe that's a full house. :cool:

Retired Werepenguins votes NO for the EPA.
Ironically we have submitted a replacement for discussion in the forum.
(Ironically, I was writing it as a replacement for the WHL.)

i think that this is a good start. the industry should go die in some big logging accident and then we would all benifit. unless of course they can log sustainably. SUSTAINABLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but really, replanting things is bad. they replant a portion of the worlds rainforests, but those just look artificial and all of the species that died during the initial logging remain dead. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: . there should be some sort of forestry protection thing... that effects all sorts of environments where wildlife flourish, rather than just forests.

i think that this is a good start. the industry should go die in some big logging accident and then we would all benifit. unless of course they can log sustainably. SUSTAINABLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but really, replanting things is bad. they replant a portion of the worlds rainforests, but those just look artificial and all of the species that died during the initial logging remain dead. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: . there should be some sort of forestry protection thing... that effects all sorts of environments where wildlife flourish, rather than just forests.

OOC: Brilliant first post. You're going to do well here.

Karmicaria is strongly opposed to this fluffy tripe.


Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

And seriously its only 10%!

The New Representative of Schneaky would do well to remember the awesome power of ten percent. Ellelt being a very large country 10% of our area would be 1,500,000 Square Kilometers.

Yes 10% can be a huge number when nations of my size and economy are concerned.

Ellelt is a large forested nation. We preserve the vast majority of our trees but some must be cut down to make room for farms and pasturelands, to build things we need like houses for our people etc etc etc. Further this poorly written crap would be utterly destructive to our economy should it pass. Our eastern regions which are cold but have large amounts of trees as well as sub-terrain mineral resources, which if this passes we could not extract. Would force our otherwise self-sufficient nation to trade with other nations when we could simply use our own abundant resources.

I Urge the Membership of the UN to vote against this insane garbage.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Another point that I find slightly odd is that this proposal calls itself the 'Environmental Protection Act' making it sound all encompassing as far as environmental matters are concerned. It is in fact though it is only concerned with forestry, so even the title hasn't been thought through properly.

Against.
(For the same reasons that some other nations have already given...)

Of course I'm gonna vote for it, no doubt about it. Everything that can be done to protect the environment from greedy companies that want to make fast money on destroying the environment must be done. If we dont take any actions soon, we will feel the consequences in X years. When it stands between the economy and the environment, the environment should always go first because its much easier to fix the economy than the environment.

Of course I'm gonna vote for it, no doubt about it. Everything that can be done to protect the environment from greedy companies that want to make fast money on destroying the environment must be done. If we dont take any actions soon, we will feel the consequences in X years. When it stands between the economy and the environment, the environment should always go first because its much easier to fix the economy than the environment.


Yes, we must destroy all of those greedy companies... :rolleyes:

Ausserland has voted NO.

This resolution is a pathetic attempt to cram a single, dubious requirement down the throats of more than 29,000 nations, with no thought whatsoever of what their individual and widely varied economic and ecological circumstances might be.

The science is debatable, to say the least. The logic is absurd. The drafting is sloppy to the point of being grotesque. The author of this resolution should be ashamed of himself for attempting to foist this garbage off on this Assembly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

'Trees'? What are these 'trees' of which you speak?

*picture appears in front of UNA 74 113*

Those things? I've seen them in mythical storybooks about those silly communist nations, of course, but we don't have any. We live underground, after all; the Overland is so polluted with our nuclear testing, military exercises, industrial waste, and the like that we don't actually have any 'trees'.... we get our oxygen from algae deposits in underground streams protected by the Board of Directors for this purpose. Um... so if we don't have any trees, and in fact the atmosphere in which we live can't support them... what the hell is the point of this resolution anyway?

(We may not be in the UN, but surely we can't be the only ones with this problem. What about those who hail from planets without ground vegetation?)

Therefore, I vote against.


... Well, that and it's just stupid.

~ UNA 74 113, Steelian UN Ambassador.

Ceorana's response to this resolution can be expressed in one word: ditto.

We will be opposing by the same logic everyone else has been. Thank you.

Art Webster
UN Ambassador

As representative of the glorious region of Farkistan, I, Phantom of Krankor, vote against this proposal. We have no atmosphere on Krankor and therefore no trees, so the proposal would have no effect on us. And we figure it was proposed by those meddling kids who stand in the way of our plot to achieve Galactic Domination. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ausserland has voted NO.

This resolution is a pathetic attempt to cram a single, dubious requirement down the throats of more than 29,000 nations, with no thought whatsoever of what their individual and widely varied economic and ecological circumstances might be.

The science is debatable, to say the least. The logic is absurd. The drafting is sloppy to the point of being grotesque. The author of this resolution should be ashamed of himself for attempting to foist this garbage off on this Assembly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ellelt could not agree more with Minister(or is he still Ambassador?) Olembe.

This resolution must be defeated at once.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Response authored by:

Alexander I. Serpov
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt.
President of the Council of Ministers, USSE.

Wholeheartedly opposed. The entire proposal is a crime against common sense and logic. This sort of trash has no place in the United Nations.

OOC: And, I don't want to see such a horrible name as "homophobic warriors" go down in UN history as having passed a resolution.

OOC: Im starting to wonder if perhaps this person might want to taste a bit of Ellelt's "Gay Guard". Its an Elite unit composed of homosexual lovers. Last time we used them the lost the battle but not a single one of them survived...and the enemy was so badly damaged they had to retreat and was defeated by our main army.

Yes, we must destroy all of those greedy companies... :rolleyes:

What makes me sad is that some people laugh about the environment and think that it's just a myth that we're ruing it. We will feel the consequences of our actions in the future, you can be sure of that.
This is a much bigger problem than just about cutting trees but it's a good start.

And it's not really about destroying companies, it's about changing lifestyle which I should have written instead. Drive less cars and use the buss or train moore often, recycle and use less energy in all ways possible. But people in general won't do anything about it until it's too late like always.

Ok, so, after reading the resolution through again, and listening to the debate taking place now, My government has changed its position and and we will now abstain.

While my government feels that the sentiments expressed in this proposal are noble and needed, the resolution itself is simply too vague and leaves too much undefined. We would be inclined to support a resolution of this nature if it were better written.

Jacob Integrity
Ambassador to the UN from Imperfectia

Yes, we should be protecting the environment, primarily because it's the only one we have, at least in RL. However, this is not real life and there are people who live on other planets that don't have trees, or species that thrive on carbon dioxide and to whom oxygen is poisonous, etc.

Aside from that, even in real life this resolution would be going about protecting the environment the wrong way. It's too vague, with too many loopholes; it makes sweeping generalisations and then cannot back them up properly; its science is dubious in places; its language does not make much sense. It is, in effect, a poorly written resolution, and I'm not sure there haven't been a few before it that may do the same thing.

The above post has been made Out of Character. I am not being an insane military corporation here, but rather an ordinary player of a certain online game. I also reserve the right to laugh at you heartily and throw some of Sheik Larebil's body parts at anyone who attempts to respond to it in-character. In addition, writing small print automatically makes me administrator of the whole fucking internet so I can just look at you and your IP will be banned hahaha. Plus I have a laser beam on my forehead and a personal reusable suitcase n00k that I can use without any harm to myself, only people I don't like. Pwnt.

What makes me sad is that some people laugh about the environment and think that it's just a myth that we're ruing it. We will feel the consequences of our actions in the future, you can be sure of that.
This is a much bigger problem than just about cutting trees but it's a good start.

And it's not really about destroying companies, it's about changing lifestyle which I should have written instead. Drive less cars and use the buss or train moore often, recycle and use less energy in all ways possible. But people in general won't do anything about it until it's too late like always.

What makes me sad is that there are so many well-intentioned folks like yourself who, to put it bluntly, can't see the forest for the trees.

More specifically, you can't see that the resolution is ineffective at working towards genuinely constructive environmental goals, that it seems to have been written by someone with a blatantly simplistic and erroneous sense of truly important and complex environmental concerns, that it has loopholes big enough for Vermi to fly through, and is just plain stupid in general.

If you really want positive lifestyle changes, please go ahead and work towards that goal instead of wasting your time supporting this resolution, which will not help you reach that goal.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a forest as a group of 20 trees or more

Absurdly limiting and arbitrary. Easily skirted as well, as many delegates have pointed out.

MANDATES that every nation has to define 10% of the total area of forest in their nation as protected by the government;

Another absurd and arbitrary number.

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

As we pointed out previously in earlier debate, this clause alone could take huge sections of a nation's forested land and render them untouchable. The economic consequences for nations could be staggering, especially for nations that rely on logging and wood products as the mainstay of their economies. We are also appalled that such vague terms as "where citizens live" or "high amount of birds or mammals" are being used; how, exactly, are we supposed to define and determine that? That statement makes the proposal ridiculously easy to skirt and prone to abuse.

In conclusion, this proposal is easily the worst-written, worst-thought-out and most horribly constructed one we have seen reach quorum in our relatively short time in this assembly. Altanar is irrevocably opposed.

What makes me sad is that some people laugh about the environment and think that it's just a myth that we're ruing it. We will feel the consequences of our actions in the future, you can be sure of that.
This is a much bigger problem than just about cutting trees but it's a good start.

And it's not really about destroying companies, it's about changing lifestyle which I should have written instead. Drive less cars and use the buss or train moore often, recycle and use less energy in all ways possible. But people in general won't do anything about it until it's too late like always.

We've never laughed at concerns about the environment. We share our new colleague's concern for the environment. That's what makes us sad when we see resolutions like this one come to a vote.

It uses bad science. It tries to shoe-horn something that might be worthwhile for some nations onto everyone, whether it would be good for their environments or not. And it's so badly written that it leaves loopholes big enough to drive freight trains through.

Ridiculous legislation like this merely encourages people to laugh at valid environmental concerns and discourages good, solid legislation on the subject.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We've never laughed at concerns about the environment. We share our new colleague's concern for the environment. That's what makes us sad when we see resolutions like this one come to a vote.

It uses bad science. It tries to shoe-horn something that might be worthwhile for some nations onto everyone, whether it would be good for their environments or not. And it's so badly written that it leaves loopholes big enough to drive freight trains through.

Ridiculous legislation like this merely encourages people to laugh at valid environmental concerns and discourages good, solid legislation on the subject.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

After reading it again and some of the arguments against it I agree with you. But some people really don't seem to care about the environment at all and think that it's a myth that we are destroying it.

After reading it again and some of the arguments against it I agree with you. But some people really don't seem to care about the environment at all and think that it's a myth that we are destroying it.

We aren't destroying our environment, thank you very much. We don't care much about it, but that's something different.

After reading it again and some of the arguments against it I agree with you. But some people really don't seem to care about the environment at all and think that it's a myth that we are destroying it.
In Gruenberg, we have an expression: "the road to the rock shaped like an armpit is paved with good intentions". It's believed to a mistranslation...

We do care about the environment: that's why we're voting against this. It won't do any good, and would prevent initiatives that might from passing.

You know the dumbest part of this resolution? It's that it prevents the removal of less than 10% of the trees. Come on, sometimes it is necessary to deforest an area for maintenance reasons, such as fire brakes, and to remove diseased trees before other trees are infected. I mean, forest engineering is not a task as simple as "can't cut 'er down". You don't want to replant seedlings in a fire break or have to push someone off their private property to make room for new trees. On the surface I really don't see how anyone that has any experience in forestry could have participated in crafting this thing. This makes it impossible to do any reasonable forest maintenance in nations where it is difficult to find places to even grow trees? I doubt it will be difficult to find an area in the Sahara the size and shape of Luxemburg where less than 10% of it can support a forest. Please, have some intelligence about the issue.

I changed my vote to against.

I changed my vote to against.

That is very much appreciated. For being the rare person that will listen to reason, you will get a free HotRodia Tequila gift basket.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I think my opinions of the General Assembly and the entire voting populace is due for an upgrade. This vote is off to an absolutely magnificent start. I was afraid that it would be a landslide in the wrong direction. Thankfully, I was wrong. I don't think I have ever been so happy to say that I was wrong.

I've already made my point earlier. I would just like to point out something.

Votes For: 1,564
Votes Against: 1,831
Total Votes: 3,395
For to Against Ratio: 5:6

It's not really a landslide. I'll try telegraphing people who have voted for to vote against this piece of filth. Well, the people that voted for it anyways.

US Student
**** ****** (Censored due to Abuse Chance)

After reading it again and some of the arguments against it I agree with you. But some people really don't seem to care about the environment at all and think that it's a myth that we are destroying it.


With all due respect, Ellelt is not destroying its environment. If we were why would we be spending руЯ45,602,242,560.00 on it, that equates to 4% of our governmental budget. We have locked away large sections of our eastern territory as Polar National Park-lands, which include areas of tundra, and forest and are only exploitable by the indigenous Ziberian Tribes that inhabit those cold and remote regions.

We also have tree farming in the western areas of Ziberia (our main timber producing location) because of our large size and our climate relegating most of our population to live west of the Urak Mountains we needed to have sustainable timber/wood chipping/pulp products to maintain our economy. Indeed clear cutting old growth forest in the eastern parts of our country is not cost effective.

Even though we in part agree with the sentiment of this proposal we have voted against it as it makes assumptions about the economic needs of the various countries of the UN, Is based on false science, and may negatively impact our economy as well as the economy of other nations.

the question of who is the UN to impose on industry came up in an other thread...I assume by submitting a proposal that you are a UN member. Here I ask you, who are you to impose on the many peoples, and species of the UN?

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

STRONGLY against. The international government should have NO right to dictate what we do with our trees. If this resolution passes, i might just quit the UN altogether (even though i am part of gatesville, the anti UN region)

This is one of those rare resolutions that offers absolutely nothing that Krioval could possibly like, except perhaps the title, which was originally part of the Kivisto delegation's proposal that unfortunately failed to reach quorum. To begin, it is questionable at best that forests are needed to sustain atmospheric oxygen levels, as the Gruenberg delegation noted in another discussion. Also suspect is the idea that logging accounts for the majority of deforestation - certainly issues like air and water pollution and clearcutting for agricultural and industrial development are likely at least as important as logging.

Now that the introductory clauses are out of the way, onto the (total lack of) substance of the resolution. Why should a forest consist of every group of twenty trees? Does this mean twenty trees in an entire nation constitutes one very sparse forest? Is a residential neighborhood going to be a "forest" because each home has a tree planted by its owners? Are these trees then going to be protected by this resolution? Krioval would prefer to not infringe on its citizens' personal property rights so flagrantly.

This trashy document continues to fling percentages from the unholy recesses of the bowels of the UN that not-shockingly disregard nearly all aspects of reality - and yet, where a number would have been useful, in defining a "large number of birds or mammals" (do humans count?), no reference point is given.

Finally, the resolution performs a full dental extraction on itself by urging nations to comply. Right. In the words of a certain Lord Bartholomew Simpson, of the City of Springfield on the North American continent, " I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows." I pray that this resolution fails.

Chief Serph Dekker
Republic of Krioval

Can you imagine what would happen if the opposite political side, equally valid, tried to pass an initiative saying we should stop being all environmentally friendly and just relax? The tree-hugging lefties would throw fits (no offense, some of my best pals are tree-hugging lefties). So why are we even tolerating this?

I support this resolution! You deforest our trees and you are contributing to your suffocation!

The Dictatorship of Mousels supports this act.

I, and when I say I, I mean the members of my country. Feel that our trees and animals are what makes out nation what it is, not our economy or our low income tax rate.

I feel that my citizens would surely revolt if the majority of our forests were cut down. As it is one of the nicer places in our area where they can walk around naked and feel at one with nature. We may be a dictatorship, but we still respect our natural surroundings.

I urge all UN members to vote this act through. As if it wasnt for our trees, our nations would not be what they are today.

mousels
The Dictatorship of Mousels
Perspective UN Delegate for Clivetopia

I support this resolution!

Would that by any odd chance be dependent on the fact that all your chainsaws have rusted and that you are unable to do anything else than sit under your cork trees and watch as they grow?

The Rowancaster Dales would gladly support various tree preservation initiatives and initiatives on sustainable logging, but can hardly be expected to vote in favour for a law that makes large part of Paris, France into a forest that cannot be cut down because of the proximity to resident humans.

When we go to Paris, we want to be able to see the Eiffel Tower for all the trees! This waste of pulp makes me se Red(wood) - leaf this barking bushel of Pin(e)head gibberish out of the UN; it is a yOak on our shoulders, and any responsible branch of government implementing it can look forward to domestic Row(an)s!

Can you imagine what would happen if the opposite political side, equally valid, tried to pass an initiative saying we should stop being all environmentally friendly and just relax? The tree-hugging lefties would throw fits (no offense, some of my best pals are tree-hugging lefties). So why are we even tolerating this?

[OOC: I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure...]

But we have to consider the argument itself in addition to its validity.

Gerzam takes precautions, great precautions I might add, to ensure that our nation's environment is not destroyed. But this resolution is to poorly made/written and as I have stated before on other proposals, it removes my right as a nation and technically assimilates me into this nation’s ideal world. From my point of view, this proposal should be scrapped and a better one should be written by a different nation. Besides, our puny lumber industry barely provides enough wood for the nation and our forests remain huge (I’m not saying we want them smaller, I’m saying that this would destroy a well needed resource industry). As well, the emperor is against anything that stands in way nation’s path to success and this proposal removes the choice of the nation as far as he is concerned. Gerzam will be AGAINST this poor proposal.

Hans Robertson,

Gerzam’s lord of environment.

The Dictatorship of Mousels supports this act.

I, and when I say I, I mean the members of my country. Feel that our trees and animals are what makes out nation what it is, not our economy or our low income tax rate.

I feel that my citizens would surely revolt if the majority of our forests were cut down. As it is one of the nicer places in our area where they can walk around naked and feel at one with nature. We may be a dictatorship, but we still respect our natural surroundings.

I urge all UN members to vote this act through. As if it wasnt for our trees, our nations would not be what they are today.

mousels
The Dictatorship of Mousels
Perspective UN Delegate for Clivetopia

Well bully for you! In all seriousness, though, if your nation values its forests so highly, that's fine. But where do you get off mandating that my nation should adopt similar values? More importantly, even though I may favor some environmental measures, this resolution is an absolute nightmare. If we are to pass an environmental proposal, let us at least write one that makes some semblance of sense.

Chief Serph Dekker
Republic of Krioval

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites strongly opposes this resolution and are dismayed that this awful resolution managed to come up for vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/cluich.jpg
OOC: You're having phone sex with yourself?:p

that it has loopholes big enough for Vermi to fly throughDo these scales make me look fat?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I was reading though the garbage that is currently at vote. I have many, many issues with this, but on thing stood out the most for me. This clause:

URGES nations to punish anyone who breaks the laws set out in this resolution, in a serious way

What exactly would be a serious punishment for breaking such laws? Are we supposed to execute any of our people who break the shit laws that are put forth by this resolution?

Lillith Cresil
UN Observer
The Dominion of Lady Deathstrike

This resolution is not practical for us.

As many other nations have already pointed out, this resolution unfairly infringes on our own rights as nations. It also does not do what it claims to do, which is protect and retain a decent environment. Not only does most of the oxygen people breathe come from green algae (many nations will notice that green algae is not a tree--nor twenty), but there are many poorly written areas of the resolution as well.

With this and many other reasons alreayd noted in mind, the nation of Matianus cannot support this resolution.

Wow. This proposal is so bad that even the notorious yes men who roam the halls of the UN may defeat his piece of absurdity.

Ms Yukiko Uehara, the Kirisuban Ambassador took the podium and spoke to the general assembly dressed in a red and black Kimono with a gold obi.

"After consulting with my government I have been authorised to cast our vote against this proposal.

We are enviromentally minded in the Empire but even we cannot bear to see this useless proposal in the statute book"

* making a short and sweet speech as usual she left heading back to her seat and settling herself in for more speeches as she talked quietly with her secretary *

I was reading though the garbage that is currently at vote. I have many, many issues with this, but on thing stood out the most for me. This clause:



What exactly would be a serious punishment for breaking such laws? Are we supposed to execute any of our people who break the shit laws that are put forth by this resolution?

Lillith Cresil
UN Observer
The Dominion of Lady Deathstrike

No, no, you just have to punish them in a serious way. You can sentence them to be covered in whipped cream and have it licked off by stunningly gorgeous members of the appropriate sex, provided that not one of the punishers, by so much as a flicker of an eyelid, suggests that they find any humour in the situation.

Aleshia will be voting for this we have noted with concern that many nations indigionous wildlife has become endangered since the repeal of resolution 37 World Heritage List and a subsequent upsurge in mining and foresting.

Forests are the lungs of our world which produce the oxyegen we are dependent on while acting as Carbon sinks.

They are the repository of many natural products and resources we have little or no understanding of yet but which may include the drugs and chemicals which will cure diseases at a later date.

Aleshia votes for this for all our sakes.

The Dominion of Darralia hast cast it's vote against this resolution. While we do have a quite strong emphasis on environment protection, this resolution is so extremely one-sided that we consider it silly.

Of course I'm gonna vote for it, no doubt about it. Everything that can be done to protect the environment from greedy companies that want to make fast money on destroying the environment must be done. If we dont take any actions soon, we will feel the consequences in X years. When it stands between the economy and the environment, the environment should always go first because its much easier to fix the economy than the environment.


That is a matter for each Sovereign Nation to decide for itself, not the UN. This current resolution so tramples on the rights of each member nation that it is borderline illegal.

Omnibragaria votes against this horrible piece of feel good legislation.

This current resolution so tramples on the rights of each member nation that it is borderline illegal.It's not borderline anything. It's perfectly legal.

Greetings!

While the Kingdom of Brutland and Norden believe that the environment is a vital resource that has to be used wisely, His Majesty's Government had instructed me to vote against this resolution on the following grounds:

A simple stand of twenty trees should not be considered a forest; and
the additional restrictions placed on member countries with more wildlife will indirectly put them at a disadvantage because of the less resources they can extract and more areas they have to protect.

We commend the authors of this resolution for their noble intentions. However, with the inclusion of the two clauses that His Majesty's Government deems unfair, the Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes against this resolution.

Thank you!

Bloodstone Kay will be voting against this loophole ridden piece of claptrap.

Loopholes aside, being a seafaring nation, we need a large number of trees for repairs and expansion of our nation.

Individual nations are known to not give a crap about their own environments. Legislation from the UN that would actually accomplish somthing is a refreshing change.

You so-called environmentalists are so funny at times.

Hey, anybody that is a real arborist, could you PLEASE comment in this forum and tell people how stupid it is to have one tree in a group of 20 trees infested with pine beetles and being told that you aren't allowed to chop it down.

I mean, come on, do the math:

20 trees + 1 infestation = 20 dead trees.
20 trees + 1 infestation - 1 the one infested tree = 19 live trees.

A true environmentalist that understands the expanding properties of the human race should know that in order to save the environment we need to manage the parts we haven't destroyed yet, not leave it alone to die from the transplanted fungi, weeds, pests, and diseases we have left it.

This waste of pulp makes me se Red(wood) - leaf this barking bushel of Pin(e)head gibberish out of the UN; it is a yOak on our shoulders, and any responsible branch of government implementing it can look forward to domestic Row(an)s!

Although some nations may see the pun/word ratio in this statement as an act of war, the citizens of MacDogma have voted an entire national park be renamed in your nation's honor on your words' merit alone.

Amazing how something as wretchedly constructed as this resolution can bare such sweet fruits? I bough to you.

That is a matter for each Sovereign Nation to decide for itself, not the UN. This current resolution so tramples on the rights of each member nation that it is borderline illegal.

Omnibragaria votes against this horrible piece of feel good legislation.

If a nation is a part of the UN, it's its responsibility to correct itself after UN-resolutions that has been passed.

If a nation is a part of the UN, it's its responsibility to correct itself after UN-resolutions that has been passed.

Or find loopholes

No, no, you just have to punish them in a serious way. You can sentence them to be covered in whipped cream and have it licked off by stunningly gorgeous members of the appropriate sex, provided that not one of the punishers, by so much as a flicker of an eyelid, suggests that they find any humour in the situation.

Ah, I see. Well then, the author of this "resolution" should have been more specific. I'm happy to see that this is currently failing. Let's hope that it stays that way.

You so-called environmentalists are so funny at times.


Individual nations are known to not give a crap about their own environments. Legislation from the UN that would actually accomplish somthing is a refreshing change.

Hey, anybody that is a real arborist, could you PLEASE comment in this forum and tell people how stupid it is to have one tree in a group of 20 trees infested with pine beetles and being told that you aren't allowed to chop it down.

I mean, come on, do the math:

20 trees + 1 infestation = 20 dead trees.
20 trees + 1 infestation - 1 the one infested tree = 19 live trees.

A true environmentalist that understands the expanding properties of the human race should know that in order to save the environment we need to manage the parts we haven't destroyed yet, not leave it alone to die from the transplanted fungi, weeds, pests, and diseases we have left it.

If the esteemed representative from SomeUNExperiment had continued reading this thread, you would have noticed that my delegation posted a change in our nation's stance on this resolution.

While commending the intentions behind it, the language lack of definitions are too much for us to bear. It is preceisely because of scenarios such as the one you mention that has turned us against this resolution. Our nation will abstain.

Jacob Integrity
UN Ambassador from Imperfectia

The members of the new delegation from the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property, led by W.E.B. Cinque Huey Newton Liberation Mojo Ganja Mississipi Malcolm Moses Jackson, Ambassador to the United Nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11967612&postcount=4), very visibly enter the General Assembly and take their seats. It has been a month since Ambassador Charity Starshine Shanti Freedom Peace-Love Haight-Ashbury Prairie Flower McGee was reassigned to the Ambassadorship-at-Large in Ayad; in that time, the delegation's seats have been empty except for Tom, the janitor, who has worked to keep the pilot light on, so to speak.

But now, that will change. Jackson makes a very visible effort to make sure that everyone can see him, then seeks recognition by the chair with anything but the dry formality McGee used to display. Many in the General Assembly wonder what this new Ambassador will be like. Arrogant and obnoxious? Of course - after all, he is from Community Property. But what else? Pedantic, perhaps ... yet there have been rumors.

Recognized, W.E.B. Cinque Huey Newton Liberation Mojo Ganja Mississipi Malcolm Moses Jackson rises, preens, looks around the great chamber, and begins:

“Y'know, I'm as much of a fan of environmental legislation as the next guy, but – damn! - the person who wrote this piece o' trash was trippin' somethin' serious, dig? I mean, come on! '20 trees makes a forest'? Are you shittin' me? 20 trees across what – an acre? 40 acres – with or without the damn mule? A square mile? A thousand square miles? Hell, what's to keep countries from declarin' their entire country a forest? If they do that, they can protect whatever 10% they want – people's silly-assed little ornamental trees or somebody's goddamn apple orchard – while choppin' down all the ones that really matter. That's bull-shit, lemme tell ya' - so why are we allowin' it?

“Then there's the fact that it doesn't say ya' cain't chop the most eco-sensitive areas just to get rid o' those annoyin' endangered species. Shouldn't there be some kinda connection 'tween the areas that have endangered species and the trees we should be sparin'? Hell, yes!

“That ain't all. This thing shoulda died in committee, with that half-assed reference to Resolution 119. What happens if Resolution 119 gets repealed? Then the UNEPF's gonna be sittin' around with their thumbs up their asses, lookin' for somethin' to do? That's great if all we're don't care if they sit around all day and get high - Hell, I might join 'em every now an' then' - but it ain't no way to run these United Nations.”

The Ambassador smiles for the cameras, then makes an exaggerated shake of his head.

“Folks, those o' us who believe in protectin' the environment need to show a few mo' brains and a lot mo' discretion in writin' shit and pickin' what we're gonna back. This kind o' damn fool nonsense just makes us all look bad. We need wilderness protection, but not stupid wilderness protection. Why would we wanna fuck ourselves up with our own damn blocker?

“So, much as I wanna' vote fo' this, I say shit-can it. Us tree-huggers can do one Hell of a lot better than this.

“Madam Chairwoman, Community Property'll chill now and wait fo' other people to have their say.”

And with that, the Ambassador grins widely and sits down.

OOC: It is harder than you can imagine to write in a deep Mississippi accent while trying to keep some semblance of a decent vocabulary and grammar, let me tell you...

I shall be a nation to support this. Many nations are destroying every tree they see for corporations, which pollute the air. The 20 trees definition is a little tight though.

Actually we can check the current votes on this peice of dung.

Votes For: 2,654

Votes Against: 3,293


And the lead of against votes as opposed to for votes just gets larger. The Ambassador from Community Property even seems against this!

Anyway, I digress.

We look forward to recycling the paper this thing...I wont even call it a proposal, that would be demeaning to actual proposals.

VK.

I heavily endorse this, yes there are some loop holes that fall inside of this proposal, however, along with this, you can still personally and independently care for the environment, this just grants them a little extra protection, IT IS BETTER THEN NOTHING, we must remember that. So key facts here are this aids with some protection, and still allows all of you who complained and said your doing fine protecting on your own, the ability to still protect, but now with a little extra help. BOTTOM LINE STOP BASHING AND START SUPPORTING!

A few loopholes?:eek: The loopholes in this resolution are so large that I can drive a Trans-Ziberian freight train, while dragging 5 Elleltian City Buses behind that freight train, while receiving air cover from the Cluichstani Death Star, through them.

Which means that those loopholes are quite huge. Mainly because the Death Star is huge...Comrade Brunzov has sent me pictures of it. We have a delegation there that represents us in DEFCON.

As far as the whole bashing thing? I'm not sure I know what you are talking about? Are you referring to the rational sane people who are voting against this rubbish?

Thats not bashing....thats called Opposition. Its something that Ambassadors do occasionally while they're ambassadoring. You know that thing that ambassadors do.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

As much as I would liek to agree with you, I just can't, plus if thats ur region, or nations issue, thats your problem, odviously your having issues as it is, suck it up and move on little soldier, I strongly encourage voting for this, besides it can be tested, and repealed, if it fails.

Another Altruistic Resolution, which tramples on National Sovereignty without providing any enforceable provisions resulting in wasted bureaucratic energy and costs of ambiguity.


Mikeswill's vote against Environment Protection Act has been noted.

Thanks I always appreciate being called a little soldier by random n00bs. Who wouldn't know a proper, working resolution if it danced naked in front of them wearing a tea cozy for a hat.

Repealing legislation is more difficult than defeating them. Repeals like standard resolutions must be endorsed by 6% of the UN Delegates and must have an argument that people will vote for.

Read the Fucking proposal and come back to me when you actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

Oh and by the way...spell check is your friend. It really is.

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Well this, to me, is pretty unessasary (spelling?). Just don't cut down all of your trees and everyone will hopefully, be happy!

Is it even allowed to use the "Fuck" (Ellelt) in this forum, and I'm just quoting you so... If it is, I think it's a pretty immature way of conveying your message.

Is it even allowed to use the "Fuck" (Ellelt) in this forum, and I'm just quoting you so... If it is, I think it's a pretty immature way of conveying your message.

The use of the word "Fuck" and other such terms is indeed allowed on this forum, so long as it is not excessive.

For more detail on what is and isn't allowed on this forum, see the One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

so far it is small margins that hold it form passing, so who knows what may happen! :)

I would like to say that I commend the author of this proposal for trying to help protect our very valuable environment. I feel that he realizes that the environment is a global affair, and thus should be dealt with by a global organization (the UN.) I offer my support of the resolution, and would like to respond to some of the dissenting opinions that I have read on this forum.

For those of you that do not want the UN to affect your affairs, or interfere with your country, I strongly suggest you leave the UN. It is the most effective way to protect your nation from global laws and mandates, and thus is the logical thing to do. Please leave the UN for people who want to globalize, and affect countries across the globe, galaxy, verse, etc.

For those of you that do not like the definition of a "forest", I would like to say that I believe that your being a tad rediculous. I mean, a group of twenty or more trees, is fairly well defined. I feel that if the canopies of the trees are touching, or within feet of, they can be considered part of a group. If there are twenty of these thus distanced trees, they are a forest. They can be in a line along a river, or a clump in a field, but they are a forest all the same. If you remove (cut down, transplant, etc.) then you must replace (plant new sapplings, transplant to, etc.) the forest in another area. I do not feel that the author gave a bad definition of a forest, though I think a group of 50 or more trees could have avoided the unnessecary hassle with trees (or forests) on personal property.

I would like to try to make world a better place for all of us, and to do so, or at least begin the process to do so, I will support this proposal. I exhort you all to do the same. For a better world, a better life, vote FOR this proposal.

United Socialist States of Rhelan

I'm thinking that the tree that the paper for this... "thing" came from should've been protected... the poor thing's been shamed and discraged by a rather poorly written proposal trying to protect its brethen.

This is a noble- and comendable ideal, however. There just wasn't enough thought put into it.

Rather, shouldn't Nations- and the industries involved be urged to study their policies, and adapt them to the changing times and to come in line with the needs to protect the environment... without forcing a Nation to do so- and risk making them feel like we're meddling in their business? Nations do need to look at their practices and take what actions are needed to ensure that the Planet's Ecosystem isn't damaged beyond repair. But they must do so willingly.

Maybe offer incentives to Nations that come up with programs to replenish the trees that have been harvested, or programs to make their industries cleaner, etc?

The numbers are arbitary, and are so ill defined that they are meaningless.

The Dominion of Steweystan votes "No" to this proposal.

For those of you that do not want the UN to affect your affairs, or interfere with your country, I strongly suggest you leave the UN. It is the most effective way to protect your nation from global laws and mandates, and thus is the logical thing to do. Please leave the UN for people who want to globalize, and affect countries across the globe, galaxy, verse, etc.

As an internationalist, I nonetheless dislike this argument (and its counterargument). Let's try to stick to the specific issue at hand.

For those of you that do not like the definition of a "forest", I would like to say that I believe that your being a tad rediculous. I mean, a group of twenty or more trees, is fairly well defined. I feel that if the canopies of the trees are touching, or within feet of, they can be considered part of a group. If there are twenty of these thus distanced trees, they are a forest. They can be in a line along a river, or a clump in a field, but they are a forest all the same. If you remove (cut down, transplant, etc.) then you must replace (plant new sapplings, transplant to, etc.) the forest in another area. I do not feel that the author gave a bad definition of a forest, though I think a group of 50 or more trees could have avoided the unnessecary hassle with trees (or forests) on personal property.

I might be inclined to agree, if the resolution took any of your suggestions into account. As it stands, twenty freestanding trees anywhere constitute a "forest" by this resolution's definition. It's a silly one for that reason alone. Defining forest by density of trees or by land area covered primarily by trees would have done even more to eliminate hassle.

I would like to try to make world a better place for all of us, and to do so, or at least begin the process to do so, I will support this proposal. I exhort you all to do the same. For a better world, a better life, vote FOR this proposal.

No. Krioval does not vote for stupid resolutions because the intentions behind them were good. We vote for resolutions that take real considerations into account and are well crafted before they come to vote. As this resolution does not create "a better world, a better life" in any measurable sense, we continue to vote against it.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Republic of Krioval

Thanks I always appreciate being called a little soldier by random n00bs. Who wouldn't know a proper, working resolution if it danced naked in front of them wearing a tea cozy for a hat.



The Randomly Coherent Conclave of Ardchoille welcomes the helpful identification of the new nation Duponte as another follower of the proud doctrine of Randomness. If only our friends from Randomea could see it. *wipes away tear*.

Furthermore, in a very short time (it appears to be running at 44 days, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1244043) though appearances can be deceptive), you, too, will no longer be a n00b, but instead can join the rest of us aged 00bs in admiring the quirky artistry of the dancing resolutions.

Supporting this resolution on the basis that little is better than nothing is understandable, but please consider the many cogent points raised against the wording of this particular legislation, most recently by Krioval. It's a well-intentioned proposal that doesn't achieve its intentions. It's sweet but gormless, which is how the UN would look if we passed it.

I myself am relatively new here... but I have found the Ellelt Ambassador's comments to be rather well thought out and communicated to the remainder of us here in the General Assembly. That alone, I think is enough to raise them about the status of either noob, or "polie neophyte"...

Heres another thing
NOTING that the same rules apply to any foreign company who has leased any area of land in any UN member nation

This is stupid, it's their land let them do what they want. I know it says "leased" but still, they're using the land shouldn't they be able to develop it? What is considered a tree? If there is a little twig growing out of the ground, that will become a big noticeable tree someday if left alone right? So do you consider it a tree? Unless there is some type of mesurment included to define what a real tree is than this will be near impossible to protect. And don't think some conservation is bad or stupid. But this is just too much!

I agree, Stewey. I do feel, however, that 'n00b' is a useful and telling term of abuse that should not be devalued by using it, er, randomly.

So, you'd recommend a proper defensiwasis?

Supporting this resolution on the basis that little is better than nothing is understandable, but please consider the many cogent points raised against the wording of this particular legislation, most recently by Krioval. It's a well-intentioned proposal that doesn't achieve its intentions. It's sweet but gormless, which is how the UN would look if we passed it.

For the record I am against this measure. I have been against this tripe since the second I laid eyes on it. It has loopholes large enough to fly the Death Star through. Anyone who would support this is either stupid or crazy...maybe even both.

Even CP hates it! And He is a tree hugging, drugs taking hippie.

Also considering that I have not been here a full quarter does not in my opinion necessarily make me a n00b. Indeed I on my very first day at NS read the stickies. I minded my tongue until I had at least a foggy idea what I wanted and then I went for it. Hardly n00bish behavior, although I can say there are always a few exceptions to the rule that new persons are rather dumb and like children should be seen and not heard, Steweystan and myself are among those exceptions. Indeed being a n00b is determined by attitude rather length of time on the forum or post count.

VK.

I was never classified as a noob, though... just as a "polite nephyte". Hehehe

I personally take that phrase as a compliment. :D

However, I too think that this particular proposal- though well intentioned... is far from suitable for Legislation.

You know in Ellelt, in the days before the revolution brought us all indoor plumbing we would use this thing like we use our fancy dancey two ply toilet paper what dissolves in water now.

Also considering that I have not been here a full quarter does not in my opinion necessarily make me a n00b. Indeed I on my very first day at NS read the stickies. I minded my tongue until I had at least a foggy idea what I wanted and then I went for it. Hardly n00bish behavior, although I can say there are always a few exceptions to the rule that new persons are rather dumb and like children should be seen and not heard, Steweystan and myself are among those exceptions. Indeed being a n00b is determined by attitude rather length of time on the forum or post count.

VK.

I agree! Though quite a few newcomers deserve to be called "n00b", there are some, including Ellelt and Steweystan, who are obviously serious and intelligent. There are also some old farts who have been here centuries (or maybe it just seems like it), who have been idiots for that long. Neither length of time,nor activity is any guarantee of competance.

Grand Utoy thinks to himself, Good thing they didn't see me juggling oranges at the Drae Nei Open House...

I agree! Though quite a few newcomers deserve to be called "n00b", there are some, including Ellelt and Steweystan, who are obviously serious and intelligent. There are also some old farts who have been here centuries (or maybe it just seems like it), who have been idiots for that long. Neither length of time,nor activity is any guarantee of competance.

Quite so. I do not think the length (or lack thereof) of a nation's membership has any relevance to their competence. I do think, though, that dissing new posters simply because they are new is not the way to encourage them to come back. It is fair to meet feistiness with feistiness -- which is why I am not criticising Ellelt's vigorous style -- but the target should be the poster's opinions.

The delegate of Havvy is currently defenestrating those voting for this ridiculous resolution and can not talk right now. Please continue on with the debate.

Originally posted by Ardchoille
Quite so. I do not think the length (or lack thereof) of a nation's membership has any relevance to their competence. I do think, though, that dissing new posters simply because they are new is not the way to encourage them to come back. It is fair to meet feistiness with feistiness -- which is why I am not criticising Ellelt's vigorous style -- but the target should be the poster's opinions.

Drae Nei would simply like to say, Amen.

For those of you that do not want the UN to affect your affairs, or interfere with your country, I strongly suggest you leave the UN.
First, I would like to support those who strongly disagree with the above statement. Leaving the UN because of the fear of a world government is no way to get your opinion heard. It would be similar to not voting in a democratic nation. As such, the UN will simply have to deal with the variety of opinions its member nations hold. On the contrary, those who do not want the UN to have as much power as it would otherwise should voice their opinion within the UN. The UN is a place for nations to speak to one another on neutral grounds. How can we do this if the body, itself, is infringing on our rights as individual nations?

We, of Matianus, would also like to announce our disappointment that debate on the issue has devolved into the tossing of various obscenities towards one another. I think it would be easy to see that such disrespect for other nations does not earn you any respect on your own--a point that I believe the people of Ardchoille is trying to make.

Although we are only observers to this organization at present, we will note our support for both the intentions of this measure, and, as of now, its hearty rejection by the membership. Such a poorly composed piece of legislation does nothing for the cause of environmental protection.

-- Deputy Secretary of State Coriolanus Digweed

For those of you that do not like the definition of a "forest", I would like to say that I believe that your being a tad rediculous. I mean, a group of twenty or more trees, is fairly well defined. I feel that if the canopies of the trees are touching, or within feet of, they can be considered part of a group. If there are twenty of these thus distanced trees, they are a forest.I dunno. I'd call that a copse. Or maybe a grove. More likely, I'd consider it to be an orchard. Perhaps, if I was feeling generous, a woodland.

The Nations of Sick Twisted Freaks does not support this resolution.

The problem with the definition of forest as being twenty trees is that there is no specified density. I know that this point has been repeated over and over, but it seems that people are not getting it.

Twenty trees on half an acre is quite dense while twenty trees on twenty acres is not. When I, as an Elleltian hear the word forest I expect to see very dense woodland growth or something of that effect.

These loopholes make this thing look like swiss cheese. I happen to like swiss cheese. However I like it on my sandwich not as a resolution being considered by this body.

Speaking of sandwiches, *Vladimir checks his watch* I think im going to the Strangers Bar for one.

VK.

The Holy Empire of Anchova does not support this Resolution.

I would like to say that I commend the author of this proposal for trying to help protect our very valuable environment. I feel that he realizes that the environment is a global affair, and thus should be dealt with by a global organization (the UN.)Here we have a slight problem. You see, only 1/4 to 1/3 of the nations in existance are actually UN members. That, in my mind at least, hardly qualifies as a "global organization."
I offer my support of the resolution, and would like to respond to some of the dissenting opinions that I have read on this forum.

For those of you that do not want the UN to affect your affairs, or interfere with your country, I strongly suggest you leave the UN.Oh great, another one of these.:rolleyes:
It is the most effective way to protect your nation from global laws and mandates, and thus is the logical thing to do. Please leave the UN for people who want to globalize, and affect countries across the globe, galaxy, verse, etc.You know, when you've got known internationalists telling you to drop that particular arguement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12095679&postcount=104), that's not a good sign.

For those of you that do not like the definition of a "forest", I would like to say that I believe that your being a tad rediculous. I mean, a group of twenty or more trees, is fairly well defined. I feel that if the canopies of the trees are touching, or within feet of, they can be considered part of a group.Oh please, by that definition if I have 20 seedlings in a bucket waiting to be planted, they'd be considered a forest.
If there are twenty of these thus distanced trees, they are a forest. They can be in a line along a river, or a clump in a field, but they are a forest all the same. If you remove (cut down, transplant, etc.) then you must replace (plant new sapplings, transplant to, etc.) the forest in another area.See above.
I do not feel that the author gave a bad definition of a forest, though I think a group of 50 or more trees could have avoided the unnessecary hassle with trees (or forests) on personal property.I'm sorry, but if you think that the definition could have been better, than by definition it's bad.

I would like to try to make world a better place for all of us, and to do so, or at least begin the process to do so, I will support this proposal. I exhort you all to do the same. For a better world, a better life, vote FOR this proposal.

United Socialist States of RhelanThe closest I'll come to supporting this piece of shit proposal is to support the intent.

I dunno. I'd call that a copse. Or maybe a grove. More likely, I'd consider it to be an orchard. Perhaps, if I was feeling generous, a woodland.
I might go so far as to call it a stand.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I might go so far as to call it a stand.

I'd call it a shrubbery.

I'd call it a shrubbery.Roger? Is that you?

I am for this Act, we must save the forests. Paxful will give all voting power to support this Act, and we will persuade the rest of CRGS Barmy Army to vote likewise.

I am for this Act, we must save the forests. Paxful will give all voting power to support this Act, and we will persuade the rest of CRGS Barmy Army to vote likewise.

I just don't get it, how can you possibly call this saving the forests when the proposal denies the right to do maintenance on the forest? No one has yet to show me how that works?

I dunno. I'd call that a copse. Or maybe a grove. More likely, I'd consider it to be an orchard. Perhaps, if I was feeling generous, a woodland.

You could even call it a "parking lot." Let's imagine a nice sized parking lot for a typical mega mall. Let's add local regulations that require a tree at the ends of the parking rows. Let's now say that there are 10 rows in the mega parking lot. That's 20 trees. It's a forest?

You can't define a forest by the trees! In the first case trees are often used as decoration accents. In the second case some people actually grow trees in farms. The line between forest and farm is not always clear cut. Some nations tend to excessively maintain their forests, while some insist that all forms of intervention are prohibited.

Wildlife do live in forests, but only when those forests are proper ecosystems. Marshes also make important ecosystems as do grasslands. Neither are protected by this tree counting resolution.

While it agrees with the proposal on principle, Nimsakharō Kunchī's government feels that the proposal is micromanaging excessively.

We would agree that the definition of "forest" needs work, and we have spotted several other loopholes:

THEREFORE URGES nations to use sustainable logging where almost every tree cut down is replanted.
Define "almost every".

Chabhyomī Jhewerthō
Ambassador to the United Nations
Dhāna

Even CP hates it! And He is a tree hugging, drugs taking hippie.“Who the fuck's that silly-assed, self-impressed, Stalinist pig? He sure thinks he's the cock's walk. And what kind o' jackass tees off on someome for tokin' when he's busy snortin' coke?”

“That's not coke. It's snuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Snuff).”

“Snuff? What the fuck is that?”

“It's finely ground tobacco.”

“And they snort that shit up their noses? Man, those cats are trippin'!”

“They think cigarettes are 'bourgeois'.”

“'Bourgeois'?!? You're shittin' me.”

“No, I'm not. They really think that.”

“Well, they're really fucked up, then. Joy, take Vladdy Boy over there a carton o' smokes – our best. And a box o' blue tips – Hell, maybe they don't even have matches in that silly-assed 'Workers' Paradise' o' theirs. And tell him to wipe his nose, 'cause he looks like shit with all that funky powder on his face. And wash his hands while he's at it, 'cause it's all underneath his nails and shit, too.”As Joy hurries off to comply, the Ambassador shakes his head.“Man, Vladdy Boy, you are one sorry-assed trip.”OOC: More intra-Communist sniping...

I am strongly opposed! Keep your meddling hands out of my environment and more importantly keeping your meddling hands out of my economy.

Opposed

Strongly....very strongly.

I fully support this proposition, as my modest nation is very concerned with the state of our Earth.

However, the 20 tree definition of a forest is a bit much. I would suggest amending the proposition to protect only areas that have already been established as being forests.

The cigarettes arrive at the seat of the Elletian Ambassador. Khernynko's secretary Demitri Petrovich takes them. Completely ignoring the CPian staff member's statements about hand washing and nose wiping

"Comrade, I shall give these to Andre, I believe he is the only one in the delegation who smokes." the secretary whispered.

"Make sure you write a nice thank you note and see if we can send our 'comrade' from Community Property a little gift from the Cheka. Comrade Serpov wants to be as 'comradely' to them as possible." the ambassador whispered back to his secretary.

"It shall be done Comrade Khernynko." Petrovich said before taking the cigarettes, and matches and left the G.A. debate floor for the Elleltian UN HQ.

I fully support this proposition, as my modest nation is very concerned with the state of our Earth.

However, the 20 tree definition of a forest is a bit much. I would suggest amending the proposition to protect only areas that have already been established as being forests.

Can't amend it. It's already up for vote. Either vote yes, with its glaring flaws intact, or vote no. I'd recommend voting no.

---
Jaris "Roger" Krytellin
UN Ambassador, Kingdom of Altanar

The Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation has been instructed by the Beloved President for Life of the Democratic Republic of Excruciatia to vote against this..."thing". He then watches with interest as the 4 Excruciatian Policarmy Groups permanently stationed in Excruci-rUiNation start destorying the few remaining plants in the country.

OOC: There yer go greenies, now I've come out against it you'll get a few more for ;)

:sniper: The U.N has no right to try to interfere with the mighty steps of progress. I dont care about the enviroment. Animals are food; they have no need for a habitat. Unless it is provided by a secular government and not the U.N. The same goes for the plants, i think buildings are more beautiful then a bug infested swamp or forest any day.

Animals are food; they have no need for a habitat.
Then why do humans?

Humans are a higher life form. I do not see the human race as an animal species but as overlords in a land full of the weak.:headbang:
I wouldnt feel an ounce of remorse if I gave the order to burn the forests and imprison the hippies.

Yes, humans are the most advanced of animals, but there are some that come come close, and are even self-aware. My nation is against the harvest of such animals, but to stay on the subject of this proposed resolution, logging is acceptable so long as it is sustainable, and trees are planted to replace those that are felled.

On the logging I agree partially. The need for oxygen far exceeds our need for new cities ( for what are cities without inhabitants ) [I]but[I] forests should be regulated and controlled. Cities have no need for trees and animals. There are regions of this world that are mostly desert that could be revived by the implement of desalinization and irragation. Governments should seize this land and plant forests in those regions. And maintain strict control of the animal populations.
And on the case of self aware animals. No four legged beast of burden will usurp the rule of the homo sapien species. Never!

Lord General Joshua Damien Carter

I wouldnt feel an ounce of remorse if I gave the order to burn the forests and imprison the hippies.

Instead of imprisoning the hippies in your country Ellelt would take them. We are running short of laborers for our gulags due to 'industrial accidents'. As far as burning down your forests...hey they're your forests do what you want.

The whole human supremacy thing might get you into hot water though...NS has a lot of different sentient beings, some human, some mammalian, others something completely different altogether.

VK

I will not surrender my tree hugging hippies. I will keep them until I find nuclear waste that needs to be handled. When their brains are raddled by radiation. You can have them. I have no need for mental deffinciancy; whether caused by birth or industrial accident. Though if it is caused by birth it will be forgiven and cured.

From the Holy Lord General

Look... The Country of Hdgcfcf votes yes on the issue and suggests all other states do so. Why? Trees are essential to the atmosphere. With out trees, the oxygen levels will drop, and kill all of us. I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.

On the logging I agree partially. The need for oxygen far exceeds our need for new cities ( for what are cities without inhabitants ) [I]but[I] forests should be regulated and controlled. Cities have no need for trees and animals. There are regions of this world that are mostly desert that could be revived by the implement of desalinization and irragation. Governments should seize this land and plant forests in those regions. And maintain strict control of the animal populations.

Lord General Joshua Damien Carter

Agreed. Desertification is a large problem. However, some tracts of desert should be preserved to promote biodiversity.

Look... The Country of Hdgcfcf votes yes on the issue and suggests all other states do so. Why? Trees are essential to the atmosphere. With out trees, the oxygen levels will drop, and kill all of us. I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.

Yes, one adult tree scrubs around 40 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year.

This reminds me of something someone wrote me:

Violence a natural reaction in a society whose advances are limited to its new technology;
different only in the current mode of destructive intent.
Date has replaced real life in this world, no hope for the stop of "progress."
Inevitable bio-link implant will replace the feel of human touch.
All memory surrogates downloaded bought & sold, no true sense
of self. Impending sensory death looming near.
A number, this is what you've become. Life digitized itemized commodified.
Ha, ha, ha, this is what you work for...

Biodiversity. Why; water, air, food, protection, population. Nowhere does desert appear.
Oxygen can be artifically made from water and hydrogen if need be. So deforestation still does not worry me a lot.

I am starting to think no one enjoys the wonders of technology and progress. Let me shut down my reactors, and let you fend for yourselves in the dark. Then complain to me about removing a couple thousand acres of useless forest for an extension of three mile island

Does no one have an answer?

Instead of imprisoning the hippies in your country Ellelt would take them. We are running short of laborers for our gulags due to 'industrial accidents'.Ambassador Jackson can't let this pass:

“Yeah, well, 'Vlad the Impaler' over there would take anyone you sent him for his Gulags; after all, his form of make-believe Communism won't work without his exploiting someone. It's like the old quote says: 'Stalinism is the longest path from Capitalism to Capitalism'.

“On the other hand, if you send your 'hippies' over to us, they won't ever trouble you any more. They'll be happy as a bunch o' clams at high tide. The easiest way to shut a hippie up is give him what he wants and let him do his own thing in peace, dig it?”

The Ambassador pauses, and then returns to the debate.

“Getting back to the resolution, though, it's important to realize that countin' trees and savin' trees are two different things. You wanna save the trees? Vote this shit down!”

Yes, if you are going to use your hippies up before you will let us have them, well we dont need them either. I guess we will just have to find an other source for our mineral extraction needs in Ziberia.

Enslave your population; hold them at gunpoint and order them to dig until they collapse.
Mineral extraction at its cheapest. They will forgive you when they take their repression medication.:sniper:

Sorry, we do not treat our citizens that way, and what is this repression medication you speak of?

Im not a anti-enviromentalist pig, i just hate animals and i believe the military should rule the world. And animal habitats should be kept to a minimum because of the reason mentioned earlier. I will not bend, or change my vote. If anything you guys should.:gundge:

well If i changed my vote, that would mean that i would be voting for...and that isnt happening. Tree counting is not the business of the UN.

Repression medication was discovered six days ago in the holy republic of Undbagarten. IT is mandatory that citzens be processed, given the meds and sent to either mining camps; electorial colleges, or re-processed for futher human testing of experimental drugs.
:D

Ah. This is satire, right?

That post was not meant for you Ellelt, it was for the tree huggers of the forum.:p
I totally agree the U.N. should not interfere with individual country developement.

I think the U.N. is full of itself; it is just a superficial governing body. The activities in ones country is ones own bussiness.

Ah. This is satire, right?

Much of it unintentional, but yes.

Much of it unintentional, but yes.

Perhaps on his part. On my part it was intentional.:p

is there any way to have the U.N. disbanded.

What is your take on the subject of larger more powerful nations forcfully taking contol of the weaker ones.
this is best idea in the history of man.

My take is that you can ask that question in the General forum, not in the UN forum, and not in this thread.

My, bad. The enviromental horse crap is another reason why i want the U.N. disbanded. I only joined so i could ensure my security.

Jevian Voting Report

Environment Protection Act

--- FOR -- 3,581 -- (45.25%)
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif AGAINST -- 4,333 -- (54.75%)

Votes Reporting: 63% (Compared to votes for Mutual Recognition of Borders)

The Jevian United Nations Office is prepared to project that the nays have won the resolution election of 12.19.2006 with 4,333 votes or 54.75% of the 63% of votes currently recorded. The Jevian reaction to this vote has been positive, as it matches our own opinion of this resolution. We welcome this hopeful defeat of a poor proposal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative,
Voting Analyst

I have just decided that in four days time i will draft a form of legislation that allows a country to do what every it wants with its own respective part of the worlds enviroment without threat from U.N. intervention or interference.

I will need at least two endorsments though. nobody seems to like me much. ]
Maybe because my views are a bit radical to the conservitive hypocrits

I have just decided that in four days time i will draft a form of legislation that allows a country to do what every it wants with its own respective part of the worlds enviroment without threat from U.N. intervention or interference.

I will need at least two endorsments though. nobody seems to like me much. ]
Maybe because my views are a bit radical to the conservitive hypocrits

Good luck making it legal. And make sure to read the UN Proposal Rules.

IMPERIAL COURT OF JURISTICTION

Lord General Joshua Damien Carter has been removed from office and awaits sentencing. In his place Emporer Matthew Dyer recides until this court can find a new leader for this great nation

Supreme Justice of the Imperial Court of JuristictionDylmoXerxes

Why do I see more than twenty trees dying a needless death in four days?

IMPERIAL COURT OF JUSRISTICTION
FROM DylmoXerxes: Please disregard anything said by the condemed Lord General Joshua Damian Carter. The Holy Republic of Undbagarten will hence forth withdraw from the U.N. and withdraw its vote on the Enviromental Protection Act.
Undbagarten will also renew its flag to replace the one of corrupt hatred ensued by Carter

Well, that was interesting.

When this thing goes down in flames, drinks are on the Empire.

Emporer Matthew Dyer
This Republic is dearly sorry for ever electing that spawn of hatred to office. He will be promply banished from the region. Within the next half hour I will resign and this great country will reapply for admittance in to the United Nations. After this reply the Imperial Court of Juristiction will presume over futher descussions. Headed by Supreme Justice DylmoXerxes

From: DlymoXerxes
I am open to everyones opnion; I would like to know how this country should vote on the Enviromental Protection Act when we are readmitted into the United Nations.

I am against this proposal.

Small nations such as ours do not have the resources to enforce this proposal and rely heavily on the resources that would cease to be produced if this proposal became law.

This proposal will under-cut already weak economies and create a larger gap between those that have succeded and those who have not.

I would like to remind people that for Retired Werepenguins, which is in the Antarctic, there are no trees whatsoever. Not a single one. Two is right out and if twenty were to find a way to get together, this would be most impossible indeed.
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/4939657/214251120.jpg
See? No trees!

If the esteemed representative from SomeUNExperiment had continued reading this thread, you would have noticed that my delegation posted a change in our nation's stance on this resolution.


After rereading the thread we realize that we were mistaken that Nationalia had posted their change of mind twice, and that the first change of mind we noticed was inded by you. We offer our most sincere apologies in our mix-up. We stand by our statments, but those statements obviously do not apply to you.

But you must admit, several others that supposedly think they care about the environment are still making such rash, un-researched statements as the ones you once posted. I'm glad that you put the care of the environment above political appearance and decided to do the right thing. Let a weevil hit the forests of the nations with this bill passed and those countries will most definitely either be barren or be out of the UN.

This is an insane resolution.

All this resolution will accomplish is homogenizing the planet.

The thing that makes this world great is it's diversity!

In our glorious nation of TheNew_WorldOrder, where there once was a boring old forest is now a beautiful nuclear waste dump, which is one of three man made objects that can be viewed from space!

The poorer people of our nation take great joy in uncaging their wives and children and taking them out to the hill that overlooks the dump, and basking in it's warm glow.

These people dont have much to be happy about in life. Many of them are riddled with cancer and deformities. Many are so ill they are unable to control their bodily functions, making it almost impossible for them to get an education.

Are you going to take the one pleasure these people have left?

Add to that, that many of our corporate citizens once suffered from horrible allergies. The sneezing in the boardrooms was almost non stop. Corporate mergers would be regularly interrupted by the sounds of noses blowing.

No longer do executives have to worry about dangling boogers now that we've paved over all the parks! We all breathe a sigh of releif.

Finally, before we cut down the trees, we had a major problem with our unpaid labor force. The unpaid laborers would wander off into the woods and get lost! These poor workers, so dumb that they cant tell the difference between a forest and a sulfur mine, end up wandering through the woods until they end up in one of these backwards nations where there are NO unpaid jobs for them, or even an organ sale program so these people can sell a kindey or an eye for some food.

THINK OF THE PEOPLE!!!

A message from the Mighty Ruler of the Glorious Empire of TheNew_World Order.

Yes, one adult tree scrubs around 40 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year.Hm. In that case, I think it's time to start planting pines (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030315/fob6.asp).

Hm. In that case, I think it's time to start planting pines (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030315/fob6.asp).

mebbe we should send these pine beetles after those trees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pine_Beetle) then.

(oh, mavenu votes against, and the The south pacific regional poll is currently 6-0 against)

Jainey Slate
UN Representative for Mavenu

Originally posted by Allech-Atreus
Well, that was interesting.

When this thing goes down in flames, drinks are on the Empire

Didn't you buy last time? Good job, man, good job!

Although some nations may see the pun/word ratio in this statement as an act of war, the citizens of MacDogma have voted an entire national park be renamed in your nation's honor on your words' merit alone.

Amazing how something as wretchedly constructed as this resolution can bare such sweet fruits? I bough to you.

Oy vey. Awright.

I'm aspen you nicely to leaf the subject of puns alone, wood you? Yew are alder 'nough to know better -- you know hawthorney a thread can get when you allow fir all these puns. Let's have an end to them, 'cause I'll grow sycamore.

I shall be a nation to support this. Many nations are destroying every tree they see for corporations, which pollute the air. The 20 trees definition is a little tight though.

So the corporation who builds log cabins pollutes the air?

Really?

How?

I agree! Though quite a few newcomers deserve to be called "n00b", there are some, including Ellelt and Steweystan, who are obviously serious and intelligent. There are also some old farts who have been here centuries (or maybe it just seems like it), who have been idiots for that long. Neither length of time,nor activity is any guarantee of competance.

Hear, hear! (He said, notching his post count up one more in the vain hope of seeming somehow vital).

Norderia's opposed, and the reason has likely been stated by someone else in this 13 page thread.

It really doesn't take much to get our support on environmental issues, and this Resolutions fails even in that.

I dunno. I'd call that a copse. Or maybe a grove. More likely, I'd consider it to be an orchard. Perhaps, if I was feeling generous, a woodland.

Copse? Grove? Orchard?!? Mate, that's barely a stand. It was that clause alone that earned my initial no vote. The rest was weasel-flavored icing on a tick-batter birthday cake.

*snip*
You can't define a forest by the trees! In the first case trees are often used as decoration accents. In the second case some people actually grow trees in farms. The line between forest and farm is not always clear cut. Some nations tend to excessively maintain their forests, while some insist that all forms of intervention are prohibited.
*snip*


Too...many...possible...responses...arrrgh!

OOC: Y'know, Intangelon, there is that nifty multi-quote thing you can use... :p

I think there is one important job that is missing from the newly proposed UN committee, how about they provide funds to assist the UN nations in complying with this resolution. Otherwise all this is going to do is drive nation's economies who depend on the forest into the ground and bankrupt the whole nation. Balocava's lonly vote is no!

Too...many...possible...responses...arrrgh!

Generally speaking, I've been told that there is only one proper response to the representative from Retired Werepenguins: STFU. Fortunately, Flash has finshed his debate for the regional representative and he should be arriving in the UN hall in a few days.

I should point out that Flash has written a wonderful proposal for something that covers all sorts of ecosystems which can but does not have to contain trees. Shrubs are covered, grasslands are covered, antarctic ice desserts are covered, as long as they are international of course because aren't we an international body? Meanwhile I am so glad this resolution is going down.

Meanwhile, here is a nice French Forest (http://www.webshots.com/g/33/618-sh/20110.html). Enjoy.

So the corporation who builds log cabins pollutes the air?

Really?

How?Use of chainsaws?

Copse? Grove? Orchard?!? Mate, that's barely a stand. It was that clause alone that earned my initial no vote. The rest was weasel-flavored icing on a tick-batter birthday cake.
I'm way ahead of you on that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12096959&postcount=124).

You know, I'm always disappointed when the author of a resolution isn't around to defend their resolution while it's up for vote. Of course, if I had written this pile of shit, I wouldn't be around to defend it either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Oy vey. Awright.

I'm aspen you nicely to leaf the subject of puns alone, wood you? Yew are alder 'nough to know better -- you know hawthorney a thread can get when you allow fir all these puns. Let's have an end to them, 'cause I'll grow sycamore.

Honourable Colleauges,

Bourneleah House has announced that His Serene Highness The Prince has been graciously pleased, on the occasion of His first good laugh in ages, to signify His intention of appointing the Honourable Representative of Intangelon as Officer of the Most Noble Order of the Robin. The Investiture will take place at the daleish UN delegation offices at a later date yet to be announced. The daleish ambassador bows in the general direction of his distinguished fellow Robin.

The Principality intends to keep fighting against this proposed resolution, and are pleased to note that our UN delegate have withdrawn his previous support of the proposal. Meanwhile, we are proud to say that our own environmental situation has been significantly improoved. Ancient Rowan forests are once again covering the dales. And by forests, we of course mean the 21 new trees that are to be found in our country.

I thank my Colleagues for their attention.

current vote is:

Votes For: 4,317

Votes Against: 5,117

Since voting ends today, I would believe that this thing will be defeated, Thank Lenin. And we will be able to actually discuss a proposal that doesnt look like swiss cheese.

Again: Swiss Cheese on sandwich good, Swiss Cheese in proposals bad.

I don't like that "20 tree" rule at all. If 20 trees should be called a forest, then my yard might as well be the next Yellowstone.

I know plenty of nations that are sustained by the logging and woodchipping industry, and if this law got past it would kill their economy.

What about the holiday season? What about the Christmas Tree farms? Should they be forests too? Oh, and don't forget the civilians. If there's a house nearby, then the farm's out of business, isn't it? Those of us in the UN will have to sell our citizens "Charlie Brown" Christmas Trees this year.

10%? What the hell are we supposed to live in? Mudhuts? I don't know about you, but I'm not paying for tens of thousands of tons of stone or brick.

Finally, this resolution says absolutely nothing about rotting, diseased, or termite infested trees whatsoever. Nope, just TREES. It protects all trees in general. Even if they're going to fall down on your house and kill you. Tell me, if you have a rotten old 50 footer just north of to your house and you're not allowed to cut it down, and it's slowly bending to the south...

I think if this law is going to be passed there should be just a little more thought put into it.

im way against it, my economy is basically living on wood, well not quite my nation, Commanders Resistace just want to carry on to want there used to so leave our internal affairs alone, i dont care that my animal is nearly extinct well stop when we think we will not use as much wood and go onto metal ect

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST the resolution "Environment Protection Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This is currently the opinion shared by the majority of UN voters.

Hellar Gray

Against.

Poorly crafted, atrociously written. Shocked it made it to the floor.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild
Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Y'know, Intangelon, there is that nifty multi-quote thing you can use... :p

Oh? That's nice, but how else am I supposed to manufacture the artificial legitimacy that a high post count represents if I use that?

Honourable Colleauges,

Bourneleah House has announced that His Serene Highness The Prince has been graciously pleased, on the occasion of His first good laugh in ages, to signify His intention of appointing the Honourable Representative of Intangelon as Officer of the Most Noble Order of the Robin. The Investiture will take place at the daleish UN delegation offices at a later date yet to be announced. The daleish ambassador bows in the general direction of his distinguished fellow Robin.


Minister UN Benjamin Royce rises from his GA seat and approaches the esteemed representative from Rowancaster. I humbly and gratefully accept this honor. I would continue my earlier wordplay, but after that display, to quote legendary Intangible comedian Carlin Hicks, "I got nothin'."

Use of chainsaws?
Axes, good sir, axes.


I'm way ahead of you on that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12096959&postcount=124).

You know, I'm always disappointed when the author of a resolution isn't around to defend their resolution while it's up for vote. Of course, if I had written this pile of shit, I wouldn't be around to defend it either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Touche, both times.

Good morning to you all gentlemen.

The rightful Government of the Constitutional Monarchy of St George in Kanava would be happy to vote "FOR" the resolution, were it not for the following statement:

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

We find this to be a little too restrictive, especially considering the subsequent recommendation to replace the trees once the forest has been cut down by 25%.

Thus we will vote "AGAINST", hoping that a revised version of the proposal will show up soon.

Live long and prosper!

His Majesty the King Bruno I
By the Grace of God Enlightened Monarch of St George in Kanava

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

We find this to be a little too restrictiveAre you kidding? That's one of the biggest loopholes in this whole mess. Outsource your forestry to a non-member nation, and away they go.

You know, I'm always disappointed when the author of a resolution isn't around to defend their resolution while it's up for vote. Of course, if I had written this pile of shit, I wouldn't be around to defend it either.

I concur with the esteemed delegate from Flibbleites.

A staffer runs up to Mr. Evif, handing him his old UN Ambassador Credential.

I have just been informed that the Liberal Unitary Republic has been re-admitted to this institution, and so, as my first act upon my return, for the reasons stated by numerous other representatives, it is my duty to cast my vote against this resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Author, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

I have just been informed that the Liberal Unitary Republic has been re-admitted to this institution, Welcome back Goobergunchia.

And it is dead. As we all breathe a thankful sigh of relief.

The resolution "Environment Protection Act" was defeated 7,236 votes to 5,252.

this resolution was so full of bugs, it's a good thing it didn't pass

The resolution "Environment Protection Act" was defeated 7,236 votes to 5,252.

This is excellent news. Now we don't have to worry about the UN enshrining the right to protect shrubberies. Or stands. Or groves. Or whatever.

As was promised, and is tradition when things of great import occur within these hallowed halls, all drinks are on the Empire!

As was promised, and is tradition when things of great import occur within these hallowed halls, all drinks are on the Empire!

I've been drinking since this morning, when I saw that there was no way this pile of dung was gonna pass. Covering that bar tab, are ya? Thanks!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well, I'm glad that's over anyway. It actually could have been a good proposal idea, but there were a hundred problems with the written resolution. Back to the drawing board, eh, Homophobic Warriors?

Lets hope not.

Anyway, Upon hearing the news anounced on National Television The Elleltian people have decided to make celebration. There is singing, dancing and drinking in the Streets of New Stalingrad.

I will be in the bar getting drunk in celebration too. See you all in the strangers bar.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The resolution "Environment Protection Act" was defeated 7,236 votes to 5,252.

There is a XXX
Oops, I keep forgetting that Retired Werepenguins is technically an agnostic nation. Don't tell my boss Flash that I said that, OK?

Sincerely, Red Hot Blonde

"The happy people in Havvy rejoice to hear that this piece of ____ resolution has gone ___ay. We hope ____r to see it a____."

Sincerely
Mr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

*Clunk Cluck*

"Sorry, it seems my thought to voice mechanism went out periodically. I said *beep*, away, never, and again. Oh yes, and thanks for voting this resolution down. I hope you vote the next resolution down also for the same reason for the fact its definitions are wacko.

Welcome back Goobergunchia.

I thank the representative from Hirota for their welcome. I also thank the delegate from Allech-Atreus for their free drinks....hic!

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Author, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

[ooc EDIT: POST 5000]

it was so bad i almost wanted to see it succeed. just to see the reactions.

I will be in the bar getting drunk in celebration too. See you all in the strangers bar.Ambassador Jackson scrambles up out of his chair.

“Guess I'd better get there before you've polished off your first bottle, Vladdy-boy. Otherwise, you'll probably try to soak up all that everclear o' yours by eatin' bread, instead of the sensible way.”

There is a XXX

“Well Hell, yes, man. Ain't you never been to Cluichstan before?”