NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: This proposal has now been submitted. You can find it here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=climate).

= = = = =

OOC: I've run this by UNOG, and modified it on the basis of suggestions made there. I also posted it in the GTT and UIC, but both of those organisations appear to be dead.

Part of this (the "recommending" and "further urging" clauses) is lifted straight from an earlier proposal by another player. Thanks for suggesting it!

Anyway, bringing it here for final comments before submitting it:


THE UNITED NATIONS,

DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent or indefinite climate changes, including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more; or: as a person whose home is deemed likely, by the Climate Refugee Commission, to become uninhabitable within the next ten years;

URGING all member nations to do their utmost to lessen and prevent adverse human impacts on the climate;

RECOMMENDING that affected member nations call for aid from other nations, and allow national and international aid teams the maximum possible opportunities to distribute aid and access affected areas;

FURTHER URGING all member nations with significant areas of elevation or other means of refuge from lowland flooding to offer sanctuary to evacuees from vulnerable member nations;

HEREBY CREATES the Climate Refugee Commission (CRC), consisting of a panel of independent climate scientists and resettlement experts.

The CRC shall:

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the CRC, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

2. Receive and rule on appeals from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC.

Category: presumably Environmental
Strength: suggestions?

Much as we have a very open border policy, I really cannot see my government doing anything but strongly oppose this. It seems highly unlikely the CRC could gauge the associated factors, and forcing nations to accept refugees on that basis sounds like a recipe for disaster. Maybe an alternative could be require nations to either accept climate refugees, or to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money (or similar: infrastructure, aid, etc.) to other resettlement plans.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Can we have a proposal that doesn't create a committee? Is that even possible anymore?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Maybe an alternative could be require nations to either accept climate refugees, or to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money (or similar: infrastructure, aid, etc.) to other resettlement plans.


That's an idea. In fact it's a good idea. Thank you.

Can we have a proposal that doesn't create a committee? Is that even possible anymore?


Averse as I am to creating new committees, I could see no way to make this work without one.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

On the committee, it does seem like this won't be the only climate change proposal we have. Maybe a general UN council on climate could be created (not in this proposal, obviously) and then any that needed committee functions could use that, for efficiency purposes (much as most free trade resolutions use the UNFTC for arbitration, rather than setting up a new one each time).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

On the committee, it does seem like this won't be the only climate change proposal we have. Maybe a general UN council on climate could be created (not in this proposal, obviously) and then any that needed committee functions could use that, for efficiency purposes

It's interesting idea, if someone wants to draw up a specific proposal for it.

In fact, considering the way in which UN legislation treats committees as living for as long as any resolution referencing them is extant, this may well be exactly the correct resolution to create that committee. If the author was simply to give the committee a slightly more generic name, while still tasking it exclusively to deal with the refugee issue, then future resolutions dealing with climate issues could simply task the committe with their particular purposes in addition.

Alternatively you could regard the International Meteorological Organisation (established by Resolution 148 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737915&postcount=149)) as the right body for the job, and task it (or a subcommittee thereof) with dealing with climate refugees.

I'm open to both those ideas. Before I do any re-writing, though, I'd like to see what the general feeling about them is.

I thought about the IMO, but I'm not sure it's quite right. As much as anything, the climate changes being studied presumably wouldn't be solely meteorological: soil erosion, for example, could create refugee crises, but probably wouldn't be elucidated on the morning weather report.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Added a little bit onto the end. Also, suggestions regarding what the strength should be?


THE UNITED NATIONS,

DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent or indefinite climate changes, including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more; or: as a person whose home is deemed likely, by the Climate Refugee Commission, to become uninhabitable within the next ten years;

URGING all member nations to do their utmost to lessen and prevent adverse human impacts on the climate;

RECOMMENDING that affected member nations call for aid from other nations, and allow national and international aid teams the maximum possible opportunities to distribute aid and access affected areas;

FURTHER URGING all member nations with significant areas of elevation or other means of refuge from lowland flooding to offer sanctuary to evacuees from vulnerable member nations;

HEREBY CREATES the Climate Refugee Commission (CRC), consisting of a panel of independent climate scientists and resettlement experts.

The CRC shall:

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the CRC, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

2. Receive and rule on appeals from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC. Alternately, and with the CRC’s consent, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.

OOC: Any further comments or suggestions before I submit this? (suggested strength: Significant).

We really loathe the third clause describing the CRC's powers. We don't want some bleedin' UN committee telling us we must accept refugees, especially not based on our "adverse effect on the climate," as arbitrarily calculated by that same committee.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I understand the honourable sheik's concern, but the cynic in me can't help but feel that appealing to voluntary generosity may not be quite enough, and would render the proposal effectively "toothless".

Besides, nations have the option of lessening their impact on the environment if they don't want to have to welcome refugees.

The emphasis here is on fairness and accountability.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I understand the honourable sheik's concern, but the cynic in me can't help but feel that appealing to voluntary generosity may not be quite enough, and would render the proposal effectively "toothless".

Besides, nations have the option of lessening their impact on the environment if they don't want to have to welcome refugees.

The emphasis here is on fairness and accountability.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

But at what point does accountability turn into punishment? It's nice to assume that the world is full of sunshine and good intentions, but that's not always the case.

Consider, too, that some refugees would not want to live in certain countries. I would wager that refugees from and Ariddian floodplain would go insane if the CRC forced them to move to Cluichstan.

Perhaps the intent would be better achieved by setting up a list of approved nations to accept refugees. Those nations willing would accept refugees, and other nations wouldn't have to worry. Similarly, you could force non-accepting nations to pay money to a fund for the refugees.

Or, you could just tell people that live in a known floodplain "tough shit."

Rang Erman
Advisor

Perhaps the intent would be better achieved by setting up a list of approved nations to accept refugees. Those nations willing would accept refugees, and other nations wouldn't have to worry. Similarly, you could force non-accepting nations to pay money to a fund for the refugees.

This quite possibly only exacerbates the problem the Advisor mentioned earlier of incompatible philosophies of life, since we can foresee a number of types of nation from whose ranks there would be few volunteers. If that problem is to be addressed at all, some words need to be inserted in the direction to the CRC as to where it should attempt to assign refugees, bearing in mind that neither the proposal nor your suggested emendation guarantee availability.

But at what point does accountability turn into punishment?

A matter of interpretation. But the aim is to help refugees, not "punish" people.


It's nice to assume that the world is full of sunshine and good intentions, but that's not always the case.


Precisely. Hence this proposal.


Consider, too, that some refugees would not want to live in certain countries. I would wager that refugees from and Ariddian floodplain would go insane if the CRC forced them to move to Cluichstan.


True, but not an issue here. It doesn't say anywhere that a refugee is forced to move to the destination picked by the CRC.


Perhaps the intent would be better achieved by setting up a list of approved nations to accept refugees. Those nations willing would accept refugees, and other nations wouldn't have to worry. Similarly, you could force non-accepting nations to pay money to a fund for the refugees.


Good point, but that's already effectively the case here. A nation can request to opt out of receiving refugees, and contribute money or infrastructure (or other types of aid), the amount of which to be decided by the CRC, instead.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I see that you have a very noble intention in presenting this proposal to the United Nations. However you may be condemning some of our less developed nations into economic ruin. As much as my own government is comitted to improving the lives of our neighbors and providing aid to those less fortunate one must concede that when it comes to climate refugees, the scale of the problem may prove daunting.

Consider that typical sitations that may generate climate refugees include widespread flooding due to sea level rise, droughts etc. In times like these one can expect millions of refugees to suddenly evacuate to other areas. This large influx of people present a potential disaster in terms of national security, economic development, environmental situation, population demographics to the host nation.

I understand that a possible host nations may opt to invest in projects or infrastructure to help the afflicted population but given the large potential numbers of people that may become refugees it may be too large a burden for many nations.

Respectfully
Reijek Stormcrow
Potentate of Hosaka_2

That may be a valid concern, yes. Consider, though, the sheer number of countries in the world. Any disaster, however massive in scale, will never force any nation to accept an unmanageable number of refugees.

Nations wishing to avoid this problem in the first place, of course, can focus on environmentally sustainable development and limit their own impact on situations likely to create refugees.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Given the current emphasis on really bad, environmentally destructive, feel good, pop culture science involved in the climate change politics worldwide. Where the old Joke of "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV", is no longer considered funny, and infact has become public policy of many nations.

SeaBear70 would strongly oppose this resolution, and quitelikly declare war on anyone who sponsored it.

Given the current emphasis on really bad, environmentally destructive, feel good, pop culture science involved in the climate change politics worldwide. Where the old Joke of "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV", is no longer considered funny, and infact has become public policy of many nations.

Why don't you come back and try again when you've learnt proper English grammar? It's been a while since I've seen such a poor attempt at speaking English.


SeaBear70 would strongly oppose this resolution, and quitelikly declare war on anyone who sponsored it.

Oh, go back and play with toy soldiers and sandcastles. The grown-ups are busy.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Why don't you come back and try again when you've learnt proper English grammar? It's been a while since I've seen such a poor attempt at speaking English.

Given that it's quite possible that English is not this player's primary language, why don't you stick to critiquing proposals and responses, and leave linguistics out of it.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Given that it's quite possible that English is not this player's primary language, why don't you stick to critiquing proposals and responses, and leave linguistics out of it.


OOC: Player? I was in character. Although in any case I have little patience with those who make dumb statements (and I'm talking about what appears to be the content here). Especially when they think that declaring war on anyone who doesn't agree with them is "cool".

But... whatever. If he/she makes a comment that's understandable and rational, I'll reply to it.

SeaBear70 would strongly oppose this resolution, and quitelikly declare war on anyone who sponsored it.

While I may share your political position on this matter I believe that all of our nations could reach a viable, working agreement that would not involve bloodshed.

Peace.

SeaBear70 would strongly oppose this resolution, and quitelikly declare war on anyone who sponsored it.

OK, His Nibs is busy wetting his whistle right now, but he'd have words to say about this. Personally I'm not impressed by the size of Seabear70's collective dick either. Do you actually have a reason for opposing this, or do I get to see if I can pull off a drop-goal defenestration?


Cerys Coch
Permanant Undersecretary to...

Forcing nations to accept these "refugees may strain an already weak national government. It may also incite racial violence, rioting and civil unrest. Furthermore, the mass migration of people from one place to another may cause other environmental disasters.

Lawson Henderson,
Seventh Avenue Ambassador to the UN

Forcing nations to accept these "refugees may strain an already weak national government.
The only governments being forced to do anything are the ones responsible for the whole mess, so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them.

It may also incite racial violence, rioting and civil unrest.
Like anything wouldn't.

Furthermore, the mass migration of people from one place to another may cause other environmental disasters.
If it's move or drown, I'm not going to tell people to drown. Are you?

Cerys Coch,
Permanant Undersecretary to...

OK, His Nibs is busy wetting his whistle right now, but he'd have words to say about this. Personally I'm not impressed by the size of Seabear70's collective dick either. Do you actually have a reason for opposing this, or do I get to see if I can pull off a drop-goal defenestration?


Cerys Coch
Permanant Undersecretary to...

Well, I think I actually covered my reasons fairly well...

You see, the operative mode of the majority of the world, and I can only assume that this includes you, is to insert their heads up their asses when they hear anything concerning climate. As a result, irrecoverable damage is being done to the environment in the name of saving it.

Now, all things considered, SeaBear70 does not want anyone, or any governing body attempting to tell us how they feel about anything, especially not anything having to do with the climate or with the environment. We run a clean nation, and we expect you to get that reverse cranial inversion done for the good of yours. :upyours:

Happy now? I even ran spell check.

The only governments being forced to do anything are the ones responsible for the whole mess, so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them.


Like anything wouldn't.


If it's move or drown, I'm not going to tell people to drown. Are you?

Cerys Coch,
Permanant Undersecretary to...

Soooo....

You're preparing for the second coming of Atlantis????

Or are you in the waiting room for that reverse rectal cranial inversion?

While I may share your political position on this matter I believe that all of our nations could reach a viable, working agreement that would not involve bloodshed.

Peace.


Believe it or not, the peaceniks that are pushing this environmental crap on all of us are probably the most destructive people on the planet.

Total slaughter would be an easier cleanup than the destruction wrought by on Sierra Club Picknic.

Forcing nations to accept these "refugees may strain an already weak national government.


As I explained, no nation would be taking in an unmanageable number of refugees. And if a nation is so concerned about being held accountable for its actions, it should amend its behaviour. This is a matter of accountability. If you've contributed to destroying people's homes, you resettle them. Simple.

The honourable representative of Gobbannium has accurately addressed your other points.

We run a clean nation

Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? You have actually read the proposal, haven't you?

Believe it or not, the peaceniks that are pushing this environmental crap on all of us are probably the most destructive people on the planet.

Total slaughter would be an easier cleanup than the destruction wrought by on Sierra Club Picknic.

I really don't like chucking people out of windows, but this one has to go. Before his incoherent babbling gives me a headache. Anyone up for a bit of defenestrating?

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As I explained, no nation would be taking in an unmanageable number of refugees. And if a nation is so concerned about being held accountable for its actions, it should amend its behaviour. This is a matter of accountability. If you've contributed to destroying people's homes, you resettle them. Simple.


One question that occurs to me is, how do you determine "accountability" for destroying our enivironment? Our nation is probably cleaner than most, due to our lack of technology. However, I've heard of studies about large animals damaging the environment with, um, natural emmissions. Well, many of our citizens are quite large, and yes, we do fart. I suspect that at least one nation somewhere has blamed dinosaur farts for global warming.

OOC: The principle generally invoked here is that of reasonable behaviour. It's logical to assume the CRC will be reasonable. UN committees in NS apply the letter of the resolution; they don't go looking for loopholes just to annoy people and twist the meaning of the text. Something that is natural and unavoidable can't really (and therefore won't) be "blamed" on your nation.

Incidentally... How do you manage to get a dinosaur delegate into the UN General Assembly? :p

Incidentally... How do you manage to get a dinosaur delegate into the UN General Assembly? :p

With great difficulty! You really should get bigger doorways. :p :D

As I explained, no nation would be taking in an unmanageable number of refugees. And if a nation is so concerned about being held accountable for its actions, it should amend its behaviour. This is a matter of accountability. If you've contributed to destroying people's homes, you resettle them. Simple.

The honourable representative of Gobbannium has accurately addressed your other points.



Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? You have actually read the proposal, haven't you?



I really don't like chucking people out of windows, but this one has to go. Before his incoherent babbling gives me a headache. Anyone up for a bit of defenestrating?

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Actually, as long as nations, such as yours, insist on enacting resolutions that reflect pop culture insted of science and reality we have much to worry about.

In the words of Samuel Clemmens...

"Hain't We got all the fools in town on our side, and hain't that a big enough Majority in any town?"

Actually, as long as nations, such as yours, insist on enacting resolutions that reflect pop culture insted of science and reality we have much to worry about.


Ah, the tactics of the ignorant. Accuse us of your own flaw.


In the words of Samuel Clemmens...


His name was Clemens, with one M. And you would do well to reflect on his words.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As I explained, no nation would be taking in an unmanageable number of refugees. And if a nation is so concerned about being held accountable for its actions, it should amend its behaviour. This is a matter of accountability. If you've contributed to destroying people's homes, you resettle them. Simple.

The honourable representative of Gobbannium has accurately addressed your other points.



Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? You have actually read the proposal, haven't you?



I really don't like chucking people out of windows, but this one has to go. Before his incoherent babbling gives me a headache. Anyone up for a bit of defenestrating?

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ah, the tactics of the ignorant. Accuse us of your own flaw.



His name was Clemens, with one M. And you would do well to reflect on his words.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ok, do I have to write out another three page dissertation on global warming, or can we just accept that you have no idea what you are talking about and are happily ignorant, and more than willing to continue destroying the planet is your self righteous idiocy?

:headbang:

With great difficulty! You really should get bigger doorways. :p :D

Sorry about that, apparently the archetect didn't plan on dinosaur delegates when he designed the building. We'll get to work on widening doors as soon as possible.

Ken Scott
Vice President
Building Maintence
UN Building Management

Ok, do I have to write out another three page dissertation on global warming, or can we just accept that you have no idea what you are talking about and are happily ignorant, and more than willing to continue destroying the planet is your self righteous idiocy?

:headbang:

OOC: This is an IC forum. If you're going to make OOC comments, label them clearly.

I read your "interesting" little post on climate change in another thread. I was particularly unimpressed by your quite frankly idiotic claim that the Earth is not warming up fast enough because it should be warming up as fast as Mars which has a completely different climate to start with. You say Earth should be warmer because it's closer to the Sun. Erm... no. Proximity to the star is far from being the only factor determining warmth. There's this little thing called the composition of the atmosphere, and countless other factors. Which don't fit into your simplistic little view.

The fact that the entire world's experts are almost unanimous in agreeing that climate change is almost certainly due to man doesn't throw you out of your stubborn, absurdly ideological "let's all bury our heads in the sand and do nothing!" approach, does it? They're the experts, but they're wrong and you're right. Uh-huh. Go and educate yourself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf).

Although in any case your "objections" - if one can dignify them so - are irrelevent to the proposal at hand. If you'd bothered to read it before you started babbling out nonsense, you'd have noticed that it leaves it up to a committee of experts to determine to what degree man's activities contribute to climate change and to ensuing environmental disasters. The proposal makes no specific claim of its own. A bit too subtle for you, perhaps?

Now kindly stop veering off to idiotic off-topic rants. If you have useful suggestions to make, go ahead. But if you're just going to indulge in mindless OOC blabber which has nothing to do with the text of the proposal, you can go and do that in General instead of spamming a UN thread.

I may be a bit late in this discussion (damn, they lured me into the UN forum again!), but I have a simple question. Why only climate refugees? And how does it relate to the Refugee Protection Act?

Or are we going to tackle the refugee problems one resolution, one subgroup at a time?

I may be a bit late in this discussion (damn, they lured me into the UN forum again!), but I have a simple question. Why only climate refugees? And how does it relate to the Refugee Protection Act?

Or are we going to tackle the refugee problems one resolution, one subgroup at a time?

I shouldn't endeavor to speak for the author, but I think this may have been drafted with the idea that Refugee Protection Act simply doesn't cover these individuals, and may have been looking to cover an unexplored area. As for other forms of refugee.....it'd probably be best if I let those more familiar with the subject answer. I'd rather not end up having to salt my soles for flavour.;)

I shouldn't endeavor to speak for the author, but I think this may have been drafted with the idea that Refugee Protection Act simply doesn't cover these individuals, and may have been looking to cover an unexplored area. As for other forms of refugee.....it'd probably be best if I let those more familiar with the subject answer. I'd rather not end up having to salt my soles for flavour.;)

Well, let's say a nation or nations are suffering desertification. This may not be related to climate change, but it has a big impact nonetheless.
And that's not mentioning refugees in a non-war situation, economic refugees, etc.

If someone would draft a general resolution dealing with all refugees, I'd be more happy to support it (and would even support repealing the RPA). That should be possible, and might even be done without a committee.

I may be a bit late in this discussion (damn, they lured me into the UN forum again!), but I have a simple question. Why only climate refugees? And how does it relate to the Refugee Protection Act?


This proposal does a little more (in practical terms) than resolution #65. We see climate refugees as a specific problem, to be addressed through specific solutions. The solutions set out in this proposal wouldn't apply to refugees in general, but they are, in our opinion, invaluable in helping climate refugees. Hence the need for a specific resolution for climate refugees.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Whilst the IMO might not possess all of the required expertise, studying climate change was included amongst its duties and so having the new committe be required to consult it would probably be a good idea.

One major point that's being overlooked here is that the UN's members aren't all situated on just one single world: If a nation occupies one or more planets all by itself, as some do, then whatever it does to the local environment is very unlikely to affect the climate where any other nations are located... so why should it have to take refugees from climatic problems (or contribute to the wellbeing of refugees from climatic problems) whose problems it had nothing to do with causing, instead of this burden belonging solely to the other governments on the worlds where those refugees originally lived?

_____________________________________________________________


(OOC: Oh, and 'Environmental' proposals don't have a 'Strength' as such: They either affect one single industry [from a limited list of choices] or -- as would presumably be the case here -- all industries, and the latter option is about equivalent to a rating of 'Strong'...)

Okay, I can see that you want to address a specific issue. I disagree with that aproach, because I think a refugee is a refugee, but I am not particularly against doing something for refugees and climate change. So I'll go on about the resolution text now. Specifically:

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC.

So, a refugee who is victim of climate change is sent to the nation that caused it. Not only does that mean you are more or less forced to live in a nation with a lot of pollution (which caused the climate change), it also means you are sent to the bastards that killed your livestock, ruined your crops, flooded your city or whatever.

This, to me, seems an unpractical aproach. I like the intention (the polluter pays), but this is not the best way of implementing that intention, in my unhumble opinion.

Whilst the IMO might not possess all of the required expertise, studying climate change was included amongst its duties and so having the new committe be required to consult it would probably be a good idea.

That's a good point, and I'd like to be able to include a mention of the IMO... but that may present a "house of cards" problem. I see no reason why resolution #148 should ever be repealed, but having my proposal rely on resolution #148 may not be a good idea. (I'm not sure it's even legal. Mods?)


One major point that's being overlooked here is that the UN's members aren't all situated on just one single world: If a nation occupies one or more planets all by itself, as some do, then whatever it does to the local environment is very unlikely to affect the climate where any other nations are located... so why should it have to take refugees from climatic problems (or contribute to the wellbeing of refugees from climatic problems) whose problems it had nothing to do with causing, instead of this burden belonging solely to the other governments on the worlds where those refugees originally lived?


Ack. Well, again I assume it's reasonable to think the CRC will take that into consideration.


(OOC: Oh, and 'Environmental' proposals don't have a 'Strength' as such: They either affect one single industry [from a limited list of choices] or -- as would presumably be the case here -- all industries, and the latter option is about equivalent to a rating of 'Strong'...)

True. Thanks. It would presumably be "All industries" here.


So, a refugee who is victim of climate change is sent to the nation that caused it.


Not exactly.


Not only does that mean you are more or less forced to live in a nation with a lot of pollution

I do need to insist upon this point, because it's fairly important: No refugee will be forced to move to a specific location. He or she will simply be given that option. Nowhere have I said that there would be forceful relocation to an undesired country.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

OOC: This is an IC forum. If you're going to make OOC comments, label them clearly.

I read your "interesting" little post on climate change in another thread. I was particularly unimpressed by your quite frankly idiotic claim that the Earth is not warming up fast enough because it should be warming up as fast as Mars which has a completely different climate to start with. You say Earth should be warmer because it's closer to the Sun. Erm... no. Proximity to the star is far from being the only factor determining warmth. There's this little thing called the composition of the atmosphere, and countless other factors. Which don't fit into your simplistic little view.

The fact that the entire world's experts are almost unanimous in agreeing that climate change is almost certainly due to man doesn't throw you out of your stubborn, absurdly ideological "let's all bury our heads in the sand and do nothing!" approach, does it? They're the experts, but they're wrong and you're right. Uh-huh. Go and educate yourself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf).

Although in any case your "objections" - if one can dignify them so - are irrelevent to the proposal at hand. If you'd bothered to read it before you started babbling out nonsense, you'd have noticed that it leaves it up to a committee of experts to determine to what degree man's activities contribute to climate change and to ensuing environmental disasters. The proposal makes no specific claim of its own. A bit too subtle for you, perhaps?

Now kindly stop veering off to idiotic off-topic rants. If you have useful suggestions to make, go ahead. But if you're just going to indulge in mindless OOC blabber which has nothing to do with the text of the proposal, you can go and do that in General instead of spamming a UN thread.

Ok, I guess this is OOC...

First of all, the $720,000,000,000 that goes into global climate studies is all aimed in the same direction, proving global warming. If we put that much money into conjecture about a flat earth, you'd be screaming that ocean voyages were irresponsible.

Second of all, I am not claiming that we should do nothing, I am stating point blank that right now we are doing the wrong things, and that if we keep doing these wrong things we will have a global ecological disaster. THere is no point in trying to explain that to you because you obviously care less about the earth than you do about your own ego.

Third of all, assuming that carbon dioxide is the primary component of global warming, and knowing that Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2, it is obvious that there should be an even greater difference in the temperatures than I imply, because greenhouse gasses work both ways, reflecting energy back at the planet and back into space.

I should hoever note that CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming unless you talk to companies that plant trees for profit to nutralize your carbon debt.

In conclusion, sir, let me say directly and without reservation to you what you have been dancing around trying to tell to me.

You are an idiot. Your heart is in the right place, but your brain is on vacation. I pity any children you may have due to the genetic limitations of your intelligence, and any children you encounter due to the well intentioned misdirected nightmares you will leave them with.

I also pity your pets as if you care for them as well as you intend to care for the earth, they are obviously dead.

I pity your parents for the sleepless nights that they face wondering where they went wrong.

In conclusion you are a waste of valuable resources the planet desperately needs to fight the polution that you and your kind are hell bet on destroying the planet with.:upyours:

OK, His Nibs is busy wetting his whistle right now, but he'd have words to say about this. Personally I'm not impressed by the size of Seabear70's collective dick either. Do you actually have a reason for opposing this, or do I get to see if I can pull off a drop-goal defenestration?
You see, the operative mode of the majority of the world, and I can only assume that this includes you, is to insert their heads up their asses when they hear anything concerning climate. As a result, irrecoverable damage is being done to the environment in the name of saving it.

Now, all things considered, SeaBear70 does not want anyone, or any governing body attempting to tell us how they feel about anything, especially not anything having to do with the climate or with the environment. We run a clean nation, and we expect you to get that reverse cranial inversion done for the good of yours.
Since this has bugger all to do with climate refugees, I'm going for that drop-goal.

Cerys Coch
Permanant Undersecretary to...

I pity your parents for the sleepless nights that they face wondering where they went wrong.


OOC:

Funny you should mention that, given how I've always excelled at everything and they're extremely proud of me. I've always obtained the highest possible distinction in all my exams, I've succeeded, with flying colours and on first attempt (which is very rare), in the most difficult competitive exams in the country, including coming in the top percentile, and I've started off my teaching career directly at university, having obtained, through bloody hard work, the necessary qualifications to do so. I've achieved the best anyone could possibly achieve, and worked my way into categories which, in educational meritocracy, are the highest élite.

My parents, thank you very much, sleep soundly, and are proud at having brought me up in such a way as to help me excel.

Now piss off, you silly little troll, before I report you for flaming.

-snip-

In conclusion, sir, let me say directly and without reservation to you what you have been dancing around trying to tell to me.

You are an idiot. Your heart is in the right place, but your brain is on vacation. I pity any children you may have due to the genetic limitations of your intelligence, and any children you encounter due to the well intentioned misdirected nightmares you will leave them with.

I also pity your pets as if you care for them as well as you intend to care for the earth, they are obviously dead.

I pity your parents for the sleepless nights that they face wondering where they went wrong.

In conclusion you are a waste of valuable resources the planet desperately needs to fight the polution that you and your kind are hell bet on destroying the planet with.:upyours:

OOC:
Seebear70. I would suggest as a fellow player that you stop baiting your fellow NSers. Especially calling people "idiots" and saying that their "mind is on vacation". You'd get yourself into majro trouble with that type of attitude. Personally i'm tempted to report you to moderation but that would be up to the person your flaming/baiting, which would be Ariddia.

Although if it were me you were doing this immature crap to, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

OOC:

Funny you should mention that, given how I've always excelled at everything and they're extremely proud of me. I've always obtained the highest possible distinction in all my exams, I've succeeded, with flying colours and on first attempt (which is very rare), in the most difficult competitive exams in the country, including coming in the top percentile, and I've started off my teaching career directly at university, having obtained, through bloody hard work, the necessary qualifications to do so. I've achieved the best anyone could possibly achieve, and worked my way into categories which, in educational meritocracy, are the highest élite.

My parents, thank you very much, sleep soundly, and are proud at having brought me up in such a way as to help me excel.

Now piss off, you silly little troll, before I report you for flaming.

Buddy, you started out a troll and got worse. Obviously I've hit on one of your pet Peeves, namly global warming, and the fact that you know jack all about it beyond the headlines.

All I did is not take your mindless abuse and then cut to the chase.

I can tell we are not going to be friends.

:upyours:

OOC:
Seebear70. I would suggest as a fellow player that you stop baiting your fellow NSers. Especially calling people "idiots" and saying that their "mind is on vacation". You'd get yourself into majro trouble with that type of attitude. Personally i'm tempted to report you to moderation but that would be up to the person your flaming/baiting, which would be Ariddia.

Although if it were me you were doing this immature crap to, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

So, let me get this straight...

This guy's been attacking me from his first reply to one of my posts.

But obviously I am baiting him when I didn't know a thing about him before that?

This guy calls me an idiot by dragging in something that was written in a nother thread that he does not understand or want to, and that thread asked for open opinions on the topic.

But I'm the bad guy here?

BTW : Brainless over there started with the name calling. The more I hang out here the more this place reminds me of the real U.N.

Knock it off. NOW. This is not the General Forum. The realities or non-realities of the real world don't mean a damn thing here. I'm getting sick of this. Any more of this nonsense and I'm going to hand out forum bans. I don't care who started it or why anybody is replying to anybody else. Any of this garbage after this post results in the ban-hammer.

And any further flaming gets the same treatment. Shape up, or you'll be shipped out.


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: Are there any further comments / suggestions, on topic, about the proposal itself? If not, I'll submit this soon (possibly tomorrow).

OOC: Are there any further comments / suggestions, on topic, about the proposal itself? If not, I'll submit this soon (possibly tomorrow).Nope, you've covered everything raised so far and done a good job with it (although someone might come in with something else). Thank you for correcting the one little issue I had with it, and I'll be urging my delegate to endorse.

We still cannot stomach this bit, for reasons we've already stated:

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC.

Sorry, Christelle babe.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich

Nope, you've covered everything raised so far and done a good job with it (although someone might come in with something else). Thank you for correcting the one little issue I had with it, and I'll be urging my delegate to endorse.

Thanks. I'll let you know when it's been submitted.

We still cannot stomach this bit, for reasons we've already stated:

Sorry, Christelle babe.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich

That's all right, my dear sheik. We can't agree on everything.

*pause*

Or on very much, for that matter.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

That's all right, my dear sheik. We can't agree on everything.

*pause*

Or on very much, for that matter.

Hey, at least we both like our football. ;)

True. Perhaps our countries can play against each other one day.

I've submitted it (via my UN puppet, ESAT). If you want to help it help it reach quorum (:p), you can find it here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=climate).

OOC: Quick update: I've been campaigning quite extensively via TG, and the proposal now has 46 approvals (more than any other listed proposal at present). It needs 66 more.

OOC: It now has 85 endorsements, and needs 27 more. It's going to be close, but it looks as if it's going to fail. :(

You sell yourself short. It only needs 9 approvals now, and it's got a least half a day left to get them.

You sell yourself short. It only needs 9 approvals now, and it's got a least half a day left to get them.

OOC: Speaking of which, do you know at all at what time it'll have... well, run out of time?

OOC: Some time on Friday, Ariddia. I'm assuming after one of the updates. I've had proposals on the list that were gone at the beginning of the day and others that didn't get taken off the list until the very end of the day.

But, you don't have to worry about that.

Approvals: 112

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Well, you have the number of approvals needed. If nothing strange happens and you don't lose any approvals, you're all good. Let's hope that it keeps gaining to put it solidly in queue.

128 now. Yay! Congratulations, Ariddia!

Woo! Thanks!

And thank you to everyone who supported it!

Woo! Thanks!

And thank you to everyone who supported it!Congratulations!

OOC: Speaking of which, do you know at all at what time it'll have... well, run out of time?

OOC: Around 6:30 GMT. That's approximately when the update is done. It looks as though you're safe. Well done, Ariddia. (Of course, IC, Cluichstan will still be voting against it. :p )

OOC: Naturally. ;)

Thanks!

essentially preventing you from linking to the text of your replacement proposal, as happened, unfortunately, to Kenny.I keep meaning to try and workout if there is a way round that. It's friday and I'm bored, so I think that's what I will do now.

Edit: This is what happens when you try and mess with the fabric of time and space. Naughty jolt forums!

OOC: Naturally. ;)

Thanks!

OOC: No problem, mate. Something to keep in mind when submitting proposals and such. For instance, if you wanna get a replacement in right after the repeal, that's the time to do it, before someone else can screw up your TG efforts by getting one in before yours, essentially preventing you from linking to the text of your replacement proposal, as happened, unfortunately, to Kenny with his proposed repeal of "Mutual Recognition of Borders."

OOC: Yes, I noticed he hadn't been able to campaign on that. Rather frustrating.

This one's next up to the plate. I'm guessing you'll want to start a new thread.

THis is not a resolution, this is a popularity contest based on fiction.

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the CRC, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

Who gets to decide what the "Human" and "Industrial" impact is on climate? What scale do we choose?

2. Receive and rule on appeals from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

So, our borders are not to be respected, neither our our rights as countries? Shall we be forced to take refugees from countries we are at war with?


3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC.

Oh, lovely, at it's discression, so there is to be no appeal, no say from the countries to be victimized by this junk science, neo-trash, legislation?

The writer of this resolution should be forced to retake basic science at gun point.

The People's Republic of Bar-Steward is deeply concerned by the content of the aformentioned proposal. As an expanding nation only recently liberated from an oppressive government this bill could cause us much harm.

Our relatively small state is unprepared to cope with any sizeable influx of refugees who will not only dilute, or worse destroy our proud cultural heritage but cause discontent and risk destabilising our as yet delicate political system. Dangerous foreign ideas may damage our native faith or cause unrest, my people are simple honest folk and need to be allowed to grow into the complexities of the world- not have it thrust into their bosom like a poisoned dagger. The influx will also damage our pristine environment demanding huge swathes of natural habitat be destroyed to accomodate our unwanted guests and is if that was not enough any action we might take to lessen or contain the damage would likely be condemned as infringing on human rights and our glorious nation labelled as barbaric.

So, you will tell us to offset the costs of development by paying renumarations for the damage we may cause. Such expenditure may be well and fine for the larger nations represented here but it would prove prohibitive for us, any move towards development would be crippled and growth slowed to a trickle. Even significantly increasing taxes would fail to meet the punitive costs you would impose on us and even if we could raise the money that way how could I justify an action which will leave my people destitute?

It is all very well for well developed modernised states to talk of ecologicaly sound development but it is my people that will suffer in the squalor of the past regime. We have neither the funds nor technology to pursue "clean" development and every minute we drag our heels to appease such legislation is another minute the people of my nation will suffer needlessly. The hindrance to development of power stations will leave hospitals in blackouts, families huddled in the dark and industries struggling to stay afloat- unable to work at full capacity and our export undercut by rich foreign companies.

There is a way out of this dilemma though, what if a proportion of the money and resources "donated" by polluting countries were used to fund the ecological development of smaller states? If the technology for uranium fueled power facilities were made accessable to my nation we could implement the limited exploitation of our uranium deposits to create relatively clean power facilities which I'm sure we can all agree are prefereable to coal or oil fueled facilities available to my country at present. Further benefit could be made by a climate tax exemption for countries pursuing this green development.

In an amended form this legislation has great promise but if this motion is passed in it's current form all it shall do is keep the poor nations as small backwater states whilst the rich become even richer.

The People's Republic of Bar-steward is unable to support this motion in it's current format, we will actively oppose it and seek it's reppeal should it become law.

Signed

Juan Pablo Bastardo
Supreme Life President of The People's Republic of Bar-steward

My nation, and its scientific community, reject unequivocally the "theory" of man made global warming as pseudoscience and an unproven, baseless conclusion.

We also note that not so long ago the same panic merchants were campaigning on "global cooling." We also note that global warming on Mars has occurred with no help from humanity, as there are no humans on Mars.

We have no interest in being inundated with "climate refugees" either.

If other nations are incapable of handling their own affairs, that is not our concern.

In consultation with my cabinet,my advisers, and after a referendum to the people, the overwhelming consensus is that we no longer wish to be associated with a body that embraces such questionable "science"...and who then legislates to violate our sovereignty by requiring us to accept an influx of "refugees" we have no intention of accepting.

Accordingly, the Free Pacific Nations have withdrawn from the United Nations, effective immediately.

We will choose our own destiny from this day forward, free from the dictates of nations that have no interest in our well being, only in the pursuit of their own agendas.

James K Ryan
First Minister
Free Pacific Nations

This one's next up to the plate. I'm guessing you'll want to start a new thread.

OOC: I will in just a few minutes, yes. This one veered quite quickly off-topic.