NationStates Jolt Archive

World Park System

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


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: Uranium Mining


Proposed by: Magnetic Beings

Description: Resolution: World Park System

This proposal is meant for those citizens of our fine world who enjoy partaking in the natural beauty of the land itself.

PROPOSAL OUTLINE

-Each UN nation must allow at least 100 acres to be preserved as a World Park. The proposal urges nations to select areas of beauty unique to your region. Magnetic Beings would be choosing to preserve it's 534 acres of pygmy-populated grassland, for example.

-Mining industries will be hit hardest, especially Uranium mining outfits. These industries thrive in the unpopulated areas of the globe, where most of these parks are predicted to be placed.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Jan 2 2007

This proposal is my first, so I apologize if I missed anything. Thats what these forums are for though, right? :)

Well first off it has branding violations.

It is incorrectly formated.

and finally its just plain silly.

VK.

Well first off it has branding violations.

It is incorrectly formated.

and finally its just plain silly.

VK.

Color me dense, but I don't see the branding violation, unless you mean my using my own country as an example.

As far as formatting goes, sorry! :)

Silliness? I didn't find it too silly myself, but YMMV.

Color me dense, but I don't see the branding violation, unless you mean my using my own country as an example.
Yes, that's branding.

It is incorrectly formated.
No, it's not.

That said, I see no justification for this. Why 100 acres? Why the pissy little line about uranium mining?

Given that it doesn't actually forbid any types of activity (such as, for example, Uranium mining) within those proposed 'World Parks', it's useless...

We'd like to welcome the representative of Magnetic Beings to the NSUN. We'd also urge him to ignore the sneering comments of those whose over-inflated egos and self-styled superiority lead them to dismiss other members' ideas as silly.

We could not support the proposal as written. While we understand and commend its intent, the honorable representative of St Edmund Antarctic is correct. The proposal really would do little or nothing to fulfill its intent. Once the area is designated, then what? The proposal really doesn't require anything in the way of preservation -- just designation.

We'd suggest that our new colleague spend some time reviewing the debate on the recent repeal of the "World Heritage List" resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508943). That might provide some food for thought if he wishes to pursue this idea further.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You might like to try Reclamation (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx), too, Magnetic Beings. It's a forum where players help each other sort out problems with new proposals.

In theory it does the same as this forum, but in practice the ones who don't want to help just stay away from Reclamation.

Let me say that I agree with the statements of the Ardchoillean and Ausserlander delegations. I welcome you to the NSUN and would encourage you to take this proposal to Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?).

As it is, I couldn't support it. It doesn't actually do anything and the 100 acre preserve seems rather pointless. 100 acres isn't that large.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We welcome you to the UN as well. We like the idea behind this, but agree with the other delegations that the area you've selected is too small. We'd recommend a larger area. We'd also recommend that it be changed to prohibit activities harmful to the environment, as previous delegations have mentioned.

We'd be torn on this proposal, honestly. We believe in preserving the environment, but also don't like the idea of mandating these parks be established in every nation, even those who might not be able to afford a large park such as this in their budget or economic picture. If some method could be arranged where nations were recompensated for the cost of establishing these parks, we'd favor it more. (OOC: I don't know if that's possible within game mechanics or not, but it's just an idea I had to make environmental proposals more palatable to many nations.)

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Whilst I doubt very much that my government would support any proposal that forced nations to create 'world parks' we might be willing to vote for one that _
a/ Defines clearly what sort of activities would actually be banned (or at least restricted) in such parks, and includes all military activities on that list;
b/ Strongly urges nations to create parks of this type, covering samples of each significant ecosystem that they contain, of adequate size to support the full range of native species that are regularly present in those ecosystems;
c/ Requires other nations to recognise the protected status of those areas, so that (for example) they're considered neutral territory in wartime, and includes safeguards against significant cross-border pollution of them. (I would have liked to include something about guaranteeing their water supplies too, but wording that in such a way as to prevent nations listing small sections of each river that enters their territories from elsewhere and then claiming that this means the nations upstream can't extract any water at all from those rivers was more than I feel like tackling these evening...) This would give the proposal the 'international' aspect that we think all resolutions should have...
d/ Possibly includes some kind of appeal mechanism or safeguards that would keep nations from defining areas as 'world parks' in order to restrict the possible approach routes to strategic locations.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

The idea of protecting water quality in just 100 acres and also using it as a blockage for military assaults is to me not a problem. As 100 acres out of millions is so little a section of land. It would mean nothing when all the water around it is poluted and trees cut down on all lands around it. We would think that it would be better to work to preserve all areas as much as possible rather than single out a small section and preserve it.


As far as any funding most could find a group to support funding such parks as they I'm sure would use the efforts to profit from their labors while preserving a small section of land.


Even building a mall on lands in some ways forms a park where people can go and act out their natural desires and we preserve these areas and make a probit off doing it..

The idea of protecting water quality in just 100 acres and also using it as a blockage for military assaults is to me not a problem. As 100 acres out of millions is so little a section of land. It would mean nothing when all the water around it is poluted and trees cut down on all lands around it. We would think that it would be better to work to preserve all areas as much as possible rather than single out a small section and preserve it.

Evidently I didn't make myself clear enough: My suggestions for an alternative proposal on this theme ( which, I will admit, were partly inspired both by Tzorsland's recent draft proposal about ecosystems and a proposal that Gruenberg has been working on elsewhere for protecting Cultural Heritage in armed conflicts... ) weren't meant to limit the parks created under its terms to the 100 acres that were originally proposed by 'Magnetic Beings'.