NationStates Jolt Archive

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: Comments and debate welcome. Please do READ the text of the proposal before commenting, though. And please stay on topic if possible.

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

Though it will be exspensive, you have my full suport on this issue.
My nation is a well developed nation and i will not let it go to waist. The world needs this law past because if it fails, our world will face a catastrophic disaster.

I would like to thank the honourable representative of Lagaesiaurabane for his support. In response to the points raised by the representative of Bar-steward...


Our relatively small state is unprepared to cope with any sizeable influx of refugees

Comrade, simple mathematics will show you that, even if your nation is responsible for significant damage to the environment (which I assume it is, or else you wouldn't be raising this point), you will not have to cope with a "sizeable influx of refugees". The number of member nations in the United Nations is such that each would only be required to rehouse a very small number of victims of any environmental disaster, proportionate to their damaging impact on the environment.

Your concern is therefore unfounded.


who will not only dilute, or worse destroy our proud cultural heritage but cause discontent and risk destabilising our as yet delicate political system.

I've just addressed this, so I think you can see why this concern is also unfounded.


The influx will also damage our pristine environment demanding huge swathes of natural habitat be destroyed to accomodate our unwanted guests

You cannot possibly believe this, so I must dismiss it as scaremongering, and regretfully note that you stoop to tactics which should have no place in this Assembly.


how could I justify an action which will leave my people destitute?


The same comment applies here.


It is all very well for well developed modernised states to talk of ecologicaly sound development

If you had done your homework, Ambassador, you would know that Ariddia / ESAT is not a "developed, modernised state".


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?


This suggestion would have been welcome while the proposal was still being written, with input from foreign delegates. As you know, it can no longer be modified. I would, however, encourage you to write and submit such legislation yourself.


Further benefit could be made by a climate tax exemption for countries pursuing this green development.

That would not even be necessary, since the "tax", as you call it, it applied in proportion to the damage caused.


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

I thank you for your speedy response to our concerns and shall convey it to our president presently.

Signed

Dominguo Cojones
UN Ambassador for The People's Republic of Bar-steward

After reading through this Proposal several times and through the respose to the questions raised by the Honourable Delegate from Bar-Steward, this proposal has the full support of The United States.

Signed,
David Swansea
David Swansea
UN Ambassador Pro Tempore
The United States of Cookesland

I thank you for your speedy response to our concerns and shall convey it to our president presently.


You're most welcome. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

After reading through this Proposal several times and through the respose to the questions raised by the Honourable Delegate from Bar-Steward, this proposal has the full support of The United States.


Thank you for your support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As Valkyrian ambassador to the U.N, let me stress the importance my nation has placed on protecting its environmental heritage; our extensive freedoms/free market have given a lot of people a lot of time to bring out a Valkyrian ingeniousness in matters to positively affect our environment. We would also like to praise the U.N in its use of diplomatic means to achieve a healthy, stable environment for all.

That being said, it is our position that the above-mentioned proposal is noble in theory but may create environmental “difficulties” other member nations will ultimately have to deal with. Our biggest concern lies with the influx of “refugees” into our borders and what that spells for the Valkyrian people; we understand that the proposal “URGES” member states, not coerces them into accepting refugees. Our problem therefore lies in the creation of the CRC, we feel attributing the power to “repeal” the claims of refugees denied from immigrating to a country may be dangerous and open to bureaucratic corruption (powers of the CRC #2). We also feel that governments and bureaucrats may have latent motives to sending “refugees” to other countries, and the countries receiving such “refugees” may have latent intentions as well.

As the proposal currently stands, our vote stands firmly against it; perhaps if specific member nations instead of independent scientists, or elected bodies of nations were given the right to determine the movement of immigrants the proposal would seem more promising. We feel that never should member nations be held at the mercy of a committees’ “discretion” (power #3), with that as an option we would vote for confidence for each member nation to determine if or how many immigrants it is willing to accept. We further propose the creation of a multinational “sanctuary” supported by U.N member nations, where refugees would be able to live peaceful lives under the common laws/cultures of an international plot of land.

Once more, we applaud the environmental concerns and philosophies the proposal recommends, we are in full support of assessing the current/future problems with our environmental communities, the urging of member states to take action, and even the call for various nations to donate time, energy, and resources to environmental concerns. As the proposal currently stands we are opposed to it, but we look forward to future debate within the forums, and hope the proposed resolution can be modified to diplomatic purposes.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the U.N, thank you for your time; on behalf of H.I.H Janis IX I bid you farewell.

The president has asked me to communicate the following to the honourable delegate of Ariddia.

"Whislt I feel assuaged by the ambassador's response to my earlier statement I regret that the motion in it's current form remains problematic to us. The proposal still punishes those states trying to develop and seems likely to actively discourage development in new nationstates. As I'm sure you're aware a developing state will have two options- a green development for which it must rely on a patron for the technology and funds to grow or normal development in which a state will generate an ecological footprint much larger than if it were merely maintaining industry like it's developed cousins. Thus as it stands the proposal is unfairly weighted in favour of developed states for whom this represents a cut in profits rather than a plunge into debt.

Furthermore, having consulted military and security staff we find points raised by the Valkyron ambassador pinpoint a major security flaw with the CRC powers over the movement of refugees. We feel this could be exploited to give criminal and terrorist organisations access to our beloved homeland, maybe larger developed nations have the infrastructure to deal with such elements but at present time The People's Republic of Bar-steward do not.

I am sorry to inform you that I must stay with my original decision to vote against this proposal. However, I wish you to be aware that I look forward to supporting an amended version which addresses the issues raised should the motion fail or be reppealed and look forward to developing closer ties with your great nation.

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

I regret that I cannot give you the answer you want at this time but look forward to a point at which we can support your worthy endevour and wish to reiterate our country's wish for continued good relations between us.

Domingo Cojones
UN Ambassador for The People's Republic of Bar-steward

Our biggest concern, in Seabear70 is that the proposed resolution does not even attempt to be fair in any way, and opens up the U.N. for bribery scandles the likes of which have never been seen before.

Consider that it is only this commission that is allowed to assess environmental impact. and even after that is done, no doubt based on junk science and popularity, it is only on the committe's descression that, let's not mince words, punishment is handed out.

This is bill is not based on science, reality, or even sanity.

I would like to thank the honourable representative of Lagaesiaurabane for his support. In response to the points raised by the representative of Bar-steward...



Comrade, simple mathematics will show you that, even if your nation is responsible for significant damage to the environment (which I assume it is, or else you wouldn't be raising this point), Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


I resent your accusations and insults to our members. You cannot pass your bill on merits, so you will bully us with innuendo.

What basis do you have for accusing Bar-steward of damaging the environment?

How dare you make such baseless attacks???:upyours:

As Valkyrian ambassador to the U.N, let me stress the importance my nation has placed on protecting its environmental heritage

For that, we commend the people, government and delegation of Valkyron.


Our biggest concern lies with the influx of “refugees” into our borders and what that spells for the Valkyrian people;


As I have already pointed out, simple mathematics show that the "influx" will be minimal, almost negligeable.


We also feel that governments and bureaucrats may have latent motives to sending “refugees” to other countries

This proposal does not give governments any right to send refugees to other countries. An UN committee members ("bureacrats") are known to apply resolutions to the letter, so there will be no "latent motives".


We further propose the creation of a multinational “sanctuary” supported by U.N member nations, where refugees would be able to live peaceful lives under the common laws/cultures of an international plot of land.


Please do feel free to write and submit such a proposal.

Thank you for your comments.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

For that, we commend the people, government and delegation of Valkyron.



As I have already pointed out, simple mathematics show that the "influx" will be minimal, almost negligeable.



This proposal does not give governments any right to send refugees to other countries. An UN committee members ("bureacrats") are known to apply resolutions to the letter, so there will be no "latent motives".



Please do feel free to write and submit such a proposal.

Thank you for your comments.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

And still you do not appoligize for your baseless attacks on our members!

How dare you!:upyours:

What basis do you have for accusing Bar-steward of damaging the environment?

How dare you make such baseless attacks???:upyours:

We appreciate the concern presented by the representative of the nation of Seabear70, indeed, our environment is near pristine and that is the state in which we endevour to keep it. Our national animal is protected and our extensive rainforests almost untouched, true recent work on uranium has started but this is minimal in nature. Even then it is only to further our goal of cleaner fuel for power plants once the mine is depleted appropriate environmental measures will be taken to ensure the areas restoration and allow the rainforest to reclaim the area.

However, we implore the ambassador calm down and debate the proposal and it's responses in a composed manner to avoid alienating potential allies.

Domingo Cojones
UN Ambassador for The People's Republic of Bar-steward

I am sorry to inform you that I must stay with my original decision to vote against this proposal. However, I wish you to be aware that I look forward to supporting an amended version which addresses the issues raised should the motion fail or be reppealed and look forward to developing closer ties with your great nation.


Thank you for bringing up these issues. Should it be necessary, I will look forward to discussing future possibilities with your delegation.


Our biggest concern, in Seabear70 is that the proposed resolution does not even attempt to be fair in any way,


I believe it's the epitome of fairness. You contribute to inflicting a disaster on another country, you help the people of that country deal with the aftermath.


and opens up the U.N. for bribery scandles the likes of which have never been seen before.


How on Earth do you figure that? Or are you just flinging around baseless accusations at random?

I trust you are aware of the manner in which UN committees are composed?


and even after that is done, no doubt based on junk science and popularity,


Wrong. Go and find out how UN committees work, then try again.


it is only on the committe's descression that, let's not mince words, punishment is handed out.


Being accountable for one's actions is not "punishment". Or do you believe no-one should ever face the consequences of their actions? If I were to spray paint over your car, Ambassador, would you insist that I should not face any consequence for that?


This is bill is not based on science

I urge the honourable ambassador to read the text of the proposal carefully. It stipulates that the objective, independent committee will investigate human impact on the climate scientifically. My delegation has not dictated to it what its findings should be. Once you have read the proposal again carefully, I urge you to remember how UN committees function.

Until you have done so, your pointless, ignorant rambling will be ignored.

I resent your accusations and insults to our members. You cannot pass your bill on merits, so you will bully us with innuendo.

What on earth is the honourable delegate blabbering on about now?


What basis do you have for accusing Bar-steward of damaging the environment?


I you bothered to listen to what I and the honourable representative of Bar-steward have said, the latter has not denied that his nation's economic development is having an adverse impact on the climate. And I pointed out that the points the honourable delegate raised showed that his concern stemmed from this very fact. The honourable representative of Bar-steward has, unlike you, read the proposal carefully, and knows that measures by the CRC will be implemented in proportion to the adverse impact on the climate generated by each nation. It was not an accusation.


How dare you make such baseless attacks???:upyours:

If you want to behave like a child, stick your finger in the air and throw a tantrum, you really have no place among adults in this Assembly. My four year-old son has far better manners than you.

You are in the United Nations General Assembly. If you cannot take part in a civilised discussion, you have no business being here.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We appreciate the concern presented by the representative of the nation of Seabear70, indeed, our environment is near pristine and that is the state in which we endevour to keep it. Our national animal is protected and our extensive rainforests almost untouched, true recent work on uranium has started but this is minimal in nature. Even then it is only to further our goal of cleaner fuel for power plants once the mine is depleted appropriate environmental measures will be taken to ensure the areas restoration and allow the rainforest to reclaim the area.

However, we implore the ambassador calm down and debate the proposal and it's responses in a composed manner to avoid alienating potential allies.

Domingo Cojones
UN Ambassador for The People's Republic of Bar-steward

And we emplore you to act like a delagate the the U.N. and not as a middle school child trying to be in the cool group at lunch.

You have still not appoligized for your baseless attack, instead you respond with this crap.

This is after you create a resolution which would make bribery of a proposed U.N. Commission a matter of the very survival of of the sovernity of nations!!!

HOW DARE YOU!!! Are you special among us that you alone have the only perspective worth sharing? Do you even begin to understand the disaster you are losing upon this body and these worlds??


Do you even care, or is your only intrest in beeing one of the cool delegates with their name attached to a resolution?

BTW : your four year old probably understands this better than you do. Why don't you let him or her take over as delegate?

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka fully supports this resolution. Our nation already opens its borders to refugees from all around the NationStates. Working together we can faster build true communist utopia. But other governments, that’s doesn’t fully understand their responsibilities to the world around them, now will must to learn how working together for the better living for all sentient beings. This is important step towards prevention of irresponsible policies of militarist or consumerist states. We all must learn to live in harmony with nature and never harm world ecological balance for such petty things like economic or military power.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.

We had two hesitations. First, we have considerable doubt about the scientific validity of the whole "climate change" business. There's been far too much selective presentation of evidence for us to be comfortable. But we believe that the resolution makes sufficient provision for assuring that decisions will not be based on junk science, but on hard evidence.

Our second problem was with an earlier draft, which would have forced us and our sister nations to allow "climate refugees" to enter our borders. We would not accept that under any circumstances. The right to control of entry to our nation we consider inviolable. That concern has been eliminated by the alternatives provided in the resolution.

As for the petulant ranting of the representative of Seabear70, we have given it all the consideration it deserves: none. We'd suggest the representative either learn to conduct himself like an adult or take his insults and screaming back to the playground, where they might impress the other children.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Although my young nation agrees with the CRC in theory, the fact at hand isn't how to cope with climate change but to STOP it. The incredible amount of money that would be put into this Commission is ludicrous. These funds could easily go to the development of "Green" technology,hybrid cars, and re-forestation.

Although it is easy to say "Help those in need" but, this does not solve the problem. As the climate changes, more and more people will become refugees until, eventually, we all become affected with no where to turn.

The people of the world are continuing to ignore the extreme importance of climate change, by stopping climate change we can eliminate the need for the CRC to begin with.

Sincerly,
Rt. Hon. Scotty Mckilton

You have still not appoligized for your baseless attack,

Says you, while attacking the person you claim to be defending... You may want to learn to read, my dear. The Ambassador of Bar-steward, whom you quote and insult, is not the one who submitted this proposal.

Now, have you finished throwing your tantrum? If so, sit down and let the grown-ups talk. If not, you'll just be ignored anyway. I'm tired of you and of your fits of mindless screaming.

I've responded to all the "points" you've made. Your answer has been to pay no attention; instead, you choose to rant, rave and shout like a broken gramophone.

If you cannot behave like a duly accredited ambassador to this august Assembly, then be quiet, instead of casting shame on the nation you represent.

There is, by the way, no such word as "sovernity".


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I'd love to leave my nation for a cooler climate, unfortunately I think laws and product availability are a bit more important.. so I've gotta stay where I am. We should really divide the world up into vertical bands and let each country own a certain number of them.. not only would time zones be a thing of the past, but everyone would have plenty of choices of what kind of climate to enjoy while still enjoying their local ways ^_^'

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.


Thank you for your support.


We had two hesitations. First, we have considerable doubt about the scientific validity of the whole "climate change" business. There's been far too much selective presentation of evidence for us to be comfortable. But we believe that the resolution makes sufficient provision for assuring that decisions will not be based on junk science, but on hard evidence.


Indeed. As I have stated previously, the proposal does not in any way, shape or form attempt to influence the findings of the independent Commission.

Although my young nation agrees with the CRC in theory, the fact at hand isn't how to cope with climate change but to STOP it.


I agree with this concern, and I strongly encourage the representative of Mackburgtonopolis to write and submit a proposal on this issue. But I would argue that the two are not in any way incompatible. If climate refugees exist while climate change is still an issue, helping them is a legitimate concern.


The people of the world are continuing to ignore the extreme importance of climate change, by stopping climate change we can eliminate the need for the CRC to begin with.


But in the meantime, you do agree that the CRC is needed?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Uluka's Alliance of member corporations are troubled by this new commission. The Navy sectors of the larger corporations work hard to sink the daily boatloads of unskilled refugees that threaten to undermine the social structure already trespassing into State territory, yet this commission attempts to make this lawful. The Industrial camps of Uluka will not be open to refugees.

The nation of Theta Sigma applauds the efforts of Ariddia and wishes to express support with the apparent goal of this legislation.

However, before I can cast my vote in favor I ask that a few points be clarified:

First, as has been expressed by the delegate from Mackburgtonopolis, Theta Sigma feels that the best way to combat climate-based displacement is to stop the problem at its source. Will the funds offered by countries in lieu of accepting refugees be used for any purpose other than further resettlement such as, for example, research into environmentally "friendly" mining operations?

Second, is there a contingency plan should every nation choose to give funds rather than allow foreign refugees into its borders, or is it within the CRC's administrative authority to formulate such a plan, should the need arise?

Third, the nation of Theta Sigma wishes to avoid any forced emigrations by the UN. We find no language within the legislation explaining the procedure to be followed for the removal of refugees from their homeland, other than reference to the appeals of denied immigration applications. We wish to clarify whether or not citizens will be allowed to stay in "uninhabitable" homes, if that is their wish.

Finally, as to the aforementioned appeals process, we would ask for some baseline statistics concerning how many immigration appeals there are based on climate issues and how many of those are denied by the requisite number of countries. Though we suspect that the number is low, we worry that the CRC will become mired beneath a pile of appeals to be reviewed by non-legal experts.

I thank you for your time.

As much as we respect the nation of Ariddia, we cannot support this resolution. We feel it is our own responsibility to moderate our immigration and emigration and the UN has no business in it. We also are quite fed up with the creation of committees/commissions/etc. which do next to nothing and take up valuable office space.
We also cannot see an implementation in the resolution. Does it do anything, besides creating a bloody commission? All I see are language like "Urges nations..." and "Recommends...". These don't actually do anything.
Also, if you want to write a resolution about global warming, its scientific integrity should be evaluated first.

And besides, our puppet state, which resides on an entirely different planet, is not affected by global warming. I hope that the "single planet theory of NS" wasn't assumed when writing this resolution.

All in all, a strong AGAINST. We find no good reason to cast a vote for this garbage-worthy material.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative and
Professor Emeritus, Political Sciences
University of Kent

But in the meantime, you do agree that the CRC is needed?


Thank you for hearing the voices of our young nation. Based on the current world situation, yes the CRC is needed.

But, a time will come when climate change needs to be addressed. Meaning the CRC cannot remain permanent.

As my nation grows we will begin to address the "doom" of climate change and what the best means to deal with it are.On the table is the possibility of addressing each factor of climate change individually.

That being said, the CRC will probably form...with the support of the nation of Mackburgopolis

The nation of Theta Sigma applauds the efforts of Ariddia and wishes to express support with the apparent goal of this legislation.


Thank you.


However, before I can cast my vote in favor I ask that a few points be clarified:

First, as has been expressed by the delegate from Mackburgtonopolis, Theta Sigma feels that the best way to combat climate-based displacement is to stop the problem at its source.


I agree, but that's a seperate issue. A single proposal can't do everything. I strongly encourage the representative of Theta Sigma to write and submit a proposal to "stop the problem at its source"; if it's sound, I'll be glad to support it.


Will the funds offered by countries in lieu of accepting refugees be used for any purpose other than further resettlement such as, for example, research into environmentally "friendly" mining operations?


No, because that's not the aim of this proposal. It deals with a very specific problem, and could not be broadened too largely.

The fact that you believe climate change as a whole should be addressed (and I agree) doesn't mean that climate refugees aren't in need of assistance, as I'm sure you'll agree.


Second, is there a contingency plan should every nation choose to give funds rather than allow foreign refugees into its borders, or is it within the CRC's administrative authority to formulate such a plan, should the need arise?

Yes. The CRC can take such measures when appropriate, as stated in section 3.


Third, the nation of Theta Sigma wishes to avoid any forced emigrations by the UN. We find no language within the legislation explaining the procedure to be followed for the removal of refugees from their homeland, other than reference to the appeals of denied immigration applications. We wish to clarify whether or not citizens will be allowed to stay in "uninhabitable" homes, if that is their wish.


Yes, they will. The CRC, as stated explicitly in the proposal, only intervenes once a person has repeatedly tried and failed to emigrate. Hence a person who does not want to emigrate will never be forced to do so by the CRC.


Finally, as to the aforementioned appeals process, we would ask for some baseline statistics concerning how many immigration appeals there are based on climate issues and how many of those are denied by the requisite number of countries.

There is currently no organisation compiling such statistics, so at present those statistics don't exist. The CRC will be the first to assemble them.

We also are quite fed up with the creation of committees/commissions/etc. which do next to nothing and take up valuable office space.


I don't think you can possibly argue that this committee does "next to nothing". It does a heck of a lot, in very practical terms.


Does it do anything, besides creating a bloody commission? All I see are language like "Urges nations..." and "Recommends...". These don't actually do anything.

I urge the honourable representative to read section 3, and note the use of the word "require".


Also, if you want to write a resolution about global warming, its scientific integrity should be evaluated first.


It's not my country's place to impose its own scientific findings on the rest of the world. Which is why the task is left to the neutral, independent CRC.

I hope the honourable Dr. Hodz will take the time to read the proposal in depth. If the honourable representative has any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

If you want to behave like a child, stick your finger in the air and throw a tantrum, you really have no place among adults in this Assembly. My four year-old son has far better manners than you.No sooner had Zyryanov uttered those words than President Fernanda came bounding down the aisle in sagging jeans with his boxers hanging out and a Randy Jordan Dumbasses jersey. (Gotta love how irony works, especially the Alanis Morissette kind.) Pushing some State Department hack out of the way, he grabbed the microphone at the Kennyites' table to give his Grand Oration to the Assembly. Little did he know, however, that the KOP-a-FEEL ladies, considering how UNHQ of late had become the haunt of impressionable children (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12415819&postcount=5584), had secretly implanted a v-chip in his brain, to assure his address was family-friendly.

"Alright, listen up, you dumbfucks-- <SHOCK!> AUGHH!! What the fu--<SHOCK!!> Ow! Fuckin'-- <SHOCK!> YE-OWCH!! ... Um, I decided to come here myself today to let you bitches-- <SHOCK!> Ahhh! --know that I'm goin' over the heads of my State Department guys and voting against this pile of shit-- <SHOCK!> Goddammit!-- <SHOCK!> AUGH!! --this pile of, uhhh, stuff. Over my dead body will we allow some idiotic committee to tell us how much of the environment we fucked off-- <SHOCK!> Oww! --and force us to pay off some invisible glacier people just because we happen to have razed the entire Antarctic and sent a bunch of greenhouse gases into air, and now their homes are melting! Oh, poor babies! What the fu-- <SHOCK!> Augh!! --is wrong with you people?! Are you so sold on these blatant lies from the junk-science lobby about supposed 'global warming' that you'd make your nations beholden to unaccountable bureaucrats??! Well, are you? Well, we're not! And we're voting no. And if any of you retards gots a problem with that, y'all can come over here and suck my -- <SHOCK!!!> AUGHHH! I didn't even say it that time--<SHOCK!> Ouuuch!!

"(And since everyone else is adding their signatures in this thread, here's mine, in bright red magic marker: )"

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/fernanda-1.jpg

The Empire of Complete Malevolence has cast its vote against this resolution.

Aside from establishing the Climate Refugee Commission this resolution is totally spineless as it merely recommends and urges.

Furthermore the Climate Refugee Commission is empowered to, "...require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees..." thus infringing on a nation's right to determine its immigration policy independent of outside influence.

Ragnar Guthrum
U.N. Ambassador
Empire of Complete Malevolence

Thank you for hearing the voices of our young nation. Based on the current world situation, yes the CRC is needed.

But, a time will come when climate change needs to be addressed. Meaning the CRC cannot remain permanent.

As my nation grows we will begin to address the "doom" of climate change and what the best means to deal with it are.On the table is the possibility of addressing each factor of climate change individually.

That being said, the CRC will probably form...with the support of the nation of Mackburgopolis

"Thank you. And yes, I agree, of course. I look forward to a day when the CRC will no longer be needed, and I welcome any measure that will help achieve that goal."

Zyryanov stared in bemusement at Fernanda's apparently involuntary antics, and tried unsuccessfully to stifle a giggle.

Aside from establishing the Climate Refugee Commission this resolution is totally spineless as it merely recommends and urges.

Furthermore the Climate Refugee Commission is empowered to, "...require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees..." thus infringing on a nation's right to determine its immigration policy independent of outside influence.


You're contradicting yourself.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I don't think you can possibly argue that this committee does "next to nothing". It does a heck of a lot, in very practical terms.

You can create such a committee, but I won't vote for it because I (1) hate committees and (2) will not allow such a committee to be connected with the UN. I would allow it to exist by itself, because it wouldn't bother me with things.

I don't think you can possibly argue that this committee will speed anything up or improve anything. If everything had to go through a committee, it would severely impede progress. In my honourable opinion, committees do nothing but impede the progress of the UN.


I urge the honourable representative to read section 3, and note the use of the word "require".

I did, and I made an argument against this in my last post:


We feel it is our own responsibility to moderate our immigration and emigration and the UN has no business in it.


Which is why the task is left to the neutral, independent CRC.

Independent of who? Certainly not the UN. Which it what I wish.


I hope the honourable Dr. Hodz will take the time to read the proposal in depth.
I did, thanks. And I still hate it. Still AGAINST.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador/Representative and
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of Kent
"Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong."

You can create such a committee, but I won't vote for it because I (1) hate committees and (2) will not allow such a committee to be connected with the UN. I would allow it to exist by itself, because it wouldn't bother me with things.

I don't think you can possibly argue that this committee will speed anything up or improve anything. If everything had to go through a committee, it would severely impede progress. In my honourable opinion, committees do nothing but impede the progress of the UN.


I would be curious, in that case, to hear how you would deal with this issue.

It is absolutely undeniable, moreover, that this committee does something new, concrete, practical and progressive, and therefore improves people's lives. As you well know, UN committees are objective and efficient. The world is better off with the CRC than without it.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I am not in any way supportive of UN attempts to infringe upon the Lower Pittsburghistani economy nor make extraneous demands on our immigration and emigration laws. Unfortunately it seems as if the rest of the world is all too happy to lay their heads on the chopping block in a blind and empty sense of righteousness.

I would be curious, in that case, to hear how you would deal with this issue.
I would ignore it, because my nation is located in a frozen wasteland. I wouldn't mind if it got warmer.

It is absolutely undeniable, moreover, that this committee does something new, concrete, practical and progressive, and therefore improves people's lives.

This committee doesn't do anything new, concrete, practical and progressive. We've had global warming proposals in the past.

There. I just denied it. Ha.

Are you generalizing here, or inferring? Something new, practical and progressive could be the election of a different president, but that doesn't guarantee that it will improve anyone's life.


As you well know, UN committees are objective and efficient.

Ha! That's funny. UN committees slow things down. If my declaration of war on a country that just nuked me had to go through a committee, it would be a lot slower than just counterattacking.

UN committees aren't objective, in the partisan sense. They're created for a certain issue (in this case, global warming) and they will worked to their own ends. Committees are just as corrupt as everyone else.

The world is better off with the CRC than without it.

Hmm. That's your own opinion. And I disagree.

What good can come from committees? None.

Not So Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador/Representative and
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of Kent
"Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong."

The Empire of Complete Malevolence has cast its vote against this resolution.

Aside from establishing the Climate Refugee Commission this resolution is totally spineless as it merely recommends and urges.

Furthermore the Climate Refugee Commission is empowered to, "...require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees..." thus infringing on a nation's right to determine its immigration policy independent of outside influence.

Ragnar Guthrum
U.N. Ambassador
Empire of Complete Malevolence

We think it's unfortunate that the representative of Complete Malevolence chose to quote one phrase of the resolution out of context and thus distort the effect of the resolution. To place the matter in its proper context, here is the complete text of the clause:

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.

We believe that every nation has the absolute and inviolable right to control entry to their sovereign territories. We have fought hard against several proposals before this Assembly on those grounds. But the current proposal doesn't abrogate that right. It provides alternatives. It requires nations to step up and take responsibility for their contributions to the distress of the "climate refugees", but allows them a choice of the means to do so.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Democratic Republic of Billopesha would like to say that we understand and agree on most of the points made so far on this issue. But we still have some concerns about this resolution.

Billopesha is wary about the issue of refugees immigrating into the country. We are believers that countries are there to create cultural boundaries so that the population of a country all have similar ideas. So to mix different cultures obviously causes 'clashing' problems. Although it has already been stated that there is likely to be a minimal number distributed to different countries depending on their position in causing global warming, it still depends on how rapidly climate change occurs. Shouldn't we wait until the scientists have a firm result on that?

We of Billopesha are only concerned about this but also believe that it is too early to begin dealing with climate change. More money should be put into preventing it first.

Billopesha also understands how many lives are at risk from global warming in certain areas. But isn't it true that we as humans are constantly living in areas that are susceptible to nature’s forces? Many places are in very low-lying areas so obviously will get flooded at some point. Some places are near plate boundaries and so withstand earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Maybe the answer is to relocate some of these places?

There is also still a possibility that it is mostly nature that causes climate change and if so then we do have to build around it and cope with the situation. But of course if humans are mostly responsible, then incidents can be prevented and so we should focus on preventing disasters. Other countries shouldn't have to pay for a country where the land will obviously be attacked by nature even if that country has minimal responsibility for global warming. And what if the country that is prone to disasters is itself more responsible for global warming than other countries? Does that mean the refugees won't be allowed to immigrate in another country? After all, it is firm but fair.

Thank you from the Democratic Republic of Billopesha

As we stated during the drafting phase, we had issues with the requirements forcing nations to host refugees. Our issues remain unresolved, although my therapist tells me we're getting there.

*rimshot*

But more seriously, we do not feel that the establishment of a political committee will be in the best interests of those displaced by climate change, much less for the rampant bureacracy here in the UN.

Regretfully, we must oppose.

Rang Erman
Advisor

We think it's unfortunate that the representative of Complete Malevolence chose to quote one phrase of the resolution out of context and thus distort the effect of the resolution. To place the matter in its proper context, here is the complete text of the clause:

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.


We believe that every nation has the absolute and inviolable right to control entry to their sovereign territories. We have fought hard against several proposals before this Assembly on those grounds. But the current proposal doesn't abrogate that right. It provides alternatives. It requires nations to step up and take responsibility for their contributions to the distress of the "climate refugees", but allows them a choice of the means to do so.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

While the Empire of Complete Malevolence accepts that it may have misrepresented the effects of this resolution, we would like to draw our esteemed colleague's attention to the following portion of the clause in question:

"Alternately, and with the CRC’s consent..."

While the resolution does provide for possible alternatives to accepting refugees, it raises the possibility that the CRC will refuse to accept the money, infrastructure, and or aid contributed by a nation and force them despite their objections to accept refugees instead.

If the CRC's consent was not required then we might consider approving this resolution. However we can not accept this resolution in its current form and we remain firmly opposed.

Ragnar Guthrum
U.N. Ambassador
Empire of Complete Malevolence

We of Billopesha are only concerned about this but also believe that it is too early to begin dealing with climate change. More money should be put into preventing it first.

This proposal doesn't stop you from trying to prevent it. In fact, it encourages nations to deal with the issue, if they want to avoid having to welcome refugees or assist in their resettlement elsewhere.


And what if the country that is prone to disasters is itself more responsible for global warming than other countries? Does that mean the refugees won't be allowed to immigrate in another country? After all, it is firm but fair.


Then that country will face the obligation of resettling its own refugees.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Dominion of Random Temporal Musers is in full sipport of this resoloution.

However we request details of the composition of the commitee and how this has been decided.

We also commend Arridia for adressing this important issue and submitting a proposal that works towards an achievable, meaningful goal


Charles Lite
Abassador to the U.N

The Democratic Republic of Billopesha would like to thank you for responding to our enquires although I don't believe all of them have been answered.

This proposal doesn't stop you from trying to prevent it. In fact, it encourages nations to deal with the issue, if they want to avoid having to welcome refugees or assist in their resettlement elsewhere.


I understand that it does encourage tackling global warming. But if I was using my nation's money to fund refugees from other nations rather than using it to go towards preventing climate change in my own country, then wouldn't that be a problem?

Then that country will face the obligation of resettling its own refugees.

If Billopesha was that country, then how could I resettle my refugees? Would I be that much to blame that my people would suffer? Have nations had enough time since the revelation about human effects on the planet to mean they could have stopped it?

The Dominion of Random Temporal Musers is in full sipport of this resoloution.

However we request details of the composition of the commitee and how this has been decided.

We also commend Arridia for adressing this important issue and submitting a proposal that works towards an achievable, meaningful goal

Thank you. The Committee will be formed by independent experts.

OOC: Committees in the NSUN just "are". They're generally considered to be formed of literal-minded, entirely neutral people who do exactly what the letter of the law says.

I understand that it does encourage tackling global warming. But if I was using my nation's money to fund refugees from other nations rather than using it to go towards preventing climate change in my own country, then wouldn't that be a problem?

Arguably, but I don't think so. As stated previously, the expense of welcoming a small number of refugees would be minimal. There's nothing to prevent you from devoting funds towards tackling climate change.


If Billopesha was that country, then how could I resettle my refugees? Would I be that much to blame that my people would suffer?

I wasn't really clear enough; sorry. You would not have to resettle all of them yourself. But, if your country has a huge impact on climate change, you will have to resettle some. It isn't about "blame". The refugees are human beings who need help, and it seems fair and logical that those who are responsible for their condition should assist in resettling them.

Further questions will, for the time being, be answered by Dr. Fabien Armand (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fabien_Armand), to whom I cede the floor.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The honourable delegate from Blackbug fully supports this resolution. It is in the interests of our small population that we should accept a) lots more people and b) lots of money because this will in the long run aid our economic prospects by lowering the high labour costs which prevail in our country. Anyone wishing to immigrate into Blackbug will definitely be allowed in, because Blackbug has a place for all, from the lowly unskilled labourers who can join the work gangs in the uranium mines to the important business CEO's who will be able to lend new power to our economy, all will be accepted. The delegate of Blackbug would also like to consider the future, when the threat of global warming has receded, that those people who wished to immigrate into Blackbug will consider themselves full and willing citizens of Blackbug, thanks to the amazing coercive powers of the government sponsored propaganda. We hope that all nations who do not recognise this amazing economic opportunity for what it is suffer from having their homes flooded and their economies collapse.

Thank you

The delegate opens himself to any points of information.

Thank you for your reply.

You would not have to resettle all of them yourself. But, if your country has a huge impact on climate change, you will have to resettle some. It isn't about "blame". The refugees are human beings who need help, and it seems fair and logical that those who are responsible for their condition should assist in resettling them.

But how would you know if a disaster was caused by global warming or not? Wouldn't that arguement cause friction between nations? I understand that it is about helping human beings but there are other ways that might seem fairer. If a country is developing and hasn't been able to prevent global warming, isn't it a considerable strain to then have take in refugees or resettle their own?

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.

We had two hesitations. First, we have considerable doubt about the scientific validity of the whole "climate change" business. There's been far too much selective presentation of evidence for us to be comfortable. But we believe that the resolution makes sufficient provision for assuring that decisions will not be based on junk science, but on hard evidence.

Our second problem was with an earlier draft, which would have forced us and our sister nations to allow "climate refugees" to enter our borders. We would not accept that under any circumstances. The right to control of entry to our nation we consider inviolable. That concern has been eliminated by the alternatives provided in the resolution.

As for the petulant ranting of the representative of Seabear70, we have given it all the consideration it deserves: none. We'd suggest the representative either learn to conduct himself like an adult or take his insults and screaming back to the playground, where they might impress the other children.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

So, other delegates are allowed to intimidate the members of our group, but I am not allowed to call them either on their threats or on the fac that their assumptions are completely invalid?

We think it's unfortunate that the representative of Complete Malevolence chose to quote one phrase of the resolution out of context and thus distort the effect of the resolution. To place the matter in its proper context, here is the complete text of the clause:



We believe that every nation has the absolute and inviolable right to control entry to their sovereign territories. We have fought hard against several proposals before this Assembly on those grounds. But the current proposal doesn't abrogate that right. It provides alternatives. It requires nations to step up and take responsibility for their contributions to the distress of the "climate refugees", but allows them a choice of the means to do so.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The only alternitive it offers is to pay millions of assanines in blackmail to a commission who would initially be set up as a method of legitimizing corruption!

And I have still not heard any acceptance of responsibility or an appology to the member nations for the basless accusations laid down earlier today!

Thank you for your reply.



But how would you know if a disaster was caused by global warming or not? Wouldn't that arguement cause friction between nations? I understand that it is about helping human beings but there are other ways that might seem fairer. If a country is developing and hasn't been able to prevent global warming, isn't it a considerable strain to then have take in refugees or resettle their own?


Furthermore, even if we accept the dubious claims of global warming and climate change, they effects from these PR campaigns would take centuries, not days, and as such would be unmeasurable within the lifetimes of the delegates.

So, once again, this Commission, is nothing but a sham set up to force bribes and reward nations for popularity.

This whole resolution is an outrage!

In our discussion sessions about the legal application of UN law here in the offices, we got to discussing the holes in the proposal, and the legal ramifications should it pass.

I had our librarian do some digging, and she came up with this: The Refugee Protection Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Refugee_Protection_Act), the only legislation on the UN rolls dealing directly with refugees.

This made the ambassador very happy.

Further, we looked into "Rights and Duties of UN States," which guarantees our nation the right to perform legal matters to our own discretion, pursuant to UN compliance.

Therefore, we came to a miraculous conclusion about the current proposal: It won't hurt us one bit.

Consider: the Empire is a huge interstellar nation, encompassing hundreds of planets, moons, and space stations. We figure that if we get saddled with some grubby, dirty refugees who built their homes below sea level, we'll just ship them off to a mining colony and force them to work for the Empire. Furthermore, if we are instead forced to pay monetary reparations, we will respond thusly: issue all funds in the form of junk bonds tied to the market price of non-pasteurized cat milk. It's very low.

This proposal makes no guarantees about the treatment of said refugees. The committee amounts to nothing more than a referendum on political punishment regarding the environment, and it uses people as a tool.

We cannot stress enough the holes in the proposal. I hope that the poor refugees forced out of their homes enjoy mining; because in the Empire that's what they'll have to do.

Rang Erman
Advisor

But how would you know if a disaster was caused by global warming or not?


That will be up to the CRC to determine. We will, obviously, not be influencing them in any way. It will be determined objectively, based on hard scientific evidence.


Wouldn't that arguement cause friction between nations? I understand that it is about helping human beings but there are other ways that might seem fairer. If a country is developing and hasn't been able to prevent global warming, isn't it a considerable strain to then have take in refugees or resettle their own?

No, since the numbers will be small in any case. There will not be any significant strain on any nation. I must emphasise again that this isn't about "punishment". Each nation will only be required to take in a tiny number of refugees from any disaster, and they even have the option of contributing other forms of assistance instead.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3964/armandbdy9.jpg
Dr. Fabien Armand

So, are you ever going to appoligize for your baseless attack?

For that matter are you now admitting this is dealing strictly with Global Warming and the Psuedo-science that supports it?

Therefore, we came to a miraculous conclusion about the current proposal: It won't hurt us one bit.

Which is, I believe, the point Ambassador Zyryanov has been trying to make.


We figure that if we get saddled with some grubby, dirty refugees who built their homes below sea level, we'll just ship them off to a mining colony and force them to work for the Empire.


Why? For the sake of some perverted principle, you would condemn the unfortunate to a life of further misery? You are aware, are you not, that the number of refugees you would be required to accept would be miniscule... a fraction of a drop in the ocean compared to your population's natural increase? Why, then, disgrace yourself in the eyes of the international community, rather than behave in a human manner which will cost you virtually nothing?


Dr. Fabien Armand

I am still not sure how the CRC could ditermine whether a disaster was caused by global warming or not? Couldn't they discover that it was actually a natural disaster and not one caused by global warming?

Hey, the right amount of asenines in the right pockets will cause a drought in a dessert to become global warming, and you can even stack your enemies with refugees to sweeten the deal by crashing their economy.

After all, the CRC has a lot of discression. :rolleyes:

That will be up to the CRC to determine. We will, obviously, not be influencing them in any way. It will be determined objectively, based on hard scientific evidence.

I am still not sure how the CRC could ditermine whether a disaster was caused by global warming or not? Couldn't they discover that it was actually a natural disaster and not one caused by global warming?

Therefore, we came to a miraculous conclusion about the current proposal: It won't hurt us one bit.


Which is, I believe, the point Ambassador Zyryanov has been trying to make.

Consider this: If this resolution has no effect, why should it be passed? It will be like those other resolutions that fail to have effect. It will take up valuable space and rot.

We see no reason to vote for this resolution, whether it has effect or not.

We do, however, look forward to another proposal by Ariddia. We commend Ariddia on excellent composition, we just disagree with you.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador and
Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences
University of Kent

I am still not sure how the CRC could ditermine whether a disaster was caused by global warming or not? Couldn't they discover that it was actually a natural disaster and not one caused by global warming?

The actual wording of the proposal doesn't say that the CRC would determine the causes for a specific disaster, but rather the adverse impact of nations on the climate in general.

Consider this: If this resolution has no effect, why should it be passed? It will be like those other resolutions that fail to have effect. It will take up valuable space and rot.


No, you misunderstand. I said its effect on nations having to welcome refugees would be very slight (which is not the same as "no effect"); more importantly, however, its positive effect on climate refugees would be tremendous. The resolution will have an effect - a very beneficial one for climate refugees.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

Given that this resolution is not only bound to impede the economic progress of nations around the world, but also a textbook example of the rape of economic freedom, I am absolutely disgusted by it. The good intentions of this resolution and of those who support it are irrelevant if freedom is the cost of their vision. Bukkakus will not support the proposal.

The actual wording of the proposal doesn't say that the CRC would determine the causes for a specific disaster, but rather the adverse impact of nations on the climate in general.

Oh, I get it, you want to punish nations for their percieved yet unproven effects on global warming, something you have no intrest in understanding.

No, you misunderstand. I said its effect on nations having to welcome refugees would be very slight (which is not the same as "no effect"); more importantly, however, its positive effect on climate refugees would be tremendous. The resolution will have an effect - a very beneficial one for climate refugees.

And can you point to one? As we do not have a way of measuring or determining that the people are infact refugees due to climate, and as you have just stated, have no intention of even trying to determine whether such disasters actually exist, then is it not fair to say that this resolution is nothing but a graft grab and a method of punishing nations that are unpopular?

The actual wording of the proposal doesn't say that the CRC would determine the causes for a specific disaster, but rather the adverse impact of nations on the climate in general.

But I was also referring to other more subtle changes as well. I can understand that a rise in the temperature of the climate would be hard evidence but when the proposal refers to the flooding of low-lying areas, that could be caused by nature, especially as low-lying area are always susceptible to floods.

Also, as climate change progresses, won't the number of refugees grow? Although it may start as a trickle, as more places become inhabitable, won't the world appear to be shrinking with more and more refugees crowding into a decreasing number of habitable nations. Although it is unlikely to go that rapidly, it still might and it just shows where this proposal would be heading.

Although refusing refugees in deperate need into your countries might seem inhumane, it would go out of our control.

But I was also referring to other more subtle changes as well. I can understand that a rise in the temperature of the climate would be hard evidence but when the proposal refers to the flooding of low-lying areas, that could be caused by nature, especially as low-lying area are always susceptible to floods.

Yes, that's true. And that would be up to the CRC to determine.


Also, as climate change progresses, won't the number of refugees grow? Although it may start as a trickle, as more places become inhabitable, won't the world appear to be shrinking with more and more refugees crowding into a decreasing number of habitable nations. Although it is unlikely to go that rapidly, it still might and it just shows where this proposal would be heading.


I doubt it would come to that, especially if this resolution helps prevent it. But if it does happen, then the existence of this resolution definitely won't make things worse. If billions of peoples' homes were to become uninhabitable, you can be sure they'd go and live somewhere, out of sheer necessity, and they'd be no way to stop them. In this hypothetical situation, the CRC would prove more benficial than not, coordinating and regulating the inevitable flow.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

This resolution is absolutely terrible. What on earth willl it do? Allocate so-called "climate refugees" to countries? And what does it mean by allocating refugees proportional to countries that pollute? Will that not end up putting refugees from polluted countries into countries that pollute? Will that not make the problem worse? If we're going to deal with climate change, let's draft a resolution that deals with climate change. The amount of people who are currently "climate refugees," that is, people who are refugees because of permanent climate change, is nominal. This resolution is ridiculous because it attempts to solve a problem no one has, and it solves the problem poorly. Let's deal with climate change, not an obscure refugee problem.

If we're going to deal with climate change, let's draft a resolution that deals with climate change. [...] Let's deal with climate change, not an obscure refugee problem.

I assume, then, that you're planning to write a proposal and submit it?


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

I assume, then, that you're planning to write a proposal and submit it?


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

Dr. This whole resolution is about nothing but the dubious science of global warming, and a concensous vote on the belief in it.

It is so poorly written that it cannot help but undermine the structure of the UN, and should not have been allowed to come to vote.

As a rather new Delegate to the UN, Pahket finds reading through all the differences a fine way to understand all of the Proposal's parts.

After long consideration, Pahket will stand behind ESAT and vote 'YES' for this.

As a rather new Delegate to the UN, Pahket finds reading through all the differences a fine way to understand all of the Proposal's parts.

After long consideration, Pahket will stand behind ESAT and vote 'YES' for this.

Welcome to the United Nations, and thank you for your support. I'd also like to commend you for your effort to understand the proposal and think it through before voting. Not all members of this esteemed Assembly are as thorough as you, alas.

Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

First, we appreciate the professionalism shown to our ambassador and we strongly suggest other states take an example of it; this is the fate of the modern world in our hands, we see no reason to spoil an atmosphere of intelligent discussion with childish antics. Now, on to business:

1) First my fellow states, we would like to remind everyone that a debate on such a proposal is not a personal attack against the states involved, nor is it an attack against the state that proposed. We have already mentioned that we find the proposal noble in nature but have a few problems with some of the “finer-print” details. We would appreciate nothing more than to have our suspicions shown as false, and would love to ultimately endorse a proposal if the time is right.

2) We are still concerned with any number of immigrants entering our country however negligible (a highly relative term) their presence may be.

3) Furthermore, we are still concerned that such a committee could potentially misuse its “elected power”. We realize the legislation does not give the right of governments to “export” its citizens, but it doesn’t rule out mutual deals could be made concerning the number of “refugees” a committee would be willing to relocate.

We hope to iron out these differences accordingly

After a careful and thorough review of this resolution, and the arguments both for and against it, the Kingdom of Altanar has decided to cast its vote in favor. We feel that this resolution is a good first step in encouraging the international community to become better stewards over their respective environments, and that the resolution as drafted offers nations acceptable alternatives for doing their fair share in this regard.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Originally Posted by Ausserland
Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.

We had two hesitations. First, we have considerable doubt about the scientific validity of the whole "climate change" business. There's been far too much selective presentation of evidence for us to be comfortable. But we believe that the resolution makes sufficient provision for assuring that decisions will not be based on junk science, but on hard evidence.

Our second problem was with an earlier draft, which would have forced us and our sister nations to allow "climate refugees" to enter our borders. We would not accept that under any circumstances. The right to control of entry to our nation we consider inviolable. That concern has been eliminated by the alternatives provided in the resolution.

As for the petulant ranting of the representative of Seabear70, we have given it all the consideration it deserves: none. We'd suggest the representative either learn to conduct himself like an adult or take his insults and screaming back to the playground, where they might impress the other children.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

So, other delegates are allowed to intimidate the members of our group, but I am not allowed to call them either on their threats or on the fac that their assumptions are completely invalid?

We have no idea who your "group" is supposed to be, or why they'd feel intimidated. And, looking through this thread, we couldn't find any of those supposed threats you mentioned.

You probably haven't noticed that several members of the Assembly have argued against the resolution calmly and reasonably. Their comments have met with respectful and reasonable response. That's far different from the tantrum-throwing, whining and name-calling you seem to think is proper debate. If you acted like a reasonable adult, you'd be treated like one. Try it sometime.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

This resolution is appalling on two fronts.

First, it is recommending that affected nations must allow international aid teams to allow in affected areas, this may lead to two problems:

1. Enemy countries can send spies in the country where such areas can be in chaos and they cannot verify who came and who left.
2. Aid teams from some countries can brain wash poor climate refugees and take them back with themselves and recruit them as potential terrorists.

Secondly, all the work of CRC is based on data obtained from theory which we feel is not authentic enough to make them a base for any resolutions. These theories are still debatable and not a fact.

Hence, we are voting against the resolution and hope other nations can foresee the problems this resolution may cause.

Kokaf

It has been a long-standing policy in Norderia to ensure that the population of this world is treated equitably and kindly. In keeping with our wide-spread belief that those with no home can find one on our Cold Shores (proper evaluations withstanding), this delegation has cast its vote FOR the current Resolution. The Cold Shores have for many years used cleaner and more efficient power sources, and strict environmental regulations to ensure that the untouched landscapes of the nation remain so.

We see this Resolution as an opportunity to see that other nations make similar efforts and strive to improve the condition of industry within their own borders and further the advancement of environmental protection. In ensuring that their own nations will not be burdened (so small a burden though it may be) by climate refugees, it is this delegation's hope that they will put forth changes in their own policies about their energy sources and environmental protections.

Norderia, as we often do, stands with the PDSRA.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Hypothetical situation: A tornado heads through the american midwest, an area belonging to an extremely rich nation and frequented by tornados. If the occupant of that region decides they want to move, under this proposed resolution they could declare themselves a refugee and a 3rd party commision could declare that another nation is forced to accept them as refugees.

2) We are still concerned with any number of immigrants entering our country however negligible (a highly relative term) their presence may be.

I understand the honourable representative's concern, although I must emphasise that the number will indeed be small - all the more so if Valkyron's overall impact on the climate is negligeable.

You will notice that the CRC includes resettlement experts. These were added on the advice of another nation, whom I am grateful to. Thus the CRC will be able to assist any nation in welcoming and integrating refugees - and, just as importantly, will facilitate measures for that nation to provide resettlement aid instead of actual resettlement, if necessary.


3) Furthermore, we are still concerned that such a committee could potentially misuse its “elected power”. We realize the legislation does not give the right of governments to “export” its citizens, but it doesn’t rule out mutual deals could be made concerning the number of “refugees” a committee would be willing to relocate.


The number of refugees to be relocated will be a matter for the CRC and for the refugees themselves. The destination of the refugees, however, may indeed be negotiated to some extent with receiving nations. I don't believe that to be cause for concern, however, since UN committees are known to be above reproach.

I would like to thank the honourable representative for raising valid points through calm and intelligent discussion.


First, it is recommending that affected nations must allow international aid teams to allow in affected areas, this may lead to two problems:

1. Enemy countries can send spies in the country where such areas can be in chaos and they cannot verify who came and who left.

If a nation is, at any time, incapable of controlling its borders, then surely the honourable representative realises that this proposal will not make it any more or less incapable of doing so.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasise that nations remain free to ignore a recommendation from the United Nations, if necessary, and that the clause invoked, as you will see, is a recommendation. Your concern on this issue is therefore utterly unfounded.


2. Aid teams from some countries can brain wash poor climate refugees and take them back with themselves and recruit them as potential terrorists.


I beg your pardon? I would thank the honourable delegate not to resort to baseless scaremongering.


Secondly, all the work of CRC is based on data obtained from theory which we feel is not authentic enough to make them a base for any resolutions. These theories are still debatable and not a fact.


You've misread. There is no endorsement of any "theory" in this proposal, other than the utterly indisputed fact that human activity has some impact at least on the climate, however slight. What this impact may be is left entirely up to the CRC to determine, without the answer being given in advance by this proposal.

I hope I've adressed the honourable representative's concerns and shown them to be unfounded.


We see this Resolution as an opportunity to see that other nations make similar efforts and strive to improve the condition of industry within their own borders and further the advancement of environmental protection.

We share that hope, and would like to thank the Norderian delegation for their support.

Hypothetical situation: A tornado heads through the american midwest, an area belonging to an extremely rich nation and frequented by tornados. If the occupant of that region decides they want to move, under this proposed resolution they could declare themselves a refugee and a 3rd party commision could declare that another nation is forced to accept them as refugees.

I'm not sure what or where the "American Midwest" is, but I'd like to clarify this issue. First, with a reminder that the CRC steps in only once a refugee has tried and failed repeatedly to be allowed to emigrate to several foreign countries. Second, that the CRC is under no obligation to agree to a refugee's request to emigrate, if the refugee can be rehoused in a satisfactory manner within his or her own country (clauses 2 & 3). Third, that, if the nation of origin has a significant adverse impact on the climate, it can be required to resettle a significant number of its own refugees.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

EDIT: Arridia explained better than me.

Hirota votes FOR this proposal, and will be hassling my region to do the same.

The GPRG will cast it's vote FOR this resolution. We agree with voices raised concerning the threat of "climate change" and "global warming" and would too like to see more extensive preventative legeslation. We do, however, see no problem in seeking legeslation of this kind, and supporting the current resolution.

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

So, are you ever going to appoligize for your baseless attack?

Haven't really seen these baseless attacks you keep whining about. You might want to dial back the persecution complex a bit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yes, that's true. And that would be up to the CRC to determine.

I doubt it would come to that, especially if this resolution helps prevent it. But if it does happen, then the existence of this resolution definitely won't make things worse. If billions of peoples' homes were to become uninhabitable, you can be sure they'd go and live somewhere, out of sheer necessity, and they'd be no way to stop them. In this hypothetical situation, the CRC would prove more benficial than not, coordinating and regulating the inevitable flow.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

The Democratic Republic of Billopesha thanks you for your response to our concerns.

We are now satisfied that the issue on refugees will not be a problem. We now understand that most of points raised, like the possibility of underhand work by another nation and the migration of people from an area affected by climate change, would occur regardless of the proposal that has been put forward.

We now understand that the proposal will actually improve the situation by encourging the prevention of global warming and organising the flow of refugees into a fair and efficient system.

Therefore, Billopesha has voted in favour of this proposal and hope that it will improve the climate change crisis significantly.

Although, our nation is still wary about how the CRC would be able to collect hard evidence about whether a crisis has been caused by humans or nature. We would be interested to know how the results of the investigations go.

Retired WerePenguins strongly supports this resolution!

I'm fascinated by the notion that somehow this is about "global warming." I really can't see how this is about global warming. Climate change happens! Let's look at this resolution for a moment.

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;

Clearly there is a bit of text that talks about temperature increase but it is not all about temperature increase. If I had to make a personal gripe it would not be that global warming was included but that continental drift was not included ... at least directly. The best example is the creation of the Black Sea although there are other scenarios for future flooding due to continental breakups.

But all that is in the fluff part, so we need to look at the real meat of the resolution, "measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation." Yes I can just see it now. All the pro nuclear nations bitterly complaining that they shouldn't be assessed for all those nuclear winters they are causing. Poor Cluich complaining that the total obliteration of nations by the death star doesn't really cause any significant climate change and that the UN Gnomes are once again wrong.

And what happens if you are found guilty? You have to either let people into your country or pay a small fee. But, and here is the kicker, you only have to do this if the refugees have been denied by at least four countries. No worries there. There are enough bleeding heart liberal nations to constantly accept climate change immigrants (take Frustrated Franciscans as an example) so if any nation thinks that their bank will be broken as a result of this resolution I have one thing to say ... you bank needs to be broken.

Having already cast Ardchoille's vote FOR the proposal, that being, in my opinion, the only way we could in good conscience vote, my original intention was to sit comfortably through the debate and get on with my crochet.

However, owing probably to a misguided decision by the Ardchoillean Broadcasting Commission to air a month-long Star Trek marathon, my office has been inundated with demands from citizens to know what effect this proposal will have on and in the Multiverse.

I have, of course, told them that if a specific planet is suffering climate change caused by the action of its inhabitants, this proposal will apply, but if not, not.

Unfortunately, this appears to be unconvincing, owing to the absence of technobabble. I would greatly appreciate it, Dr Armand, if you or one of your staff could supply me with a more important-sounding answer, plus, of course, any further comments you might choose to make on the subject.

While we're on the topic, I also have here a missive written in painstaking Klingon pointing out that a planet could be seething with climate change refugees through (a) a scientific experiment gone wrong or (b) asteroid impact. What, the writer wants to know, would happen then?

Every time I supply a reasonable answer, along the lines of "the CRC will evaluate the situation" and "The Gnomes will make sure the scientists and relocation experts are unbiased and sensible", the writer proposes even more bizarre developments, including but not limited to terrorists, really evil aliens and the Brethren of the Rosy Cross.

I am wondering if one of the talented delegates here can help me out with the Klingon for "Sorry, we don't do Tuesdays," or some similarly polite but dismissive phrase or phrases.

Finally, I have noticed that the delegate from Seabear 70 appears to have accidentally been given a copy of the canteen's dessert menu, rather than the actual proposal at vote --Hey, the right amount of asenines in the right pockets will cause a drought in a dessert to become global warming, and you can even stack your enemies with refugees to sweeten the deal by crashing their economy. -- so I have sent my intern over with a photocopy of the matter under discussion.

Dicey Reilly, wrongly President of Ardchoille.

Meh. I'm just waiting for the next ice age. Hibernation is very relaxing.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Presumably, Mme Vermithrax, you keep your dragonfires stoked?

Haven't really seen these baseless attacks you keep whining about. You might want to dial back the persecution complex a bit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

On the first page of the thread, Arddidia, or however it's spelled, attacked Bar-Steward, claiming that they most be destroying the environment since they had reservations about this resolution.

Same old scare tactics on a subject that is based on them. :rolleyes:

OOC: out of curiosity, I was informed a while back that global warming does not exist in the nationstates universe. Assuming this is true, doesn't this make this resolution all the more an obvious violation of the rules?

OOC: out of curiosity, I was informed a while back that global warming does not exist in the nationstates universe. Assuming this is true, doesn't this make this resolution all the more an obvious violation of the rules?

OOC: No. I'm not sure if global warming exists in the NS world. Hell, I have serious doubts about all the global warming stuff in RL! But nowhere is the resolution dependent on the existence of global warming. Take a minute to look very carefully at the definition:

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;

Where does global warming come in? Well, if it exists and causes a temperature shift of +2°C or more, there you are. But notice that there's no "+" in the resolution. If we believe that the world of NS is at the start of a "New Ice Age", the resolution would apply. If there are local or regional temperature shifts because of long-term changes in ocean currents or atmospheric conditions, same thing. And then we have the "recurrent natural disasters" and "flooding". The definition has a much broader scope than global warming, making the existence or non-existence of global warming irrelevant to the legality and viability of the resolution.

OOC: out of curiosity, I was informed a while back that global warming does not exist in the nationstates universe. Assuming this is true, doesn't this make this resolution all the more an obvious violation of the rules?

No. Because anthropogenic global warming as is currently the rage in the realworld doesn't exist here. However, it is very possible for environmental damage to be caused by NS nations- something that this bill looks to punish, if through the saddling of refugees or monetary demands.

So no. Take your belligerence elsewhere.

Rang Erman
Advisor

Finlandites is not sure of the rest of the world, but here we don't allow any "refugees" into our country without paying a hefty price. It would ruin our culture and everything would drop, from employment rates to our national intelligence. We need to make sure that these "refugees" can properly contribute to society before we let them roam our streets. Who knows? They could be terrorists. I say all "refugees" deemed unfit to enter into my country should be made to go on a seperate island to live in solitude.

The UN climate change refugee bill it is dangerous as it gives legitimacy to human cause climate change. As climate change is caused by natural cycles of solar flare acctivity and changes in the suns temperature we should not give the idea that climate change is real the time of day. :headbang:

Thank You
UN Representative for Northern Freeland Domain
The Dominion of 1st Canadian Republic and it's Protectorate 1st Canadian RepublicP

Also I am willing to answer any questions about my request that you might have by telegram.

Finlandites is not sure of the rest of the world, but here we don't allow any "refugees" into our country without paying a hefty price. It would ruin our culture and everything would drop, from employment rates to our national intelligence. We need to make sure that these "refugees" can properly contribute to society before we let them roam our streets. Who knows? They could be terrorists. I say all "refugees" deemed unfit to enter into my country should be made to go on a seperate island to live in solitude.

The resolution at hand offers options other than resettling refugees. Quoted from the original text:

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

As for your other concerns, to be blunt, if your nation is too incompetent to properly accomodate refugees, that is unfortunate, but is no point against the resolution at hand.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The Republic is opposed to welcoming refugees but it is doing all it can do stop climate change.

First off, this is a thoughtfully composed piece of legislation. However, I do not support it. At least not yet.

Now:

Who will comprise the CRC?

(OOC: or is that a Gnomes-type issue?)

Also, how can any change in climate be analyzed in such a way as to legitimately determine which nations bear how much responisibility with regard to another nation's lowland inundation? There is no way I'm voting in favor of this until I see some kind of plan or formula or something that tells my Magister how his nation is in any way directly responsible for X number of refugees' (or gigs') worth of the inundated nations' unfortunate plight.

I have no problem with accepting refugees -- in fact, there's already a UN resolution on the subject. I also understand that the debate over climate change here in NS has not come to any kind of conclusion regarding sapient beings' role in it. That's fine.

However, an arbitrary commission telling me my nation is responsible for such-and-such amount of the current climate catastrophe had jolly-well better show me exactly HOW they arrived at that conclusion, or they will be told, as politely as possible, to get stuffed.

One more thing -- global climates in general tend to skew the flood-prone areas into the tropics/equatorial regions and the greenhouse-gas-generating areas in the temperate range. I would assume that refugees from equatorial regions would want to remain in those regions for reasons of aclimatization or acculturation. Suppose the refugees don't wish to go to the nations responsible for their homeland's sinking (let alone how they might be compelled to take revenge, as far-fetched as that might seem)? I know the current resolution has a "four strikes" provision in it before the CRC activates the "you made this mess, now reap the consequences" part of the bill, but the question remains.

In the author's defense, incidentally, and were it part of the UN's workings, I would author and submit a draft of censure for the representative from Seabear70. I may be on the same side of this debate as he is, but in NO WAY do his tactics and parliamentary perambulations merit any consideration by this august body.

After much consideration and reading through all other delegates comments and concerns about the proposal we have decided to vote in favour of this proposal.

Sebastian Rath, Sanguinoi ambassador to the UN

I do no not agree with this because as a soverign nation we should not be forced to take in refugees. As it is many countries have to struggle to support their own populations never mind refugees.

In response to the representative of Intangelon: You raise valid questions. I'll try to give satisfactory answers.


Who will comprise the CRC?

Independent climate scientists and resettlement experts. (OOC: Yes, it's a gnome-type issue. As I understand it, all UN committees are.)


There is no way I'm voting in favor of this until I see some kind of plan or formula or something that tells my Magister how his nation is in any way directly responsible for X number of refugees' (or gigs') worth of the inundated nations' unfortunate plight.


That's an understandable concern, but unfortunately... Who else but the CRC would universally be recognised as qualified to do this in an unbiased way? And it can't do it until it's been established. The CRC, incidentally, assesses a nation's impact on the climate in general, not its direct causal impact on a specific catastrophe. Which, I agree, would be remarkably difficult to determine.


However, an arbitrary commission telling me my nation is responsible for such-and-such amount of the current climate catastrophe had jolly-well better show me exactly HOW they arrived at that conclusion


They will. There's no reason for the data to be retained.


One more thing -- global climates in general tend to skew the flood-prone areas into the tropics/equatorial regions and the greenhouse-gas-generating areas in the temperate range. I would assume that refugees from equatorial regions would want to remain in those regions for reasons of aclimatization or acculturation. Suppose the refugees don't wish to go to the nations responsible for their homeland's sinking (let alone how they might be compelled to take revenge, as far-fetched as that might seem)?

Then they won't have to. The CRC cannot force any person to relocate to a destination they don't want to go to.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

I do no not agree with this because as a soverign nation we should not be forced to take in refugees. As it is many countries have to struggle to support their own populations never mind refugees.

I invite the honourable representative to look back at what has already been said in this discussion. And more specifically:

a) that the number of refugees in each nation will be tiny, as simple mathematics will show you (a negligeable number compared, for example, to natural increase); and

b) that, as per clause 3 of the proposal, you may easily be exempt from receiving refugees if, for some strange reason, you can't take in refugees (or if you'd simply rather contribute in some other way).

I hope this addresses your concerns and shows them to be unfounded.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

As the UN delegate for the Damara region, though still not quite in my place due to my fellow nations yet to be accepted into the UN, and the delegate for the Gulaen nation I must voice my discontent at this proposal.

Being a developing nation, and a developing region, it is crucial that we open our boarders to allow in new business that we will be able to tax and spend on infastructure. It seems as just last year we were scrounging around in huts and caves, and yet already we have schools to teach children with and a sprawling road network. We have been able to do this only because we can keep our markets open and cheap, with almost no restrictions on companies.

Once this bill passes you are forcing all of Damara, who are just florishing countries, to place restrictions on businesses so that we don't have to face refugees in the future. Currently my country only has a 1% income tax, it could not handle dealing with refugees that are not citizens while still providing wellfare for me. The countries of Damara would collapse as soon as any amount of refugees where put on them, regardless of the quantity.

It is true that nations should be held responsible for their actions, whether it be environmental, diplomatic, or in war. However as a developing nation I am being punished for trying to promote the style of growth that many of the 1st world nations try to push. In the future I will be able to pay for refugees as the style of work increases the pay and taxes Gulaen receives, but as of now it is too poor and weak to meet the demands of this bill.

This bill favors the rich over the poor, as rich countries can pay for refugees, and put restrictions on companies without sudden fear or a large portion of the governments spending money disapearing as the country outsources yet again. For the sake of the future development of my nation, I oppose this bill.

Further remarks can also be brought against the validity of this bill. It apparent that this bill strikes a strong connection to Global warming. Many scientists believe that this is a result of CO2 and other such emissions in the atmosphere. However recently it has also been shown that the planet has been in a constant shift of high and low temperature changes. I would like to point out that the scientific community has just moved on past the idea of "global cooling" in which the planet has been growing cooler. It was yet another phenominon that many scientists hyped as needing an answer to.

How can we make it clear that a nation is responsible for a climate change when even the scientific community is split over whether or not we are having an effect on climate change?

Allen Haine, UN Delegate for the Republic of Gulaen

The Democratic Republic of Billopesha is aware that the proposal does not refer to global warming.

But the proposal does state:

natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more

And then say:

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.

This together points to the proposal saying that the nations are causing natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more in some way.

This is why we refered to global warming in our comments.

Shouldn't the refugees just be equally distributed amoung the nations no matter how that nation might be affecting nature?

Nevertheless, Billopesha does not see this as a major issue as protecting other human beings is much more significant. So we stand by our vote for this proposal to be accepted.

The countries of Damara would collapse as soon as any amount of refugees
where put on them, regardless of the quantity.


With all due respect to the honourable representative, I find that hard to believe. The number of refugees would be tiny - indeed inconsequential when compared to your country's elderly and dependent or handicapped population. And even tinier compared to your natural growth rate. Unless you have an active and drastic policy of birth control, that is? (That was a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.)


It is true that nations should be held responsible for their actions, whether it be environmental, diplomatic, or in war. However as a developing nation I am being punished for trying to promote the style of growth that many of the 1st world nations try to push. In the future I will be able to pay for refugees as the style of work increases the pay and taxes Gulaen receives, but as of now it is too poor and weak to meet the demands of this bill.


I understand your concerns on this issue. I'd like to bring three points to your attention, however.

First, if you industry is under-developed, chances are your impact on the climate is relatively small compared to more developed nations (at least those who do not practice sustainable development). So the number of refugees you would be required to welcome would even smaller than that of most countries.

Second, clause 3 provides for exemption if you are incapable for some reason of welcoming refugees.

Third, as I hope I've explained, the impact of refugees in your country would be so tiny as to be barely noticeable, in any case. Bear in mind the numbers involved, especially considering that the CRC only relocates refugees who have tried and failed to emigrate several times by themselves. As the esteemed representative of another nation has already pointed out, most refugees will no doubt be resettled voluntarily, without the CRC having to intervene, and without you having to be involved.


This bill favors the rich over the poor,


Not true. My country is one of the poorest countries in the world, in conventional terms, and yet we're the ones proposing this resolution. Why? Because, amongst other things, we practice economically sustainable development, for example through multilateral partnerships with other Third World countries. There are numerous options.


It apparent that this bill strikes a strong connection to Global warming.


Wrong, as I and others have already explained. It does no such thing.

I hope this clarification has helped address your concerns. If you have further questions or uncertainties, please let us know.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

Shouldn't the refugees just be equally distributed amoung the nations no matter how that nation might be affecting nature?


You could make a case in that sense, I suppose. But one of the issues here is responsability (not "punishment", I emphasise). We want to encourage responsible behaviour and, in the long term, hopefully ensure that the CRC is no longer even needed.


Nevertheless, Billopesha does not see this as a major issue as protecting other human beings is much more significant. So we stand by our vote for this proposal to be accepted.

I definitely agree that providing help to climate refugees is the most important issue here.

Thank you for your support.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

Will it be at industry expense or at government expense?

It changes everyting for me.

Will it be at industry expense or at government expense?

It changes everyting for me.

That's entirely up to you. Your government can tax industries to meet any costs, or it can use public funds. The decision is entirely yours.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

With all due respect to the honourable representative, I find that hard to believe. The number of refugees would be tiny - indeed inconsequential when compared to your country's elderly and dependent or handicapped population. And even tinier compared to your natural growth rate. Unless you have an active and drastic policy of birth control, that is? (That was a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.)

My country does not believe in a strong wellfare system, nor social security. The culture and government of Gulaen have a long history of the younger directly helping the needs of the old and infeeble, promoting savings, and that through life and hardwork one can live off of the assets they acquire. It is because of this that we have thankfully be able to keep the cost of running the government small.

Also Gulaen does not currently practice policies of government sponsered birth control, though leave the markets open incase people wish to buy such products and teaching safe sex in schools. Currently population is fairly small and with little immigration will grow slowly, or so it has been predicted by our scientists.


I understand your concerns on this issue. I'd like to bring three points to your attention, however.

First, if you industry is under-developed, chances are your impact on the climate is relatively small compared to more developed nations (at least those who do not practice sustainable development). So the number of refugees you would be required to welcome would even smaller than that of most countries.


Let us say a major nation suffers a drastic "climate change." Suddenly I find myself with thousands of citizens who needs the protection of the government, and have neither jobs or money we can accept. Any amount given how small the government is can cause drastic shifts in it's strength.


Second, clause 3 provides for exemption if you are incapable for some reason of welcoming refugees.

Third, as I hope I've explained, the impact of refugees in your country would be so tiny as to be barely noticeable, in any case. Bear in mind the numbers involved, especially considering that the CRC only relocates refugees who have tried and failed to emigrate several times by themselves. As the esteemed representative of another nation has already pointed out, most refugees will no doubt be resettled voluntarily, without the CRC having to intervene, and without you having to be involved.

Either way we are forced to provide wellfare of sorts to people that we do not know, when we do not even provide it to our own people! Let alone the standard of living you expect these people to live. Again I cite how we have few restrictions on companies, the people are poor, and my money's worth is useless. I cannot pay $30,000 American Dollars when my people only earn an equivalent $2000 a year.

Gulaen would accept citizens, as they can get jobs and be taxed, they can be part of the civilization without need of wellfare. Refugees cannot, and are too much a drain on our developing countries economy.


Not true. My country is one of the poorest countries in the world, in conventional terms, and yet we're the ones proposing this resolution. Why? Because, amongst other things, we practice economically sustainable development, for example through multilateral partnerships with other Third World countries. There are numerous options.

Wrong, as I and others have already explained. It does no such thing.

I hope this clarification has helped address your concerns. If you have further questions or uncertainties, please let us know.

It is good to know that a poor country is proposing this bill, but my country cannot. We are recently formed and despite strong growth since our creation we just cannot afford it. You are requiring Gulaen to put restrictions on it's companies in fear of such a catastrophe happening, and promoting government change that the people don't want or else treating refugees higher then my own citizens.

Finally, I find it humorous how you targeted my global warming remarks, but not the ones that challenge how you will judge the effects on climate countries have when even the scientists you say will do the judging are split on the issue. Whether or not humans are having a profound effect on our environment has yet to been made undeniably true given current evidence.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate for the Republic of Gulaen

Denial of the attachment of this resolution to the myth of Global warming does not make any sense, nor does it inspire trust in the motives of the drafter of the resolution.

The Resolution, as submitted makes the assumption that climate change is a result of human intervention, doubtful at best, even though the drafter admits there is no way to measure the effects of human impact, and makes no attempt to even try.

Furthermore, the nature of these punishments to be handed out, and there is no point at all in claiming they are anything else but punishments, is not even to be applied based on anything approaching a fair level, but is instead to be applied at the discression of a panel.

I cannot se how this can be considered fair, or how it can possibly lead to anything but corruption of a UN panel, and therefore corruption of the UN itself.

Furthermore, I cannot see how this would even be considered legal, as it violates the sovern borders of member nations on the assumption of a fallacy.

OOC : I cannot imagine how I can be any more civil on this subject without lying through my teeth.

First, I would like to commend the representative of Seabear70 for finally engaging in civil conversation. Welcome to the General Assembly.

Denial of the attachment of this resolution to the myth of Global warming does not make any sense, nor does it inspire trust in the motives of the drafter of the resolution.

Everybody else in this august Assembly understands quite clearly that the proposal makes no statement whatsoever on global warming. This has been explained in clear detail by myself and others. As the truism goes: 'The proposal does what the proposal says'. Nothing more.

I refer the honourable representative back to earlier explanations on this point. If there is any specific point the representative of Seabear does not understand, I will be pleased to clarify.


The Resolution, as submitted makes the assumption that climate change is a result of human intervention, doubtful at best,

No, the proposal states that the CRC will measure adverse human impact on the climate. It does not say what the CRC's findings will be. This is a crucial point, which has been stated again and again. I hope I can finally make it clear.

Never is it said or implied that "climate change is the result of human intervention". Climate change is undoubtedly the result of many things, but that will be up to the CRC to determine. This proposal does not take any position on this issue. Of course, it is unquestionable that human activity has some impact on the climate; nobody would ever deny that. But even that this proposal does not say. It leaves the matter entirely to the CRC.


even though the drafter admits there is no way to measure the effects of human impact,


I've never said that.


and makes no attempt to even try.


That matter is up to the CRC. If I had tried to enshrine my own position in this proposal, I would have been in for a lot of criticism. In fact, the honourable representative of Seabear70 mistakenly claims that I do take position. You cannot then turn round and reproach me for not taking position. You can't have it both ways.


and there is no point at all in claiming they are anything else but punishments


You make an absurd and unfounded emotional assertion, which we can quietly ignore. I think we all know the difference between responsability and "punishment". There is no way - given all that has been said, notably on the minimal consequences this resolution will have on nations - you can possibly call this "punishment".


is not even to be applied based on anything approaching a fair level


Yet again, you make an unfounded and untrue claim, with nothing to back it up.


but is instead to be applied at the discression of a panel.


Which, as you would know if you had been in the United Nations longer, is the only accepted, objective, independent way of deciding such issues. I have already asked the representative of Seabear70 to brush up on how United Nations committees function. I've even explained it. I'm not going to do so yet again.

To be ignorant as to the function of UN committees when one is new is acceptable. It is not acceptable to persist in that ignorance once it has been pointed out.


I cannot se how this can be considered fair, or how it can possibly lead to anything but corruption of a UN panel, and therefore corruption of the UN itself.


I have refuted this claim time and time again. One last time, I urge the honourable representative of Seabear70 to educate himself regarding the function of UN committes. With all due respect, if you do not, and if you subsequently persist in these claims, you will be exposing yourself as grossly hypocritical.

I trust this matter can finally be laid to rest.


Furthermore, I cannot see how this would even be considered legal, as it violates the sovern borders of member nations on the assumption of a fallacy.


That point has been adequately addressed by others. I refer the representative of Seabear70 back to the answers they have already given him on this issue.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

I still don't understand how the CRC could possibly judge whether an environmental crisis was caused by human beings or not.

I still don't understand how the CRC could possibly judge whether an environmental crisis was caused by human beings or not.

As I've said, it doesn't. Its purpose is to assess the adverse impact of human activity on the climate in general, not the degree of human agency for specific environmental disasters.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

It would greatly benifit the president of Gulaen if Dr. Armand would address the issue of what would constitute as harm to the environment. I have greatly pressed how the scientific community is still split over whether or not humans have had any effect to our planets climate at all, to which I have received no reply.

I cite the fact that the scientific community has also recently uncovered that our planet has gone through several high-low temperature changes, and that our effect on the environment might be negligable next to these changes and that was changes it is believed we have caused have simply been caught up in this system.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate for the Republic of Gulaen.

It would greatly benifit the president of Gulaen if Dr. Armand would address the issue of what would constitute as harm to the environment. I have greatly pressed how the scientific community is still split over whether or not humans have had any effect to our planets climate at all, to which I have received no reply.

I cite the fact that the scientific community has also recently uncovered that our planet has gone through several high-low temperature changes, and that our effect on the environment might be negligable next to these changes and that was changes it is believed we have caused have simply been caught up in this system.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate for the Republic of Gulaen.

After consulting with scientific experts from around the multiverse, I am inclined to believe that Dr. Armand will not adress the issue because he is unable t oadress the issue of human impact on the environment.

After consulting with scientific experts from around the multiverse, I am inclined to believe that Dr. Armand will not adress the issue because he is unable t oadress the issue of human impact on the environment.

Then it is unfortunate, as I must maintain my opposition view of the bill until I at least see proof of the human impact on the environment by the vast majority of scientists.

This is also not forgetting the dentrimental effects this bill poses to the the well being the Gulaen people and economy, as it forces us into action opositte of what our culture, people, and government wish to see.

Allen Haine, UN delegate.

OOC: What are we to refer to the NationStates world? I'm fairly new to this game, and when I last played I never partook in the RP/forum part of the game instead focusing on seeing how well various political thoughts worked in this game.

Ok, here's an honest question that deserves to be answered...

What is a long term recorded temperature? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?

Does this clause actually have an meaning?

OOC: What are we to refer to the NationStates world? I'm fairly new to this game, and when I last played I never partook in the RP/forum part of the game instead focusing on seeing how well various political thoughts worked in this game.


OOC : I'm not real clear on that either. It seems the rules are dependent on the perpetrator.

As I've said, it doesn't. Its purpose is to assess the adverse impact of human activity on the climate in general, not the degree of human agency for specific environmental disasters.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

That's not what he said. The question is, how does the CRC assess the human impact on the environment? It depends a great deal the degree of human involvement on climate change because the bill can directly harm those nations who cause environmental change.

Is it not the stated purpose of the CRC to assess the amount of human impact on the environment, and then dispatch refugees accordingly?

The Kindom of Tecolote Icniuhtli have reviewed this proposal and are not in agreement. The very idea of a commission of "experts" at it's discretion requiring any nation to provide sanctuary, or a "proprotionally calculated sum of money", for "climate refugees", especially those that have already been denied immigration to other nations, is utterly and in all other ways inconceivable.

It would greatly benifit the president of Gulaen if Dr. Armand would address the issue of what would constitute as harm to the environment. I have greatly pressed how the scientific community is still split over whether or not humans have had any effect to our planets climate at all, to which I have received no reply.

I cite the fact that the scientific community has also recently uncovered that our planet has gone through several high-low temperature changes, and that our effect on the environment might be negligable next to these changes and that was changes it is believed we have caused have simply been caught up in this system.


As I've explained - and I'll try to be coherent, despite it being 2 o'clock in the morning - that issue is utterly irrelevant to this proposal, because it is not up to me to dictate to the CRC what its findings should be. This proposal is not about enshrining my views, and I don't intend to make it so.

Then it is unfortunate, as I must maintain my opposition view of the bill until I at least see proof of the human impact on the environment by the vast majority of scientists.


As I have said, that will be the function of the CRC.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Let's be practical. If the CRC finds that human activity has a negligeable impact on the climate, then presumably you will be happy. So why not support the proposal? If, on the other hand, hard scientific fact reveals a significant human impact on the climate, then what sense would there have been in opposing this proposal?

If you want facts in order to determine what your nation's policy should be, you should be supporting the creation of the CRC.


This is also not forgetting the dentrimental effects this bill poses to the the well being the Gulaen people and economy, as it forces us into action opositte of what our culture, people, and government wish to see.


No, no, NO, that is incorrect, and I've already answered it many times.


What is a long term recorded temperature? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?


Common sense principle, as per established UN committee procedure. Where there is an alternative between a common sense interpretation and a ridiculous one, a UN committee will follow the first.

That's not what he said. The question is, how does the CRC assess the human impact on the environment?

There are a thousand ways to do that, as any climatologist will tell you.


Is it not the stated purpose of the CRC to assess the amount of human impact on the environment, and then dispatch refugees accordingly?

Yes.

Now I'm off to get some rest. I cede the floor to... whoever wants it. Ambassador Zyryanov can take any further questions when she returns from wherever she is.


http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3964/armandbdy9.jpg
Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

As side note, this resolution also bars terraforming, dam construction, basicly it will punish countries for any accidential or intentional mosification of the environment.

Or at leat that is at the discression ofthe commission.

As I've said, it doesn't. Its purpose is to assess the adverse impact of human activity on the climate in general, not the degree of human agency for specific environmental disasters.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

I was actually refering to the climate in general and long-term crises. I trying to say that I can't understand how the CRC can judge whether a long-term change in the climate has be caused by humans or nature.

If the CRC can, then wouldn't it take a long period of time to formulate an answer? Maybe it would take longer than the three years stipulated between the scientific conclusions. What would happen to any refugees during that time? I don't think that the flow of refugees emigrating from a nation should depend on these scientific conclusions.

Billopesha would simply like to make sure that we know exactly how this proposal is meant to work so we don't have any concerns.

I would ask the assembled gentlemen, how many resolutions dose this proposal violate?

Strahland's government has deliberated on the issue and has cast its vote against the proposed resolution.

This resolution, in addition to being extremely anti-industry, is impossible to implement. It is impossible to determine if a flood is caused by industry.

Also, supposing the resolution should pass, it could put an unfair burden on nations determined to have little environmental impact. Should a nation determined to have high environmental impact have land that becomes inhabitable in a way that results in climate refugees, it becomes a possibility that some of these refugees be forced into a nation with little environmental impact.

This proposal is, in formal terms, rediculous and unfair. In informal terms, stupid.

Signed-
The Goverment of Strahland

As I've explained - and I'll try to be coherent, despite it being 2 o'clock in the morning - that issue is utterly irrelevant to this proposal, because it is not up to me to dictate to the CRC what its findings should be. This proposal is not about enshrining my views, and I don't intend to make it so.

As I have said, that will be the function of the CRC.

Let's be practical. If the CRC finds that human activity has a negligeable impact on the climate, then presumably you will be happy. So why not support the proposal? If, on the other hand, hard scientific fact reveals a significant human impact on the climate, then what sense would there have been in opposing this proposal?

If you want facts in order to determine what your nation's policy should be, you should be supporting the creation of the CRC.

You are putting the cart infront of the horse as much as me. "If the CRC finds that humans have no effects on the environment, then you would be fine. So vote for this bill!"

First off, there is no proof that the CRC will find the cause of climate change faster then any private or government funded organization currently in existance. Due to this I would like to see proof that humans are causing climate change before binding myself to this resolution.

The basis of this proposal is that humans are causing climate change, regardless of the scientific proof on whether or not they actually are. Due to this Gulaen will not bind itself to resolutions that will set up additional systems and contracts that mean nothing and cost money. It is fluff that is meant to be feel good policy, not effective policy. Proove that humans are causing climate change, then Gulaen will back a resolution as long as it doesn't restrict it's peoples way of life.


No, no, NO, that is incorrect, and I've already answered it many times.


No, you didn't. At least not to me. You pull the rhetoric that your country gets away with it, but my country is not your country. We live with different people under different principles. Just because your people and government embrace this bill, mine do not, and you should not expect every growing nation to do exactly as yours has done.

Gulaen has no strong welfare, it has no social security. The people of Gulaen believe in a strictly small non-intrusive government. The Gulaen government in the process to promote growth has kept taxes and restrictions on companies to a minimum, and what restrictions do go against companies are done at the state level not federal.

Gulaen could not deal with refugees in it's current form, immigrants that would be part of the system yes, but not refugees that would require any sort of welfare. This proposal in fear of being caught responsible, as it is abondantly clear that the current businesses do not have what is best for the environment in mind, the Gulaen government would have to create more pro-environmental policies. This would go against our current laisez-faire system, and cause outsourcing of what few large companies that are currently in the system as we make labor and production in Gulaen more expensive.

This bill in fear of having to face refugees would cause the Gulaen government to.

1. Change economic policies, resulting in outsourcing and slower economic growth. Already nations around me are growing faster then I am, and I do not wish to be left in the dust of my possible competators due to having to hinder growth. This bill tries to promote government intervention in the economy, while will result in various restrictions into how companies can function and make labor and production more expensive.

2. Change social policies. As soon as I start providing welfare to refugees it would be expected that the government would provide similar systems to it's own citizens. We must maintain a system in which we give priority to our own citizens over others, and not show favoritism. Also this causes huge problems monetarely (sp?) as it is not clear to what level I am expected to treat these refugees. If I am forced to pay the minimal standard of living in their own country it could be 5 to 6 times higher then my own, and easily push the Gulaen government into a deficit.

3. Go against the will of the people. The people of Gulaen have spoken out and formed a small government, creating a welfare state alongside government intervention in the economy promotes a larger government and is against the will of my people.

I am sorry, but I cannot vote for this bill on scientific grounds as well as for the sake that Gulaen is still growing, and that the effects that this bill will have goes against the will of it's people.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate

Aram Koopman (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aram_Koopman) takes the floor after entering late, giving the "Seabear"-somethingsomething representative a condescending scowl, rolling his shoulder with with a distinct sense of superiority. (Seabear? A dangerously environmentalist-sounding name, he considered with narrowed eyes.)

"Let me start by saying that I am a positive person. I believe in positive solutions for problems. Happy people. Rising stocks. Children. Nice weather. A good climate. Knootoss stands for all of these things."

His stare was accompanied by a challenging scowl, though he continued somewhat less enthused.

"The current Knootian administration believes in the theory of climate change. We believe it is a problem. We believe it deserves a solution.

This proposal is dangerously communist, in that it seeks to 'equally' divide the spoils of failure, rather than work towards a resolution for climate change. Rather than making the environmental pie bigger, they want the worlds best scientists in the field to engage instead in the politics of blame. Knootoss rejects this negative approach to the problem of climate change, favouring the positive affirmation of erm... well you know... actually solving the problem and stuff.

'But there will be so-called climate refugees' you say, well yes. But what makes them any more special than refugees who flee from terrible diseases, wars, poverty, or communism? Immigration policy is, at the core, a national policy matter. I say, for reasons of national sovereignty, we should reject this proposal.

I also reject the basis on which refugees are assigned. It isn't fair to condemn the majority of refugees to live in the most polluted nations in the world. It isn't fair to the refugees, and it isn't fair to those nations - nations which are often already struggling with their population. Forcing the most polluting nations to take in proportionally large amounts of refugees will only serve to make them more polluting.

I ask you, delegates, have pity on these refugees - have pity on these struggling nations. Vote against this resolution."

I would ask the assembled gentlemen, how many resolutions dose this proposal violate?

As far as I can see, none. Now, which ones do you think it violates?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Hey Knoot, you finally pulled yourself away from WoW long enough to visit the UN forum huh?

The ... sea... bear...seventy representative is perhaps trying to get others to do his homework for him?


OOC: yeah, low fps and felt like posting. besides, this resolution was begging for it. >_>

The ... sea... bear...seventy representative is perhaps trying to get others to do his homework for him?


OOC: yeah, low fps and felt like posting. besides, this resolution was begging for it. >_>


Actually I'm just trying to get people to realize what they are voting for.

Aram Koopman wags a finger and 'tut tuts' the ... person... that appears to be speaking, with some barely hidden disgust.

"No, no, not really. If you were trying to get someone to realise something, you would me making a point instead of asking a question.

Don't get me wrong. Questions are good. When poignant questions are left lingering in the thick air of a heated debate, they can sow fear in the hearts of your enemy. However, it is important that your enemy knows, in its heart, the answer to the questions you pose.

If he does not know this, your question is but a mere display of ignorance."

Aram shrugs.

"I like your stay-the-course mentality, little one, but you have much to learn."

In response to the representative of Intangelon: You raise valid questions. I'll try to give satisfactory answers.



Independent climate scientists and resettlement experts. (OOC: Yes, it's a gnome-type issue. As I understand it, all UN committees are.)



That's an understandable concern, but unfortunately... Who else but the CRC would universally be recognised as qualified to do this in an unbiased way? And it can't do it until it's been established. The CRC, incidentally, assesses a nation's impact on the climate in general, not its direct causal impact on a specific catastrophe. Which, I agree, would be remarkably difficult to determine.



They will. There's no reason for the data to be retained.



Then they won't have to. The CRC cannot force any person to relocate to a destination they don't want to go to.


Dr. Fabien Armand,
PDSRA

Dr. Armand, your reply is both informative and gracious -- which, considering the constant repetition of the mantras "I don't wanna take no refugees" and "I don't believe in global climate change", is a feat of self-control of the highest order.

However, I'm afraid that the CRC, learned though they may be, cannot possibly determine in a credible fashion exactly how much damage any one nation's carbon footprint is to the environment. I do not wish to incite any mass opposition -- Intangelon was long ago forced by necessity to depend on non-fossil-fuel sources of energy and will suffer little, if any, effects due to the passage of this resolution. So long as the determination of who pays/immigrates how much/many remains that vague, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for passage of this resolution.

You've very little to fear, however -- my new region seems to favor this bill, and my regional delegate's 80+ votes will more than negate the vote of one lone pessimist.

I thank you again for your time and consideration.

Benjamin "Benji" Royce
Intangible Minister to the UN

I still don't understand how the CRC could possibly judge whether an environmental crisis was caused by human beings or not.

If I may, I believe I have an example from the mythical world of RL that will suffice to show the honorable representative from Billopesha that there are times where such crises are not at all difficult to determine as being the result of human beings.

Chernobyl is a place in the RL Ukraine where a nuclear power plant exploded. The city is currently uninhabitable due to the long-lasting radioactive fallout. On a small scale, the Soviet Union (the nation that owned and operated the plant) would be responsible for following the CRC's mandates.

A similar incident occured in the RL Bopal, India.

These are the most common incidents we would expect the CRC to be involved in. Larger events that span several nations either in cause, or in effect would be dealt with proportionally, as decided by the unbiased, objective decisions made by the CRC.

If I may, I believe I have an example from the mythical world of RL that will suffice to show the honorable representative from Billopesha that there are times where such crises are not at all difficult to determine as being the result of human beings.

Chernobyl, a place in the RL Ukraine where a nuclear power plant exploded. The city is currently uninhabitable due to the long-lasting radioactive fallout. On a small scale, the Soviet Union (the nation that owned and operated the plant) would be responsible for following the CRC's mandates.

A similar incident occured in the RL Bopal, India.

These are the most common incidents we would expect the CRC to be involved in. Larger events that span several nations either in cause, or in effect would be dealt with proportionally, as decided by the unbiased, objective decisions made by the CRC.

Pardon my overt incredulity, but HUH?

You're talking a nuclear meltdown (RL Kiev) and a chemical release (RL Bhopal). Two things which have definite causes, traceable to an exact moment in time and space. Comparing those two incidents to global climate change is like comparing apples to the scientific principle of photosynthesis and then asking an aphid which of the two it understands. Furthermore, comparing their relative causes and forcing nations to engage in some kind of reparation for something whose individual (that is, nation-by-nation) root cause cannot possibly be determined with any accuracy is like taking the proverb of the butterfly flapping its wings, causing a hurricane half a world away, and fining the country in which the butterfly pupated for the damage caused by the hurricane.

Those who brought up the controversy of anthropogenesis with regard to climate change did so poorly, but they have a point. If the science is unclear, why would any nation be made to pay or accept refugees specific to climatological disasters? And if that link is eventually solidified, how is any one nation's responsibility to be determined? It's as if the resolution was written without regard to the legitimacy of anthropogenetic climate change, but requires that link in order to legitimately make nations pay/host refugees. There is already a refugee resolution -- why do we need a specific version for climate change? It's as if those who feel strongly about this wish to somehow make polluting nations pay -- which is fine in principle, but this resolution seems almost petulant about it. "YOU helped make this mess, YOU help deal with it." Well, it isn't yet clear that any nation did any such thing -- and it certainly isn't clear which nations bear how much responsibility to the degree that any kind of onus can be reasonably placed upon them.

My vote remains against.

Aram Koopman (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aram_Koopman) takes the floor after entering late, giving the "Seabear"-somethingsomething representative a condescending scowl, rolling his shoulder with with a distinct sense of superiority. (Seabear? A dangerously environmentalist-sounding name, he considered with narrowed eyes.)

"Let me start by saying that I am a positive person. I believe in positive solutions for problems. Happy people. Rising stocks. Children. Nice weather. A good climate. Knootoss stands for all of these things."

His stare was accompanied by a challenging scowl, though he continued somewhat less enthused.

"The current Knootian administration believes in the theory of climate change. We believe it is a problem. We believe it deserves a solution.

This proposal is dangerously communist, in that it seeks to 'equally' divide the spoils of failure, rather than work towards a resolution for climate change. Rather than making the environmental pie bigger, they want the worlds best scientists in the field to engage instead in the politics of blame. Knootoss rejects this negative approach to the problem of climate change, favouring the positive affirmation of erm... well you know... actually solving the problem and stuff.

'But there will be so-called climate refugees' you say, well yes. But what makes them any more special than refugees who flee from terrible diseases, wars, poverty, or communism? Immigration policy is, at the core, a national policy matter. I say, for reasons of national sovereignty, we should reject this proposal.

I also reject the basis on which refugees are assigned. It isn't fair to condemn the majority of refugees to live in the most polluted nations in the world. It isn't fair to the refugees, and it isn't fair to those nations - nations which are often already struggling with their population. Forcing the most polluting nations to take in proportionally large amounts of refugees will only serve to make them more polluting.

I ask you, delegates, have pity on these refugees - have pity on these struggling nations. Vote against this resolution."

Seconded. A good argument, sir.

I refuse to vote for something this stupid! I can't believe this can even be being considered by the U.N.! This is so ridiculous that I could bang my head against the wall over and over again until I blead to death from the brain.:headbang:Seriously, why would we waste money to give the stupid people of this world that live near rivers that constantly flood their land yearly, or live on the coast below sea level?! It's their fault for living in such bad locations. That's like the people that live on the sides of known land-sliding cliffs wanting us to buy them a new home every time it rains and their house falls down the side of the hill. All this resolution is going to do is teach the idiots of this world that buying a house on crappy real estate is okay, because whenever its damaged, the government will spend some of its people's hard earned money on your house.
Why let them move into our nation, can't they just move farther inland or away from water? This resolution is completely absurd at an elementary level. Who in their right mind wants to live in an area that you know is going to be prone to natural disasters and expect governmental aid just because their an idiot and don't know where to build a house?! They should all be shot, as illustrated in these following smilies====:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: ====and then, just for the hell of it say:upyours: to their dead bodies.
Before you vote "Yes." to this resolution, think about the people in Florida that get hit by hurricanes every year, is the U.S. government dumb enough to spend money fixing their houses up? No, of course not, because they know that those people's houses are just going to be ruined again. :confused: Duh!!!!!!!

As far as I can see, none. Now, which ones do you think it violates?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative



I suppose we could start with the "Fair Trial" resolution.
"The Universal Bill of Rights"
"Rights and Duties of UN States"
"Refugee Protection Act"
"No Ex Post Facto Laws"


All of those are violated at least in part by this resolution.

As Valkyrian ambassador to the U.N, let me stress the importance my nation has placed on protecting its environmental heritage; our extensive freedoms/free market have given a lot of people a lot of time to bring out a Valkyrian ingeniousness in matters to positively affect our environment. We would also like to praise the U.N in its use of diplomatic means to achieve a healthy, stable environment for all.

That being said, it is our position that the above-mentioned proposal is noble in theory but may create environmental “difficulties” other member nations will ultimately have to deal with. Our biggest concern lies with the influx of “refugees” into our borders and what that spells for the Valkyrian people; we understand that the proposal “URGES” member states, not coerces them into accepting refugees. Our problem therefore lies in the creation of the CRC, we feel attributing the power to “repeal” the claims of refugees denied from immigrating to a country may be dangerous and open to bureaucratic corruption (powers of the CRC #2). We also feel that governments and bureaucrats may have latent motives to sending “refugees” to other countries, and the countries receiving such “refugees” may have latent intentions as well.

As the proposal currently stands, our vote stands firmly against it; perhaps if specific member nations instead of independent scientists, or elected bodies of nations were given the right to determine the movement of immigrants the proposal would seem more promising. We feel that never should member nations be held at the mercy of a committees’ “discretion” (power #3), with that as an option we would vote for confidence for each member nation to determine if or how many immigrants it is willing to accept. We further propose the creation of a multinational “sanctuary” supported by U.N member nations, where refugees would be able to live peaceful lives under the common laws/cultures of an international plot of land.

Once more, we applaud the environmental concerns and philosophies the proposal recommends, we are in full support of assessing the current/future problems with our environmental communities, the urging of member states to take action, and even the call for various nations to donate time, energy, and resources to environmental concerns. As the proposal currently stands we are opposed to it, but we look forward to future debate within the forums, and hope the proposed resolution can be modified to diplomatic purposes.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the U.N, thank you for your time; on behalf of H.I.H Janis IX I bid you farewell.

The Republic of Anti-Social Darwinism agrees with the views put forward by Valkyron and joins with them in their stance against this measure. If a more equitable stand re the disposition of refugees can be found, we are willing to reconsider. Thank you on behalf of the President of the Republic of Anti-Social Darwinism.

OOC: What's all this, where all the veteran players reappear and there's a gaggle of new ones who can actually write and spell? I have faith yet for this assembly!

IC:

We second Ambassador Koopman's statements, and add our voice to the collective question: what is fair about dispensing refugees throughout the UN, when those people have had the misfortune to build their homes in areas that are susceptible to environmental damage?

The door that this resolution would open is a huge one. Could people displaced by hydroelectric dams apply for refugee status in an attempt to flee a country? What happens with communities that use reclaimed land that experience increased flooding, or communities that are already in high-risk areas?

Consider a faily of four that has a house that sits close to a known floodplain, just off a river. This river floods regularly, sometimes worse than years past. Suppose that the river floods progressively higher for several years, and this is linked to human causes. Why should another nation be forced to accept refugees when they take such risks?

I grant that these extreme examples are likely not what the delegates from the PDSRA had in mind, but that raises an even larger problem- how much horrendous human intervention must there be to displace so many people that the CRC has to do its job? By the time inland cities are being flooded, any reasonable government would have enacted disaster programs and started evacuating its own people.

We remain, as before, unconvinced.

Most courteously,

Pardon my overt incredulity, but HUH?

You're talking a nuclear meltdown (RL Kiev) and a chemical release (RL Bhopal). Two things which have definite causes, traceable to an exact moment in time and space. Comparing those two incidents to global climate change is like comparing apples to the scientific principle of photosynthesis and then asking an aphid which of the two it understands. Furthermore, comparing their relative causes and forcing nations to engage in some kind of reparation for something whose individual (that is, nation-by-nation) root cause cannot possibly be determined with any accuracy is like taking the proverb of the butterfly flapping its wings, causing a hurricane half a world away, and fining the country in which the butterfly pupated for the damage caused by the hurricane.


I suppose you may have a point. While the change does not have to be a global one, the examples I listed were in fact directly caused by human error. I got ahead of myself in thinking about the effect and neglecting to consider the cause. I rescind the earlier statements, but have nothing to say at this point about the scientific methods in which liability can be determined.

OOC: What's all this, where all the veteran players reappear and there's a gaggle of new ones who can actually write and spell? I have faith yet for this assembly!


OOC: I, too, noticed a rather high concentration of literate new faces here. And my absence has gone on for too long. I need some intelligent discussion (that is not without its vacuous moments, albeit far fewer than on CN) again, and around the UN is the best place for that, so far as I'm concerned.

First, let me say that it is an honor to see Aram Koopman, chairman of the United Nations Emergency Preparedness Committee (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12288585&postcount=1) in these halls again after a lengthy absence. Welcome back, good sir. *waves at Knoot*

Secondly,
I suppose we could start with the "Fair Trial" resolution.
"The Universal Bill of Rights"
"Rights and Duties of UN States"
"Refugee Protection Act"
"No Ex Post Facto Laws"


All of those are violated at least in part by this resolution.
What the fuck? I would be interested in hearing your explanation of how Climate Refugee Commission would violate any of these, but as the author of UNR#194 I would particularly like to know how it violates "No Ex Post Facto Laws".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Fellow Member States and Delegates,

I have given this proposal much thought and consideration, and I have made the decision to vote against it.

While its intentions are noble, this seemingly-innocuous resolution is fraught with significant flaws we must all consider.

First, if you look at all available statistics, the bulk of the world's pollution comes from smaller, poorer nations with developing economies. While there are certainly several large high-polluting industrial superpowers, the vast majority of pollution comes from smaller nations that have put growing their economies ahead of protecting their environments. Thus, while the argument has been made that the effects of these climate change refugees will be “miniscule,” that's certainly a subjective term— what one nation may see as a miniscule effect might pose a significant problem to a smaller, poorer nation.

Second, there is no stipulation in this resolution that provides any aid for nations who will be forced to accept these refugees. Thus, this begs the question, what is to be done with these individuals once they are relocated? There are two potential scenarios:

1. Their host governments are not required to provide them with any aid;
2. Their host government is required to provide them with some basic necessities.

Both of these scenarios are untenable. In the first, climate change refugees will simply swell the ranks of the poor, adding to an already-significant problem. And, in the likely event that some of these impoverished refugees resort to crime, we will be faced with an even greater burden to bear.

In the second scenario, smaller and poorer nations are burdened with having to provide some sort of welfare for refugees—this is exacerbated by the fact that many of these nations have, again, put growing their economies ahead of building welfare infrastructures. And, of course, this begs the question of why should these refugees be treated any better than a nation's indigenous poor?

Third, these refugees will be placed by a UN commission and, with all due respect, we all know that UN bureaucracy has not always been the most effective or efficient bureaucracy. With 91,762 nations in the world, there are countless conflicts going on between various ethnic and religious groups; I wonder how much consideration this commission can give to such conflicts when refugees are being placed. I would certainly hate to see refugees relocated into a country that is hostile towards their particular ethnic or religious group; I simply do not have enough faith in the UN bureaucracy that all precautions will be taken to avoid potential genocides resulting from this arbitrary refugee placement scheme.

Fourth, many nations—mine included—have strict emigration and immigration policies. We set high standards to ensure that spies, saboteurs, terrorists and criminals do not make their way inside our borders. By allowing a UN bureaucracy to take over this crucial task will expose our nation—and all UN member states—to a potentially crippling vulnerability.

Furthermore, we in The Federation are a fiercely patriotic people—we share a common history, a common language, a common system and a common way of life. To allow a bureaucratic commission to arbitrarily place foreigners into our nation raises significant question as to where the allegiance of these refugees lie, and whether they even have any stake in our nation and its well-being. Again, I would hate to see countries being forced to accept refugees who are either hostile or apathetic towards them, who come from a different culture and speak a different language. Many nations already have enough trouble integrating immigrants without being forced to accept more.

Thus, I cannot support this bill. While many of it’s backers are quick to make assurances, let me be quick to point out that many promises have been made—and broken—all in the name of passing a particular resolution. And while many of my concerns can be explained away with certain interpretations of the resolution, they are not dealt with by the text of the law itself, and thus we cannot know how, or even if, these situations will be resolved if this flawed resolution is enacted.

Thank you for your time.

First, let me say that it is an honor to see Aram Koopman, chairman of the United Nations Emergency Preparedness Committee (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12288585&postcount=1) in these halls again after a lengthy absence. Welcome back, good sir.

Please keep in mind, that, as per the rules, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) "[N]ations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."

Please keep in mind, that, as per the rules, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) "[N]ations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."Yelda is quite aware of the rules. His statement was a joke (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11597545&postcount=1).

If I may, I believe I have an example from the mythical world of RL that will suffice to show the honorable representative from Billopesha that there are times where such crises are not at all difficult to determine as being the result of human beings.

Chernobyl is a place in the RL Ukraine where a nuclear power plant exploded. The city is currently uninhabitable due to the long-lasting radioactive fallout. On a small scale, the Soviet Union (the nation that owned and operated the plant) would be responsible for following the CRC's mandates.

A similar incident occured in the RL Bopal, India.

These are the most common incidents we would expect the CRC to be involved in. Larger events that span several nations either in cause, or in effect would be dealt with proportionally, as decided by the unbiased, objective decisions made by the CRC.

As said before, the incidents described above to not relate to what the proposal states as climate change. Also, I was referring to long-term changes in the climate and not just specific disasters. The proposal clearly states:

recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more

These are some of the changes in the climate that a nation could be made to be responsible for.

I don't believe that the CRC could determine specifically, with hard evidence, whether a change in climate was due to humans or nature. Even if it could, it would take a long period of time to formulate with possible controversy between scientists. This is not to say that I don't believe the CRC should be set up. It’s just that I don't believe that it should have a place in this proposal. The flow of refugees emigrating from a country should not rely on whether the climate change was due to humans or not. This proposal seems to mean nothing to the refugees fleeing from a nation with climate change caused by nature. This should be completely related to saving human lives and yet at the same time is trying to make nations responsible. It distracts people from the real meaning of the proposal; to save human lives in danger.
While the scientists are disputing to try and find hard evidence on whether climate change has been caused by humans or not, refugees are in need of our help. And as I understand, there should be no question about the number of refugees as it has been said that the number will be minimal. So would we deny them refuge until a scientific conclusion can be made?

You could make a case in that sense, I suppose. But one of the issues here is responsability (not "punishment", I emphasise).

Certainly looks like punishment to me.

As I've said, it doesn't. Its purpose is to assess the adverse impact of human activity on the climate in general, not the degree of human agency for specific environmental disasters.

Yet specific to each country as well, to determine the amount of punishment -- oh, I'm sorry. The amount of responsibility :rolleyes: nations must take in the form of the number of refugees they're expected to accept.

That's not what he said. The question is, how does the CRC assess the human impact on the environment? It depends a great deal the degree of human involvement on climate change because the bill can directly harm those nations who cause environmental change.

There are a thousand ways to do that, as any climatologist will tell you.

None of which I trust to be done by a bunch of UN bureaucrats.

Is it not the stated purpose of the CRC to assess the amount of human impact on the environment, and then dispatch refugees accordingly?

Yes.

Dispatch them according to its determination -- which cannot be questioned or appealed, by the way -- of each nation's degree of "responsibility." Right. Still sounds a helluva lot like punishment to me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. My assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel (http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg), asked me to convey a warm welcome to Mr. Koopman. He is glad to see his Knootian friend has returned.

I suppose we could start with the "Fair Trial" resolution.
"The Universal Bill of Rights"
"Rights and Duties of UN States"
"Refugee Protection Act"
"No Ex Post Facto Laws"


All of those are violated at least in part by this resolution.

As author of #49, Rights and Duties, I too am curious as to its inclusion on your list. I suppose you're going to go the usual route, and pull out articles 1 and 2 to show that nations have complete sovereignty, while ignoring the final phrase in each and also the remainder of the articles. Or perhaps you've come up with something novel?

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

First, let me say that it is an honor to see Aram Koopman, chairman of the United Nations Emergency Preparedness Committee (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12288585&postcount=1) in these halls again after a lengthy absence. Welcome back, good sir. *waves at Knoot*

Secondly,

What the fuck? I would be interested in hearing your explanation of how Climate Refugee Commission would violate any of these, but as the author of UNR#194 I would particularly like to know how it violates "No Ex Post Facto Laws".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

OOC : this sux, I took a half hour to explain all of this and lost it all in a database error :(

Trust me, the resolution is in violation of one or more clause in all the resolutions listed.

IC: The Ex Post Facto violation is the most glaringly obvious.

The resolution attempts to judge nations, and therefore businesses and individuals based upon actions that are perfectly legal in the nations they reside in or conduct business in, and therefore is an international law condemning entities for their actions before such time as the law is actually passed.

This is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law and is therefore illegal.

As author of #49, Rights and Duties, I too am curious as to its inclusion on your list. I suppose you're going to go the usual route, and pull out articles 1 and 2 to show that nations have complete sovereignty, while ignoring the final phrase in each and also the remainder of the articles. Or perhaps you've come up with something novel?

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

Actually, I'm more interested in Article 3.

Although there is that little thing about article 9.

The resolution attempts to judge nations, and therefore businesses and individuals based upon actions that are perfectly legal in the nations they reside in or conduct business in, and therefore is an international law condemning entities for their actions before such time as the law is actually passed.

This is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law and is therefore illegal.No it doesn't.

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.

It begins. It doesn't look at the past. It looks from the moment it passes (if it passes), takes 3 years to measure, and then it proportions responsibility.

It doesn't look at previous activities, hence no illegality.

Rights and duties - article 3.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

(emphasis my own) This proposal passes, it's international law.

Rights and duties - article 9.

Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.

And nations do have equality. But equality in law does not equate to equality in responsibility.

No it doesn't.

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.

It begins. It doesn't look at the past. It looks from the moment it passes (if it passes), takes 3 years to measure, and then it proportions responsibility.

It doesn't look at previous activities, hence no illegality.

Rights and duties - article 3.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

(emphasis my own) This proposal passes, it's international law.

Rights and duties - article 9.

Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.

And nations do have equality. But equality in law does not equate to equality in responsibility.


I'm willing to allow the ex post facto fro the moment, though I have serious reservations concerning this.

However, let us take on article 9 for the moment. First of all, the punishment, let's not mince words here, is discressionary upon the conclusions of the commission.

This says a lot. First of all, I am certain it might have had the best of intentions, however, let us say it is applied in the fairest method possible. A poor nation is contributing excessively to poluting and, as an assumption, destroying the environment through climate change.

They obviously cannot support a vast influx of refugees, or the monitary punishment that they deserve. So, in effect they would be exempt from this resolution, which would then force their punishment upon others far less "guilty" of these acts.

In essence, because the poor country was exempt, there could be no equality within the law. And this is a best case senerio.

Let's tackle the refugee protection act while we are at it...

4. CALLS UPON all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion.

Obviously these people are non-combat refugees. It is hard to refer to "climate refugees" as being combatants.

However, the RPA, as I read it, suggests that they refugees must be allowed access to all countries, but it is limited based upon the sutibility of the refugees in question, in whole and in part, for citizenship. And furthermore allows the country sheltering refugees to determine this with the understanding that race, ethnicity, nation of origin, and religon are not to be reasons of exclusion.

The resolution up for debate removes the rights of of nations to determine who they will shelter, and even, in it's most strict reading, requires nations to shelter occupying armies based on an environmenta lcrisis in the country of their origin.

Now, going back to ex post facto...

Assuming that the time of impact being measured is only three years, this violates everything known about environemntal science. Environmental change is measured in centuries, not years or even decades.

As we cannot know the effect of all forces upon the environment in the centuries to come, then we must assume that data will be taken into accout that is previous to the implimentation of the nation being inquisitioned.

Furthermore, it is entirely probable that the data which would have to be examined would predate the establishment of the nation.

So, not only does this resolution violate ex post facto, it forces a nation to assume responsibility for events which are entirely beyond their influence due to the impassible barrier of time.

Obviously these people are non-combat refugees. It is hard to refer to "climate refugees" as being combatants.You are shoehorning terms used in conflict into enviromental considerations, and resulting in a horribly convoluted confusing mess.

RPA refers to refugees of war. It says it repeatedly in the preamble that the refugees it talks about are as a result of conflict.

Yes, if you choose to look at it that way (out of context and with a major bias) you can present it as an argument. But if you look at it considering the whole of the resolution in context, it falls apart.

This is pretty much what you've been doing with most of the resolutions you have cited. Lack of context.

Assuming that the time of impact being measured is only three years, this violates everything known about environemntal science. Environmental change is measured in centuries, not years or even decades.You can measure emissions easily.

You know what? Your main argument is that it is illegal. Go talk to the mods, Let them decide. They already have (since they check the proposal queue) but then they can tell you it's legal and we can move on. m'kay?

You can measure emissions easily.

Correlation does not equal causation, Ambassador Kildarno. Although I disagree with the Sea...bearian delegate in his approach, the question of how the CRC will determine who is responsible for what is still a very relevant one.

Most courteously,

Well, you have been busy little bees while I was away, I haven't you? I'll try to be concise and to the point.

As side note, this resolution also bars terraforming, dam construction, basicly it will punish countries for any accidential or intentional mosification of the environment.


Does the distinguished representative of Seabear70 honestly believe that a nation building a dam constitutes a huge impact on the climate? That's an... interesting belief you have there, Ambassador. But not, I think, a very scientific one.

I was actually refering to the climate in general and long-term crises. I trying to say that I can't understand how the CRC can judge whether a long-term change in the climate has be caused by humans or nature.

Measuring human impact on the climate is by no means impossible.


If the CRC can, then wouldn't it take a long period of time to formulate an answer? Maybe it would take longer than the three years stipulated between the scientific conclusions. What would happen to any refugees during that time? I don't think that the flow of refugees emigrating from a nation should depend on these scientific conclusions.


Two points:

1) The CRC's efforts will be continuous. As the proposal clearly states, its data will be continuously updated.

2) What gave you the mistaken idea that "the flow of refugees emigrating from a nation should depend on these scientific conclusions"? Refugees can still apply to migrate wherever they want. Normal emigration and immigration procedures continue as they always have. Nations willing to welcome climate refugees are by no means prevented from doing so; quite the contrary. And you'll note that refugees are required to attempt to go through normal channels before turning to the CRC as an absolute last resort. Which is another extremely important reason why the number of refugees any nation will be required to take in after any disaster will be miniscule. As simple mathematics show.

The CRC merely adds a positive element to help climate refugees where no such formal, coordinated help existed until now.


Billopesha would simply like to make sure that we know exactly how this proposal is meant to work so we don't have any concerns.

Naturally. And I hope I've been able to respond to those concerns.


This resolution, in addition to being extremely anti-industry,


I'm sorry, what?!


is impossible to implement. It is impossible to determine if a flood is caused by industry.


Quite so. And if the honourable representative of Strahland had been paying attention, he would know that the CRC will make no such attempt. You've misread the proposal.


Also, supposing the resolution should pass, it could put an unfair burden on nations determined to have little environmental impact. Should a nation determined to have high environmental impact have land that becomes inhabitable in a way that results in climate refugees, it becomes a possibility that some of these refugees be forced into a nation with little environmental impact.


No. As the proposal clearly explains.


This proposal is, in formal terms, rediculous and unfair. In informal terms, stupid.


The honourable representative of Strahland may want to actually read and understand the proposal before making a fool of himself with such statements.


First off, there is no proof that the CRC will find the cause of climate change faster then any private or government funded organization currently in existance.


Such as...? More importantly, no such organisation has the ability to implement internationally coordinated responses.


Due to this I would like to see proof that humans are causing climate change before binding myself to this resolution.


I repeat, the fact that human activity has at least some impact on the climate is, of course, undeniable. The issue is the extent of that impact, and the CRC is created to determine that. You cannot ask the CRC to produce results before it comes into existence!


The basis of this proposal is that humans are causing climate change, regardless of the scientific proof on whether or not they actually are.


I refer the honourable representative to the statement I've just made. The honourable representative of Gulaen is simplifying the issue.


Due to this Gulaen will not bind itself to resolutions that will set up additional systems and contracts that mean nothing and cost money.


The CRC means something, does something, and will cost you virtually nothing. As I've been at pains to explain many times.


It is fluff that is meant to be feel good policy, not effective policy.

I don't see how you can possibly make that claim, when the CRC quite clearly does something positive, concrete and of tremendous importance in favour of climate refugees.


This proposal in fear of being caught responsible, as it is abondantly clear that the current businesses do not have what is best for the environment in mind, the Gulaen government would have to create more pro-environmental policies.


Then perhaps you should rethink your priorities and policies. Sustainable growth does not mean lack of development. Quite the contrary.

Although I don't see why the government of Gulaen would "fear" having to integrate a minuscule number of refugees. Most of your points are based on the mistaken belief that you're somehow going to be swamped with refugees, which is clearly untrue, as I've demonstrated again and again - and as simple mathematics show you.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Please keep in mind, that, as per the rules, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) "[N]ations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."
Edit/Select All (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12288585&postcount=1)

(Yeah, I'm aware of the committee rule. As Hack pointed out, it's a joke. You're free to ignore it but I'm RPing as if the committee actually was set up and Koopman is the chairman.)

OOC : this sux, I took a half hour to explain all of this and lost it all in a database error :(

Trust me, the resolution is in violation of one or more clause in all the resolutions listed.

IC: The Ex Post Facto violation is the most glaringly obvious.

The resolution attempts to judge nations, and therefore businesses and individuals based upon actions that are perfectly legal in the nations they reside in or conduct business in, and therefore is an international law condemning entities for their actions before such time as the law is actually passed.

This is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law and is therefore illegal.
You fail at reading comprehension. I suggest you take your legality challenge to the mods and stop hijacking this discussion with your spurious claims.

*turns to a nearby aide*

"Summon Comrade Felix and have him defenestrate this obnoxious individual."

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

*Throws the ambassador, staff and the entire Office Of The High Overlord Of Logistical Subterfuge Of Seabear70 out the window*

Rejoice Comrades! I have delivered us from this scourge and restored decorum and sane debate to these hallowed halls. Now, who will join me in Strangers Bar for vodka and pirozhki?

This proposal is dangerously communist, in that it seeks to 'equally' divide the spoils of failure,


How did the honourable Ambassador Koopman reach this somewhat surprising conclusion?


rather than work towards a resolution for climate change.


That is not the proposal's primary aim. Would you criticise the Ban Necrophilia resolution for not trying to solve the issue of teenage pregnancy? This proposal is about giving concrete, practical help to people in need - namely climate refugees. It also encourages nations to adopt environmentally sustainable practices, but its primary aim is to help climate refugees.

If the honourable ambassador wishes to contribute to addressing the wider issue of climate change, I strongly encourage him to submit a proposal of his own. I'll be happy to support it.


'But there will be so-called climate refugees' you say, well yes. But what makes them any more special than refugees who flee from terrible diseases, wars, poverty, or communism?


I refer the honourable ambassador to the statement I've just made. A single proposal cannot deal with all the world's problems. It is the height of absurdity to say specific refugees should not be helped because the proposal doesn't tackle the problems of other types of refugees. Is the honourable ambassador saying that, if a single proposal cannot help everyone, it is better to help no-one rather than help a certain number of people?


It isn't fair to condemn the majority of refugees to live in the most polluted nations in the world.


Which is why this proposal does no such thing. For goodness' sake, if you are going to criticise this proposal, please criticise what it actually does, rather than your own misreading of it.


So long as the determination of who pays/immigrates how much/many remains that vague, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for passage of this resolution.


I understand that concern, but I can't in good conscience provide the CRC's future findings before the CRC itself exists.

I can't believe this can even be being considered by the U.N.! This is so ridiculous that I could bang my head against the wall over and over again until I blead to death from the brain.

Given the overall tone and... ahem... "content" of your little speech, and your abundant use of gestures (known, I believe, as "smilies") within this august and formal setting, I can't help but wonder whether you've done that already.


Seriously, why would we waste money to give the stupid people of this world that live near rivers that constantly flood their land yearly, or live on the coast below sea level?! It's their fault for living in such bad locations.

Ah. Excessive simplification. Why am I not surprised?

The reality of the situation is far more complex than you would have it. I hope you won't be too confused if I point out that entire nations, and vast areas of other nations, are particularly susceptible to environmental disaster. A person inhabiting a small coral island in a poor, isolated country, with no means to migrate to a safer location, should not be punished when his home is threatened by climate change for which he is not responsible!


Why let them move into our nation, can't they just move farther inland or away from water?

I think I've just answered that.

In addition, note that any refugee who is able to move to a safer location within his own country obviously will not make repeated attempts to emigrate, and will consequently not appeal, ultimately, to the CRC. Your reasoning, Ambassador, is faulty, and reveals that you have - alas - not thought this through thoroughly. Perhaps it's all that banging your head against walls...


They should all be shot, as illustrated in these following smilies====:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: ====and then, just for the hell of it say:upyours: to their dead bodies.

This is the United Nations General Assembly. If you're looking for the playground... well, there isn't one here. Nor is there a lunatic asylum, unfortunately.

There is a library, however. You may find that useful.


Could people displaced by hydroelectric dams apply for refugee status in an attempt to flee a country?


An interesting question. But no, not if they are rehoused by their own country.


What happens with communities that use reclaimed land that experience increased flooding, or communities that are already in high-risk areas?


I refer the ambassador to my earlier statement in response to this very question.


how much horrendous human intervention must there be to displace so many people that the CRC has to do its job? By the time inland cities are being flooded, any reasonable government would have enacted disaster programs and started evacuating its own people.


THANK YOU for mentioning that. Hopefully it will put an end to scaremongering tactics.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I have given this proposal much thought and consideration,


I'm glad to hear it. Thoroughness is to be commended.


First, if you look at all available statistics, the bulk of the world's pollution comes from smaller, poorer nations with developing economies.


What statistics are you refering to?


Thus, while the argument has been made that the effects of these climate change refugees will be “miniscule,” that's certainly a subjective term— what one nation may see as a miniscule effect might pose a significant problem to a smaller, poorer nation.


I disagree, and "minuscule" is hardly a subjective term here, as basic arithmetic will show you. Can we please stop waving the threat of hordes of refugees?

Consider the number of nations in the UN. Consider the number of people made homeless by an environmental disaster. Now divide the latter by the former to give you an average. Lower that average significantly for nations which have fairly little impact on the climate. Now factor in, in addition, the number of environmental disasters per decade.

That should start to give you an idea of how miniscule the numbers involved are.

Now continue by removing from those figures all people who will be resettled within their home country. Of the small number left, remove those (i.e., the vast majority) who will be welcomed voluntarily by other, willing countries, without the CRC being involved at all.

Consider the tiny number left. That is what is divided between all the member countries of the United Nations. When I say that the impact of climate refugees on host countries will be negligeable, that is exactly what I mean. As you can work out by yourself.


Second, there is no stipulation in this resolution that provides any aid for nations who will be forced to accept these refugees. Thus, this begs the question, what is to be done with these individuals once they are relocated?


I refer the honourable representative to the statement I've just made.

I hope that addresses your concerns.


Third, these refugees will be placed by a UN commission and, with all due respect, we all know that UN bureaucracy has not always been the most effective or efficient bureaucracy.


Oh? Show me inefficiency by any existing UN committee.


Furthermore, we in The Federation are a fiercely patriotic people—we share a common history, a common language, a common system and a common way of life. To allow a bureaucratic commission to arbitrarily place foreigners into our nation raises significant question as to where the allegiance of these refugees lie, and whether they even have any stake in our nation and its well-being. Again, I would hate to see countries being forced to accept refugees who are either hostile or apathetic towards them, who come from a different culture and speak a different language. Many nations already have enough trouble integrating immigrants without being forced to accept more.


Bearing in mind what I've just said, consider in addition that you can apply for an exemption under clause 3.

My turn for a question now. What solution would you advocate for the resettlement of climate refugees?


While the scientists are disputing to try and find hard evidence on whether climate change has been caused by humans or not, refugees are in need of our help. And as I understand, there should be no question about the number of refugees as it has been said that the number will be minimal. So would we deny them refuge until a scientific conclusion can be made?

I believe I've already answered that, but again, very quickly: At present, there is no existing international coordination to help climate refugees. The CRC provides one. But the proposal most definitely does not say that refugees should be denied refuge in the meantime! It says exactly the opposite. It states that refugees will continue to attempt to emigrate via existing normal channels, and that the CRC exists to help them as a last resort.

Certainly looks like punishment to me.


What distinction do you draw between responsability and punishment, then? Say I break the window of your home. I'll be required to compensate you. Why? Not (primarily) to "punish" me, but because I am responsible for my actions, and, most important of all, you are not responsible for me breaking your window, and you deserve to have your window replaced.

Should you be legally considered responsible for me breaking your window?

Take another example. I don't know whether you have any children, Sheik... at least, any legitimate, recognised ones. You are responsible for them, are you not? Do you consider that being responsible for your children means you're being punished for having children? No, it simply means you have a responsability towards them, because you brought them into this world.


Yet specific to each country as well, to determine the amount of punishment -- oh, I'm sorry. The amount of responsibility :rolleyes: nations must take in the form of the number of refugees they're expected to accept.


Of course. That's called fairness and responsability.


None of which I trust to be done by a bunch of UN bureaucrats.


And instead, you would trust it to be done by... whom, exactly? Who is more trustworthy, objective and neutral than a UN committee?


Trust me, the resolution is in violation of one or more clause in all the resolutions listed.

Until you provide details, no, we won't "trust you" on it. Sorry.


The resolution attempts to judge nations,


No, it most patently does not. Your use of the word "judge" is deliberately misleading.


The resolution up for debate removes the rights of of nations to determine who they will shelter, and even, in it's most strict reading, requires nations to shelter occupying armies based on an environmenta lcrisis in the country of their origin.


You'll pardon me if I don't find that in the least bit convincing.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Measuring human impact on the climate is by no means impossible.

Two points:

1) The CRC's efforts will be continuous. As the proposal clearly states, its data will be continuously updated.

2) What gave you the mistaken idea that "the flow of refugees emigrating from a nation should depend on these scientific conclusions"? Refugees can still apply to migrate wherever they want. Normal emigration and immigration procedures continue as they always have. Nations willing to welcome climate refugees are by no means prevented from doing so; quite the contrary. And you'll note that refugees are required to attempt to go through normal channels before turning to the CRC as an absolute last resort. Which is another extremely important reason why the number of refugees any nation will be required to take in after any disaster will be miniscule. As simple mathematics show.

The CRC merely adds a positive element to help climate refugees where no such formal, coordinated help existed until now.

Naturally. And I hope I've been able to respond to those concerns.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Thank you for your response.

But when the need for refugees to leave a country is desperate enough that they go to the CRC as a last resort, won't those refugees then depend on the scientfic conclusions? Although the studies into climate change by the CRC might be continuously updated, it would still take time to reach a conclusion.
And the proposal does state:
These figures are to be updated every three years.

If it is only a last resort, then what is the point in setting up the CRC just for the purpose of deciding which nations should be responsible for climate change? With only a small amount of refugees, wouldn't it not be enough to make a nation feel responsible? Shouldn't the very small amount of refugee just be evenly distributed? It's too much bother when saving lives is the main priority.

It should also be considered that there may be many places which would be suseptable to climate change. These places should be relocated.

For instance, refugees, as a last resort, ask for help from the CRC, when their nation has had increasingly frequent floods due to climate change. How could the CRC determine whether those floods were caused by human causes for climate change or nature's causes for climate change? Nature is quite unpredictable sometimes and we don't know everything about nature.

The proposal is almost saying that all factors like frequent floods etc. are in some way caused by humans when this might not always be the case.

The proposal also states:
nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.
I think most nations would rather do that.

But when the need for refugees to leave a country is desperate enough that they go to the CRC as a last resort, won't those refugees then depend on the scientfic conclusions? Although the studies into climate change by the CRC might be continuously updated, it would still take time to reach a conclusion.


That's true, but in the long term it will no longer be a problem.


If it is only a last resort, then what is the point in setting up the CRC just for the purpose of deciding which nations should be responsible for climate change? With only a small amount of refugees, wouldn't it not be enough to make a nation feel responsible? Shouldn't the very small amount of refugee just be evenly distributed? It's too much bother when saving lives is the main priority.


You raise an interesting point. But hopefully nations will nonetheless feel some pressure to review their policies. After all, as we've seen, some nations here do feel concerned, even if it's for erroneous reasons. But the refugees themselves should (as you quite rightly say) and will be the priority.

Which is why I've said that this is first and foremost about helping refugees.


It should also be considered that there may be many places which would be suseptable to climate change. These places should be relocated.


They may be, if a real risk exists (see the introductory clause).


For instance, refugees, as a last resort, ask for help from the CRC, when their nation has had increasingly frequent floods due to climate change. How could the CRC determine whether those floods were caused by human causes for climate change or nature's causes for climate change? Nature is quite unpredictable sometimes and we don't know everything about nature.

The proposal is almost saying that all factors like frequent floods etc. are in some way caused by humans when this might not always be the case.


It isn't saying that, actually. But since the focus is on helping refugees, I consider it fair that those who are partially the cause of climate change in general should be the first the CRC turns to in order to help climate refugees from any environmental disaster.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The CRC merely adds a positive element to help climate refugees where no such formal, coordinated help existed until now.

Given that you keep insisting that the number of these so-called climate refugees is "miniscule", I have a hard time imagining that such formal, coordinated help is even necessary.

I repeat, the fact that human activity has at least some impact on the climate is, of course, undeniable. The issue is the extent of that impact, and the CRC is created to determine that. You cannot ask the CRC to produce results before it comes into existence!

But it is deniable. "Human activity has no effect on climate." There, I've just denied it.

I think I've finally sussed what it is about this resolution that sinks it for me: it is two resolutions in one. It creates the CRC in order to determine the provenance of theorized human causes or exacerbations of climate change. It also deals with the settlement of refugees from climate change, using the CRC's research to determine who's responsible and who should take how much responsibility.

I would GLADLY vote for a climate-commission-creating resolution alone -- I think study of the possibility of anthropogenic climate change is a worthy effort. However, assigning blame should be a separate resolution, and in the absence of climate study information -- and yes, I know that's because the CRC hasn't been created yet -- I'm not going to give the would-be CRC a blank cheque to determine who gets spanked. Show me the CRC's results, THEN bring up the responsibility.

You've put the cart before the horse, I'm afraid.

I don't see how you can possibly make that claim, when the CRC quite clearly does something positive, concrete and of tremendous importance in favour of climate refugees.

Of which there are a "miniscule" amount....

That is not the proposal's primary aim. Would you criticise the Ban Necrophilia resolution for not trying to solve the issue of teenage pregnancy? This proposal is about giving concrete, practical help to people in need - namely climate refugees. It also encourages nations to adopt environmentally sustainable practices, but its primary aim is to help climate refugees.

Who and where are these refugees in the first place? I simply do not see any need for this. I understand that the AGAINST campaign has been using scaremongering, but that's not much different that attempting to generate pity and responsibility for refugees whom nobody has seen. You're just as guilty of playing to emotions, despite the fact that you do it far more politely and eloquently.

The reality of the situation is far more complex than you would have it. I hope you won't be too confused if I point out that entire nations, and vast areas of other nations, are particularly susceptible to environmental disaster. A person inhabiting a small coral island in a poor, isolated country, with no means to migrate to a safer location, should not be punished when his home is threatened by climate change for which he is not responsible!

He is already being punished for not seeing that living on a coral island with a mean elevation of a meter above sea level is inherently subject to the whims of weather regardless of sapients' alleged contribution to it. Islands of that type get inundated and disappear from maps across the globe all the time. Erosion, subsidence, storms, sunspots, aphelion/perihelion, El Nino, the seasons...I am not going to get behind a resolution that makes any other nation pay for things like that.

Your concern for refugees is touching, but you've tried to link it to a determination of sapient responsibility which is not yet determined. Should this resolution fail, I strongly recommend you split out the research and responsibility aspects of it and resubmit the research organization half of it and follow it with the refugee half. Let us see that there is indeed a link between our actions and the dispossession of people (should there be one) before you sign us up to take the blame.

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.

That bit right there kills the whole proposal -- or it should, at least. It amounts to institutionalised international extortion. If this proposal passes, the UN will be able to say to your nation, "You take accept these refugees, or else we will force you to pay us."

We should not permit the UN to act like thugs. This proposal must be defeated.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Would you criticise the Ban Necrophilia resolution for not trying to solve the issue of teenage pregnancy?

OMG Christelle, you're right. I never thought of it that way! We must repeal that resolution right away. After all, corpses can't get pregnant and can't get teenagers pregnant! It's the perfect solution!

(Oh if ashes could only roll, there would be some ashes rolling in her urn over that statement.)

Such as...? More importantly, no such organisation has the ability to implement internationally coordinated responses.

Nations and private institutions already fund scientists who are trying to uncover how much damage humans are having on the environment. We do not need this bill as a means of establishing a institution that will do what other people are already trying. The people of Gulaen would first like to see concrete proof that humans are a sizable precentage of the climate change.

Secondly, as other nations have stated, this breaks the sovereignty of nations. No single group of individuals should have the right to force refugees onto others, instead countries should try to form pacts with neighbors to habor such "climate refugees,"


I repeat, the fact that human activity has at least some impact on the climate is, of course, undeniable. The issue is the extent of that impact, and the CRC is created to determine that. You cannot ask the CRC to produce results before it comes into existence!


No, but I can expect to see sizable proof that humans are causing at least a large portion of damage to the environment. I site the above fact that countries and private institutions are already trying to evaluate the impact humans have had on the climate, without having the powers to break sovereignty. I would like to see that first before attaching myself to the other parts of this resolution that add baggage to the poor country of Gulaen.


Then perhaps you should rethink your priorities and policies. Sustainable growth does not mean lack of development. Quite the contrary.


Gulaen in the short time since it's inception, having freed itself from a monarchy through revolution, has greatly expanded on the little infastructure left by the king. The country has seen both social and economic development faster then any country around it, without giving into the will of coorperations.

Economic growth and the development of the country go hand in hand. For promoting economic growth in the manner we have chosen the Gulaen government has seen more money flock into its treasury then ever before which we have turned around to build schools and roads.

Finally I find it atrocious that you would infer that our policies are bad simply because it does not allow us to support a way of life that would be able to support this bill.


Although I don't see why the government of Gulaen would "fear" having to integrate a minuscule number of refugees. Most of your points are based on the mistaken belief that you're somehow going to be swamped with refugees, which is clearly untrue, as I've demonstrated again and again - and as simple mathematics show you.

I site the fact that the whole region of Damara is fairly new, and Gulaen but an even smaller aspect of that. Made up of only a few nations with a population still under 10 million each. Given this the Gulaen government still does not supply welfare or social security to it's citizens, and due to how new it is as a nation it's curency is worth almost nothing on the world market. If suddenly I was forced to pay welfare for 15000 people, and keep them on a level of life that meets the minimal standard of life for their country, I would be bankrupting my country.

Simple mathematics will show that welfare is an expensive drain on the economy, especially where they refugees do not work or are not taxable. Given our already deficit spendings would drive us further into the red. Gulaen cannot spend the rest of it's life in debt.

My final remark to this point is: If Gulaen is to recieve so few refugees, below a certain number, why send them here at all? You are now displacing families so that you can be "fair." There are thousands of more powerful nations out there that could handle large quantities of refugees and stop you from having to split up families. You do not need to punish small nations such as Gulaen for being poor by putting any number of refugees on them.

Allen Haine. UN Delegate.

But it is deniable. "Human activity has no effect on climate." There, I've just denied it.

It cannot be seriously denied.


I would GLADLY vote for a climate-commission-creating resolution alone -- I think study of the possibility of anthropogenic climate change is a worthy effort. However, assigning blame should be a separate resolution, and in the absence of climate study information -- and yes, I know that's because the CRC hasn't been created yet -- I'm not going to give the would-be CRC a blank cheque to determine who gets spanked. Show me the CRC's results, THEN bring up the responsibility.


There's some sense to that, but if we'd done that, we'd have been accused of creating "yet another toothless, useless committee which does nothing at all to solve problems". Meanwhile - as others have pointed out - the problem of climate refugees is very real and needs to be addressed.


Of which there are a "miniscule" amount....


Their small number means they won't be a burden on host nations. But for individual climate refugees who have nowhere to go, this proposal is extremely important.


You're just as guilty of playing to emotions, despite the fact that you do it far more politely and eloquently.


I don't consider providing help for refugees to be "playing on emotions".


He is already being punished for not seeing that living on a coral island with a mean elevation of a meter above sea level is inherently subject to the whims of weather regardless of sapients' alleged contribution to it.


This is where you're wrong. Take the example I gave. If he was born there and has never had the means to leave, why should he be punished for misfortunes of birth and poverty, and the effects of other people's actions?


Islands of that type get inundated and disappear from maps across the globe all the time.


No. And this raises an interesting point. We're talking about islands which have been inhabited for thousands of years. If they are suddenly threatened with destruction, it's legitimate to investigate the causes, and turn to potentially responsible nations to resettle inhabitants.

That bit right there kills the whole proposal -- or it should, at least. It amounts to institutionalised international extortion. If this proposal passes, the UN will be able to say to your nation, "You take accept these refugees, or else we will force you to pay us."

We should not permit the UN to act like thugs. This proposal must be defeated.


Has the honourable sheik not taken into account what I've said previously, regarding his similar objections? You are reacting with indignation to the suggestion that those responsible for climate disasters (to some degree at least) should help the victims of those disasters. That, in my view, is fair and normal. It is called responsability, not "punishment". Again, this scaremongering is groundless.

OMG Christelle, you're right. I never thought of it that way! We must repeal that resolution right away. After all, corpses can't get pregnant and can't get teenagers pregnant! It's the perfect solution!


My aim was to show that it's ridiculous to mix up the proverbial apples and oranges. I'm glad you agree with me.

Nations and private institutions already fund scientists who are trying to uncover how much damage humans are having on the environment. We do not need this bill as a means of establishing a institution that will do what other people are already trying. The people of Gulaen would first like to see concrete proof that humans are a sizable precentage of the climate change.

Have you asked those private institutions, then?


Secondly, as other nations have stated, this breaks the sovereignty of nations. No single group of individuals should have the right to force refugees onto others, instead countries should try to form pacts with neighbors to habor such "climate refugees,"


And if they don't, where do the refugees go?

[quuote]
Economic growth and the development of the country go hand in hand. For promoting economic growth in the manner we have chosen the Gulaen government has seen more money flock into its treasury then ever before which we have turned around to build schools and roads.
[/quote]

My point is that sustainable development isn't antithetical to economic growth.


Finally I find it atrocious that you would infer that our policies are bad simply because it does not allow us to support a way of life that would be able to support this bill.


You can do as you please. But in that case, if your actions are contributing to destroying people's homes, you have a responsability to resettle them.

You're not being asked to do anything more than accept responsability for the consequences of your own actions. Not in the name of "punishment", but in the name of helping refugees.


Given this the Gulaen government still does not supply welfare or social security to it's citizens, and due to how new it is as a nation it's curency is worth almost nothing on the world market. If suddenly I was forced to pay welfare for 15000 people, and keep them on a level of life that meets the minimal standard of life for their country, I would be bankrupting my country.


Excuse me, but... what on earth makes you think you would have to provide them with indefinite welfare? Why not simply integrate them into your society and economy, and make them productive citizens of your country? Why would you want to exclude them from participating in your country's economy?

Incidentally, if you supply no welfare at all to anyone, what happens to people with chronic illnesses, or long-term or permanent disabilities in your country?


My final remark to this point is: If Gulaen is to recieve so few refugees, below a certain number, why send them here at all? You are now displacing families so that you can be "fair."


Not at all, since no refugee would ever be forced to migrate to Gulaen. As I've already explained.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Incidentally, if you supply no welfare at all to anyone, what happens to people with chronic illnesses, or long-term or permanent disabilities in your country?

They could have a mandatory insurance system in place. Mind you the differences between welfare for chronic illness and insurance for chronic illness might be nit picking at times.

But he does have an interesting point. Ever notice how it is the resorts of the rich and the extreemely fancy living that are always the ones next to the volcano, hurricane path, rising tide, etc?

But since I see no clause saying that the governments have to give them a standard of living that theypreviously enjoyed, this point is somewhat moot is it not? Moreover it simply says you have to accept them, not grant them citizenship, or entry into your welfare system.

They could have a mandatory insurance system in place. Mind you the differences between welfare for chronic illness and insurance for chronic illness might be nit picking at times.


Quite right. I'm just curious to know how it works in Gulaen.


But he does have an interesting point. Ever notice how it is the resorts of the rich and the extreemely fancy living that are always the ones next to the volcano, hurricane path, rising tide, etc?

But since I see no clause saying that the governments have to give them a standard of living that theypreviously enjoyed, this point is somewhat moot is it not?


I haven't noticed that, no, but yes, you're quite correct. Gulaen would of course be under no obligation to provide a rich standard of living to formerly rich immigrants.


Moreover it simply says you have to accept them, not grant them citizenship, or entry into your welfare system.

Indeed. I'm simply asking why the honourable representative of Gulaen is claiming that his country would have to provide them with welfare, instead of integrating them into the country's economy and ensuring that they become productive members of society.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

They could have a mandatory insurance system in place. Mind you the differences between welfare for chronic illness and insurance for chronic illness might be nit picking at times.

But he does have an interesting point. Ever notice how it is the resorts of the rich and the extreemely fancy living that are always the ones next to the volcano, hurricane path, rising tide, etc?

But since I see no clause saying that the governments have to give them a standard of living that theypreviously enjoyed, this point is somewhat moot is it not? Moreover it simply says you have to accept them, not grant them citizenship, or entry into your welfare system.

OOC: First off, I recently found out about NStracker. And given that my country actually provides quite a large welfare which is seriously grating on me as it's something I was trying to avoid in the formation of my country. It's only like $12.95 per person, but still... Also it shows that my Liber is actually worth more then the dollar (though my GDP is only 130 billion). Just pointing this fact out, so given this some of my statements have been false, however I am going to keep roleplaying as I have been under similar arguments.

IC:

The culture of Damara is one that promotes savings and caring for the elderly and infeeble. There are several large private charities in place that help care and pay for treatments for people with diseases, and family members will often use the savings they have acquired to help their family members.

Secondly, it would be inhumane to throw someone effected by climate change into an area that is causing it, which would have high levels of pollution. It would be even more inhumane to put someone from a rich or middle class country into a poor one whose money is worth little, and then forcing them to live in an area that doesn't meet their prior standards of life. Ask someone who earns $100,000 or more a year to crawl into a rat infested tenant and live off of bread and butter.

Finally, refugees do live off of welfare. Nations are expected to give them food and shelter initially and help them learn what is required to integrate into society. This is welfare, we are paying for these peoples lives until they have the capacity to work as a member of society if they ever choose to.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate.

Secondly, it would be inhumane to throw someone effected by climate change into an area that is causing it, which would have high levels of pollution. It would be even more inhumane to put someone from a rich or middle class country into a poor one whose money is worth little, and then forcing them to live in an area that doesn't meet their prior standards of life.


Which is why - I repeat yet again - the CRC does not force any person to emigrate to a destination they don't want to go to.

I don't mind answering questions and concerns, but - with all due respect to the honourable representative of Gulaen - I would rather not have to repeat the same point over and over.

To be perfectly clear, one final time: The CRC does not force anyone to migrate to a country they don't want to go to.


Finally, refugees do live off of welfare. Nations are expected to give them food and shelter initially and help them learn what is required to integrate into society. This is welfare, we are paying for these peoples lives until they have the capacity to work as a member of society if they ever choose to.


True. But you can adapt to incite or oblige them to become productive members of society, thus recouping the minimal costs you will have spent originally.

And, I repeat, if your actions are contributing to destroying people's homes, you have a responsability to resettle them.

You're not being asked to do anything more than accept responsability for the consequences of your own actions. Not in the name of "punishment", but in the name of helping refugees.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

so from the perspective of a "climate refugee"...

1. My homeland has become a barren and inhospitable wasteland do to the environmentally exploiting actions and in-actions of my government and I'm looking for refuge in a foreign land.

2. I have been denied refuge by at least 4 other nations as they do NOT want to deal with the problems caused by their neighbors... they drain on their welfare, health-care and education systems to speak nothing of the increased problems of policing and crime.

3. IF this resolution passes, then a UN committee will make nations who have been responsible for environmental devastation accept me or at least pay a fine that will go to the nation that does accept me.

4. Since the nations being "coerced" into accepting refugees are themselves the biggest environmental offenders, I'm likely to be relocating to another barren wasteland... only this one will be in a foreign country.

While I applaud the intention to hold environmentally exploiting nations responsible for the homelessness of these people, this resolution simply relocates them from one sewer to another.

I'm afraid that Lermany will vote AGAINST this most useless resolution and I urge other nations to consider it as I do... An unnecessary Bureaucratic Morass

4. Since the nations being "coerced" into accepting refugees are themselves the biggest environmental offenders, I'm likely to be relocating to another barren wasteland... only this one will be in a foreign country.

No. That's extremely over-simplistic. Just because a nation has a significant adverse impact on the climate doesn't mean that nation will be, in any shape or form, a "barren wasteland".

Since the premise of your objection is a faulty one, I encourage you to rethink your position.

I'd also be very interested to see how you would address the issue of ensuring that climate refugees are effectively resettled.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Most Serene Republic of Deep World is concerned by the implications of this resolution. It is our philosophy as a nation to seek the wisest solution to any problem we face, and the potential disruptive consequences of the resolution concern us. We welcome any and all who wish to participate in our nation with open arms, but at the same time we realize that this represents little more than a "quick fix" for a problem with vast human, environmental, and economic consequences. Clearing a path for a few lucky victims to find homes in other nations, there to put off having to face the consequences of a warming world for a later (but not much later) time fails to create any material impact upon the underlying problem. As climate change worsens, more and more will be displaced by its consequences. Someday we could all be refugees of its effects. Is this an acceptable outcome? So, in conclusion, while this resolution may serve to mitigate some of the immediate humanitarian impacts of the modern climate crisis, it offers no substantive solution and must be considered vastly insufficient to deal with the problem.

We welcome any and all who wish to participate in our nation with open arms, but at the same time we realize that this represents little more than a "quick fix" for a problem with vast human, environmental, and economic consequences. Clearing a path for a few lucky victims to find homes in other nations, there to put off having to face the consequences of a warming world for a later (but not much later) time fails to create any material impact upon the underlying problem. As climate change worsens, more and more will be displaced by its consequences. Someday we could all be refugees of its effects.

You're entirely correct, of course. BUT, as I've already explained, the purpose of this resolution is specifically to tackle the very real issue of climate refugees. And it does exactly that. It does not set out to "solve" climate change, because that's a much wider issue, and a single proposal can't do everything. But this proposal does do something beneficial and effective, and as such I hope it has your support.

As for tackling climate change... I invite you to write and submit a proposal of your own. I'll be happy to support it.

In the meantime, if this proposal passes, climate refugees will have received, and will be receiving, concrete help.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I'd also be very interested to see how you would address the issue of ensuring that climate refugees are effectively resettled.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Here's another overly simplistic response for you...

Climate Refugees DO NOT EXIST.
Nations that exploit the environment do NOT lose population.
There is no "problem" and therefore no "solution/resolution" is required to address it.

Here's another overly simplistic response for you...

Climate Refugees DO NOT EXIST.
Nations that exploit the environment do NOT lose population.
There is no "problem" and therefore no "solution/resolution" is required to address it.

Perhaps the honourable representative would like to actually read the proposal before commenting on it, and take note of the fact that it provides a definition of a climate refugee within the scope of this resolution.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The proposal provides a definition of a "Climate Refugee". It by no means illustrates that there are groups of these people wandering the world in search of a homeland.

It has been my experience that the nations who exploit and devastate their lands create a myriad of problems for their nations and their people but it has NOT been my experience that these people actually seek to EMIGRATE.

I have seen no evidence of Emigration statistics or long roles of refugees being denied resettlement. That is your faulty premise. You fail to illustrate that there is an actual Climate Refugee Problem that requires the attention of the UN.

It has been my experience that the nations who exploit and devastate their lands create a myriad of problems for their nations and their people but it has NOT been my experience that these people actually seek to EMIGRATE.


You've misread the proposal. I must ask you again to please read it carefully before commenting on it.

The proposal deals with cases when homes actually become uninhabitable. Of course, when this is a small scale phenomenon, those affected can be resettled nearby within their own country. That is so obvious it barely needs saying. But when a massive disaster occurs, or vast areas become uninhabitable, emigration may and will be a necessity. If an entire area of a country becomes uninhabitable, that country may not be able to cope with its own displaced population. If an entire country - say, consisting of low-lying coral atolls - is destroyed, of course the inhabitants will need to be resettled in foreign countries.

You also show that you have misread the proposal when you say we're dealing with countries which have devastated their own land. That's not the case. And since this is a core aspect of the proposal, it suggests you've barely glanced at it.

Please do read it before you comment any further. If any parts of it aren't clear to you, I'll be happy to explain and clarify.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Dominion of Kivisto stands opposed to CRC for reasons that have already been laid out by others. It comes down to this:


To be perfectly clear, one final time: The CRC does not force anyone to migrate to a country they don't want to go to.

No. It just forces nations to accept the immigration of people that they don't want. It is naive and foolish to believe that these immigrants will be given properly fair treatment by a govenment that did not desire their presence in the first place.

That's true, but in the long term it will no longer be a problem.

How exactly won't it be a problem in the long term?

It isn't saying that, actually. But since the focus is on helping refugees, I consider it fair that those who are partially the cause of climate change in general should be the first the CRC turns to in order to help climate refugees from any environmental disaster.

But would this be the case if the reason the refugees were leaving was to to with climate change but not caused by humans in that specific case?

How exactly won't it be a problem in the long term?

Because in the long term the CRC will have been collecting and updating its data for decades.


But would this be the case if the reason the refugees were leaving was to to with climate change but not caused by humans in that specific case?

Given that you cannot (always) be sure to what extent a specific disaster is attributable to human agency: yes. But if human activity is having an adverse impact on the climate in general, I'm sure you see why that question is moot.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Because in the long term the CRC will have been collecting and updating its data for decades.

But it would still be a problem in the short-term though.

Given that you cannot (always) be sure to what extent a specific disaster is attributable to human agency: yes. But if human activity is having an adverse impact on the climate in general, I'm sure you see why that question is moot.

Couldn't it be that you are over-generalising the human impact on climate change. There are so many factors involving climate change like change in temperature, flooding, drought etc. It could be that one or more of these factors is only caused by nature with humans having an impact on other factors. Nobody can deny that humans have an adverse impact on the climate but it could be that it is generalised to all the different factors of climate change that need to be considered.

But it would still be a problem in the short-term though.


Yes, true, albeit a minimal one. And it's not as if they were starting entirely from scratch.


There are so many factors involving climate change like change in temperature, flooding, drought etc.


Of course. You'll note I've been saying that all along.


It could be that one or more of these factors is only caused by nature with humans having an impact on other factors. Nobody can deny that humans have an adverse impact on the climate but it could be that it is generalised to all the different factors of climate change that need to be considered.

Possible, yes, although the climate also forms a coherent whole. What are you suggesting, though? That victims of, for example, drought, should be left to fend for themselves while victims of flooding receive help? (This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'm not sure where you're going with this, in terms of what you feel should be done.)


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

It cannot be seriously denied.

Yes it can, and you know it can. Please present to me any evidence you have to suggest the link. Until then, I deny it, even if only to spite your arrogance in unilaterally declaring that "it can't be denied".

(OOC: remember, this isn't RL -- I'm not trying to be Glenn Beck or Lars Larsen here, but conservatives do have a point when they chide liberals for their arrogance on this topic.)

There's some sense to that, but if we'd done that, we'd have been accused of creating "yet another toothless, useless committee which does nothing at all to solve problems". Meanwhile - as others have pointed out - the problem of climate refugees is very real and needs to be addressed.

Does it? Where are these refugees from? Which nations are in peril?

Their small number means they won't be a burden on host nations. But for individual climate refugees who have nowhere to go, this proposal is extremely important.

Then let them get resettled as refugees from a natural disaster as any other refugees would. We simply do not need this level of specificty in refugee resettlement. This resolution is an attempt to confer political legitimacy on a topic that hasn't earned scientific legitimacy yet.

I don't consider providing help for refugees to be "playing on emotions".

Of course you don't. You just keep mentioning how important it is and how they need our help and they have nowhere to go...all this despite the fact that no mention of who "they" are and where "they" were from and what happened to "there". Add to that the speculative nature of what the proposed CRC may or may not discover as it seeks to dole out consequences, and the overall effect is negative. If this resolution does not pass NO ONE WILL BE HARMED. If it does pass, we will have agreed to be subject to a committee's FUTURE findings. I say FIND something first, THEN determine the responsibility.

This is where you're wrong. Take the example I gave. If he was born there and has never had the means to leave, why should he be punished for misfortunes of birth and poverty, and the effects of other people's actions?

Because you have no way of knowing who was responsible -- if anyone. If we're approaching aphelion and the average global temperature rises as a result, who pays for that? What recourse does the man in your example have? A lawsuit against Isaac Newton? Or the sun?

We're talking about islands which have been inhabited for thousands of years. If they are suddenly threatened with destruction, it's legitimate to investigate the causes, and turn to potentially responsible nations to resettle inhabitants.

"Potentially". Remember that word, colleagues -- we're signing up to be punished on potential. (Ever read any Philip K. Dick?) Until I can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be definitively responsible for a rise in sea levels or melting polar ice, I'd prefer not to accept any responsibility, thank you.

Do you know if the islands to which you refer have ever been inundated before? Not thousands, but hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago? Habitation does not confer a holy status to land with regard to geological activity. Intangelon just lost three islands in the Fanner Archipelago to geologic subsidence. There were no permnanent residents, but the Intangible Geographic Society lost about $2.1 million in monitoring equipment designed to measure subsidence.

I respect what you're trying to do, but I cannot support it unless I have a reason to. The refugees to which you refer are NOT currently homeless or starving, despite your fear of that coming to pass. This bill sets a dangerous precedent, and I once again urge the assembly to vote against it.

What is to prevent a "Hostile Nation" from despoiling it's environment intentionally to exploit it's resources and displace it's people?... What is to prevent said nation(s) from sprinkling hundreds of terrorist cells into this now "homeless population"?:mp5:

You are forming a UN Committe which has the power/authority to TELL ME who I can allow into my nation?! What about my right and responsibility to protect my population from acts of foreign agression and the infiltration of my society?!:gundge:

With all due respect (for your intentions, NOT this resolution), you are compiling an international coalition which would be a direct threat to my ability to protect my nation and it's people from foreign aggressors! :sniper:

I URGE all nations to consider that this committe will be dictating to you who you MUST allow to enter and settle in your nation! :mad:

Yes, true, albeit a minimal one. And it's not as if they were starting entirely from scratch.

But in the short-term, the CRC's finding won't be refined and precise enough to determine which nations should assume what responsibility. Just like how humans go through life. We make mistakes at first but then we learn through experiance and even then we can never know the answers to everything. I think it would be the same situation for the CRC.

Possible, yes, although the climate also forms a coherent whole. What are you suggesting, though? That victims of, for example, drought, should be left to fend for themselves while victims of flooding receive help? (This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'm not sure where you're going with this, in terms of what you feel should be done.)

In that example, I assume you are refering to the drought being caused by nature and the flooding being caused by humans.

In no way have I said that help shouldn't be given to the climate change caused by nature. As I have said earlier, I believe that the refugees should be evenly distributed amoung the nations. I am simply saying that this proposal wouldn't apply to the drought. Another one therefore would be written, stipulating that the refugees should be equally distributed if the climate change factor was caused by nature.

And with the short-term problem (which would actually be long - you refered to "decades") I stated before and the fact there will only be a small amount of refugees, I think that all climate change refugees should be evenly distributed no matter whether the change was caused by humans or nature.

I agree that nations do play a part in climate change and so should assume responsibility. But the responsibility should be implemented through another way other than basing it on saving human lives.

What is to prevent a "Hostile Nation" from despoiling it's environment intentionally to exploit it's resources and displace it's people?... What is to prevent said nation(s) from sprinkling hundreds of terrorist cells into this now "homeless population"?:mp5:

Hang on a moment... You're talking about a nation deliberately destroying its own environment, correct? I think most people in this Assembly would consider that extremely unlikely.

Bear in mind, additionally, that a country does not get to decide where its own refugees go. That is up to the refugees and the CRC. I'm a little confused as to what exactly you're suggesting. That a government would (somehow) render its own country uninhabitable, in the hopes of getting "terrorists" out to random foreign locations? Leavin aside the fact that such tactics would be... uh, extremely counter-productive, with massive side-effects (to put it mildly), there are far simpler (and far, far more efficient) ways to get agents into enemy countries.


What about my right and responsibility to protect my population from acts of foreign agression and the infiltration of my society?!:gundge:

We're delving into the realms of the exceedingly unprobable here. Downright impossible, even, unless you can explain how exactly these "acts of foreign agression" would be achieved. (And please put that gun away. You're in the United Nations General Assembly here.)


With all due respect (for your intentions, NOT this resolution), you are compiling an international coalition


A what?! How do you figure that, exactly?


which would be a direct threat to my ability to protect my nation and it's people from foreign aggressors! :sniper:


I'm really going to need you to clarify that.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We must all understand that this is a real problem and will realistically affect us all if we do not fight it. While it is of course an expensive thought and an expensive fight, we must all "pitch in" and realize this. I give full support.

First let me apologize for my government's inactivity as of late, we've been under a great deal of domestic pressures due to the passage of multiple initiatives in the last round of elections that have clearly changed the priorities of Mikitivity.

And I'd also like to apologize to not having the time to review all the comments in debate, so if I am repeating something ... I only ask that you point me to the relevant posts.

With that said, there are elements of this resolution that my government finds appropriate. But there are some things we would like to better understand. For example:


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;

We are interested in why a long-term (which is a vague definition) threshold of 2 C (a non-vague definition) is established.

While certainly long-term fluctuations in any parameter are unsettling (something that our glaciers are extremely sensitive to), it would be most helpful for me to understand why this particular metric was suggested.

Thanks,
Howie T. Katzman

There's a silly little internet game I play called "Real Life". You don't actually do much, but you can read game-generated "newspaper articles" and, depending on the country you pick, vote in "elections". It's really quite fascinating, and amazing how these countries maintain with such tiny population growths.

Anyway, awhile ago, the administrators triggered a Disaster. It's rather like summoning a monster in Sim City, actually. This time, it was an earthquake. Those crafty administrators put it under the ocean so it would cause a tsunami. Needless to say, it caused a whole bunch of damage. Killed lots of people, flooded lots of places, so on and so forth.

However, when I was reading the "articles" about the event, I saw some people blaming the country of "The United States of America". Seems they felt that, while the earthquake was a natural disaster, the pollution from TUSoA somehow made things worse. Something about warming waters or something. I'm no scientist, so I didn't fully understand it.

More recently, the admins triggered a hurricane which tore the hell out of several southern provinces... territories... states... whatever they're called, in TUSoA. Again, some of the game-generated articles talked about how global warming (and thus TUSoA's pollution) made things worse.

You're probably wondering why I'm bringing all this up. Well, I'm wondering what would happen if something like the CRC existed in that game. What if the scientists found that global warming made those disasters worse than they should have been. Would TUSoA be held responsible? Would they sit down and figure out what percentage of warming was caused by each nation and assign fractional blame? In the tsunami scenerio, what if TUSoA spent vast amounts of currency in emergency relief (including military logistics)? Would that reduce their obligation to the CRC?

Of course, that's just a silly game that doesn't even have a Tsunami Warning System. But I still wonder how blame can be applied when deal with massive global changes. Sure, if someone causes nuclear winter (mmm... ice age...), it's easy to point The Finger Of Accusation. The rest is rather more complicated, isn't it?


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

There's a silly little internet game I play called "Real Life". You don't actually do much, but you can read game-generated "newspaper articles" and, depending on the country you pick, vote in "elections". It's really quite fascinating, and amazing how these countries maintain with such tiny population growths.

Anyway, awhile ago, the administrators triggered a Disaster. It's rather like summoning a monster in Sim City, actually. This time, it was an earthquake. Those crafty administrators put it under the ocean so it would cause a tsunami. Needless to say, it caused a whole bunch of damage. Killed lots of people, flooded lots of places, so on and so forth.

However, when I was reading the "articles" about the event, I saw some people blaming the country of "The United States of America". Seems they felt that, while the earthquake was a natural disaster, the pollution from TUSoA somehow made things worse. Something about warming waters or something. I'm no scientist, so I didn't fully understand it.

More recently, the admins triggered a hurricane which tore the hell out of several southern provinces... territories... states... whatever they're called, in TUSoA. Again, some of the game-generated articles talked about how global warming (and thus TUSoA's pollution) made things worse.

You're probably wondering why I'm bringing all this up. Well, I'm wondering what would happen if something like the CRC existed in that game. What if the scientists found that global warming made those disasters worse than they should have been. Would TUSoA be held responsible? Would they sit down and figure out what percentage of warming was caused by each nation and assign fractional blame? In the tsunami scenerio, what if TUSoA spent vast amounts of currency in emergency relief (including military logistics)? Would that reduce their obligation to the CRC?

Of course, that's just a silly game that doesn't even have a Tsunami Warning System. But I still wonder how blame can be applied when deal with massive global changes. Sure, if someone causes nuclear winter (mmm... ice age...), it's easy to point The Finger Of Accusation. The rest is rather more complicated, isn't it?


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


Well said.

Because in the long term the CRC will have been collecting and updating its data for decades.

Given that you cannot (always) be sure to what extent a specific disaster is attributable to human agency: yes. But if human activity is having an adverse impact on the climate in general, I'm sure you see why that question is moot.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

It has already been stated that they will only be using three years of data, so there are no decades of data to support any decision they might make.

Also, you are assuming that they will find date within that three years of decades to support your assertions.

Would you like to tell us the truth now?

We must all understand that this is a real problem and will realistically affect us all if we do not fight it. While it is of course an expensive thought and an expensive fight, we must all "pitch in" and realize this. I give full support.

Thank you for your support.


We are interested in why a long-term (which is a vague definition) threshold of 2 C (a non-vague definition) is established.

While certainly long-term fluctuations in any parameter are unsettling (something that our glaciers are extremely sensitive to), it would be most helpful for me to understand why this particular metric was suggested.


A valid question. We did feel it preferable to include some clear factual marker to avoid accusations of vagueness - without going into too much detail on the other hand, so as not to hamper the CRC. 2°C is a significant change, as you rightly point out. A higher threshhold would have neglected the damage caused by a 2°C change (it has been pointed out on an offsite forum that grain production, for example, would not survive a 2°C change in temperature and climate), while a lower threshhold may have faced accusations of being too "extreme".


You're probably wondering why I'm bringing all this up. Well, I'm wondering what would happen if something like the CRC existed in that game. What if the scientists found that global warming made those disasters worse than they should have been. Would TUSoA be held responsible? Would they sit down and figure out what percentage of warming was caused by each nation and assign fractional blame? In the tsunami scenerio, what if TUSoA spent vast amounts of currency in emergency relief (including military logistics)? Would that reduce their obligation to the CRC?


Calculations regarding each nation's impact on the climate will have been made prior to any such disaster, not in response to it. And measuring human impact on the climate is by no means an impossibility. As for your second question, yes, the fictional TUSoA would of course be entitled to invoke clause 3 and have its relief efforts recognised by the CRC.

It has already been stated that they will only be using three years of data,


No. You haven't been paying attention. I refer you back to my earlier statements, which I really don't feel like repeating.


Would you like to tell us the truth now?

I already have. Repeatedly. It's hardly my fault if someone isn't listening.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Calculations regarding each nation's impact on the climate will have been made prior to any such disaster, not in response to it. And measuring human impact on the climate is by no means an impossibility. As for your second question, yes, the fictional TUSoA would of course be entitled to invoke clause 3 and have its relief efforts recognised by the CRC.


So it's preemptive finger-pointing, then? "We've been watching you so we know you caused that flood?" That's the problem with this- refugees, it seems, are secondary to the big thing- determining who among us is responsible for causing "natural disasters."

It's hardly productive.

Rang Erman
Advisor

And, I repeat, if your actions are contributing to destroying people's homes, you have a responsability to resettle them.

You're not being asked to do anything more than accept responsability for the consequences of your own actions. Not in the name of "punishment", but in the name of helping refugees.

And if my country were to deny this "responsibility"? What then? Do we get to challenge the arbitrary findings of the CRC in court? No. Can we request any form of outside arbitration? No. We're given a choice by the CRC: accept refugees or pay up. That, my friend, is extortion, pure and simple.

"Potentially". Remember that word, colleagues -- we're signing up to be punished on potential. (Ever read any Philip K. Dick?) Until I can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be definitively responsible for a rise in sea levels or melting polar ice, I'd prefer not to accept any responsibility, thank you.

I submit that Ms. Christelle Zyryanov is potentially the cause of chlamydia. Perhaps we need to deal with the potential that I am correct and lock her away before she can cause any more damage.

*snip*

Brilliantly put, my dear Vermi.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So it's preemptive finger-pointing, then? "We've been watching you so we know you caused that flood?" That's the problem with this- refugees, it seems, are secondary to the big thing- determining who among us is responsible for causing "natural disasters."

It's hardly productive.


I must strongly disagree with that assessment, and I don't see how anyone can claim that the focus of this proposal isn't, first and foremost, on providing concrete help to refugees.

I strikes me as supremely ironic that several nations in this august Assembly are clamouring for the "right" not to be held responsible for their actions, and the "right" not to help refugees whose plight they are at least partially responsible for. As I (and others) have been at pains to point out, responsability is not punishment. Just because some esteemed representatives here feel threatened doesn't mean that the emphasis of the proposal itself is on them. With all due respect, stop being so narcissistic. This proposal's main concern is for climate refugees. And it brings productive, concrete solutions to their plight.

I have yet to hear a single critic reply to the question I have repeatedly put to them. Namely, how would you ensure that all climate refugees are effectively resettled?

This discussion has constantly veered away from the issue of helping climate refugees, which is the core of this proposal. Asking nations to help those upon whom they have inflicted suffering and loss is not "unfair". No more than asking you to pay compensation for a window you've smashed is "unfair". You are asked to pay for the window, not primarily to "punish" you, but so that the victim can have a new window. Similarly, if you bring a child into this world you are responsible for it. That responsability is not punishment - and, I might add, your focus should be on the well being of that child, not on claiming it's "unfair" that you have to be responsible for it.

I've tried to avoid comparisons throughout this discussion, but perhaps they'll help drive the point home more effectively.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

And if my country were to deny this "responsibility"? What then? Do we get to challenge the arbitrary findings of the CRC in court? No. Can we request any form of outside arbitration? No. We're given a choice by the CRC: accept refugees or pay up. That, my friend, is extortion, pure and simple.


I understand the honourable sheik's concerns, but I must point out that UN committees are well known to be objective, fair and reliable. There is nothing "arbitrary" about them. And, for goodness' sake, the CRC will be asking hardly anything of you anyway! I respectfully suggest that the honourable sheik should rethink his priorities.

If you feel so strongly about this, my dear sheik, what do you suggest, in order to ensure that all climate refugees are effectively resettled? THAT is the fundamental question here.


I submit that Ms. Christelle Zyryanov is potentially the cause of chlamydia. Perhaps we need to deal with the potential that I am correct and lock her away before she can cause any more damage.


You're deliberately misrepresenting the effects of this proposal. You will not be required to do anything on the basis of potential, but only of hard scientific fact.


Brilliantly put, my dear Vermi.


Perhaps the honourable sheik would now like to address the reply I made to the honourable Ambassador Vermithrax?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You're deliberately misrepresenting the effects of this proposal. You will not be required to do anything on the basis of potential, but only of hard scientific fact.

Gravity is a hard scientific fact. The (oh, look, here comes this word again!) potential causes of climate change are not.

And we will be required to accept these "climate refugees," should they exist, unless, of course, we want to pay money to the CRC -- you know, that whole extortion thing I've been talking about.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Gravity is a hard scientific fact. The (oh, look, here comes this word again!) potential causes of climate change are not.

Are you seriously saying the CRC cannot hope to measure the impact of human activity on the climate? There will be no "potential" about it.


And we will be required to accept these "climate refugees," should they exist, unless, of course, we want to pay money to the CRC -- you know, that whole extortion thing I've been talking about.


I've already replied to that. If you want to continue along this track, sheik, please respond to my reply first.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Are you seriously saying the CRC cannot hope to measure the impact of human activity on the climate?

Not accurately, and sure as hell not objectively.

I've already replied to that. If you want to continue along this track, sheik, please respond to my reply first.


I've read your reply. You ignore the fact that there can be no questioning the CRC. If I run my car over my neighbour's lawn, yes, I should be required to pay for it, but I should also have the right to challenge his claim that I am, in fact, responsible for the damage and to what degree. That's what we have courts for. The CRC, on the other hand, would answer to no one.

I've read your reply. You ignore the fact that there can be no questioning the CRC. If I run my car over my neighbour's lawn, yes, I should be required to pay for it, but I should also have the right to challenge his claim that I am, in fact, responsible for the damage and to what degree. That's what we have courts for. The CRC, on the other hand, would answer to no one.

That's actually a valid point. But in a sense I've already addressed that too.

First, I maintain that the CRC, as a UN committee, is best suited (and is arguably the only one suited) to make such a decision. Yes, perhaps an appeal procedure could have been included. But then how does one appeal against scientific fact?

Second, as I've explained, the imposition upon your country is - and this is a point I cannot emphasise enough, since several of you are ignoring it - truly minuscule. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Third, I'm still interested to hear what you, sheik, believe should be done in order to ensure that climate refugees are effectively resettled.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I must strongly disagree with that assessment, and I don't see how anyone can claim that the focus of this proposal isn't, first and foremost, on providing concrete help to refugees.

The focus has been distorted. No nation in opposition has argued that refugees should get buggered, but rather that forced settlement or forced payments are unfair. The opposition has been consistently arguing not that refugees are bad, but rather that the CRC itself is a bad idea.

I strikes me as supremely ironic that several nations in this august Assembly are clamouring for the "right" not to be held responsible for their actions, and the "right" not to help refugees whose plight they are at least partially responsible for.

Were you not just arguing that a reasonable nation would not cause intentional environmental damage, as in the example of flooding inland cities or causing massive damage to their own country, so as to force out its own people?

This is supremely important because it demonstrates a key component- intent. Surely reasonable nations don't intend to cause tsunamis and global climate change? The key question is negligence- willful, intentional negligence, or simply obliviousness to the facts of climate change. The threat that the CRC can simply say "you did this. Pay up or open up." is simply not viable. I echo the sheik's statements questioning independent arbitration- the CRC may be generally fair, but shouldn't there be some form of arbitration?

We aren't trying to screw the refugees. Nations that have a desire to help the displaced already do so. They don't need a CRC to tell them they should accept refugees.

As I (and others) have been at pains to point out, responsability is not punishment. Just because some esteemed representatives here feel threatened doesn't mean that the emphasis of the proposal itself is on them. With all due respect, stop being so narcissistic. This proposal's main concern is for climate refugees. And it brings productive, concrete solutions to their plight.

Narcicissm? Hardly. The question, as I said, is not whether we should bugger the refugees. It's about the ridiculous mandate the CRC would have to dispense them or force nations to pay up. That has always been the question, that has always been the point of contention.

I have yet to hear a single critic reply to the question I have repeatedly put to them. Namely, how would you ensure that all climate refugees are effectively resettled?

What happens to climate refugees right now? Or are they somehow different from war refugees, economic refugees, and political refugees? I would wager that small communities of people displaced in their homelands would simply a. move to another part of their country b. move to another country.

Or are you suggesting that no nation has ways of dealing with refugees?

This discussion has constantly veered away from the issue of helping climate refugees, which is the core of this proposal. Asking nations to help those upon whom they have inflicted suffering and loss is not "unfair". No more than asking you to pay compensation for a window you've smashed is "unfair". You are asked to pay for the window, not primarily to "punish" you, but so that the victim can have a new window. Similarly, if you bring a child into this world you are responsible for it. That responsability is not punishment - and, I might add, your focus should be on the well being of that child, not on claiming it's "unfair" that you have to be responsible for it.

But it is unfair, and it does amount to punishment. The debate has veered right to the heart of the problem. The smashed-window analogy does not work- what nation intentionally causes a tsunami? Reasonable nations will see their mistake and make amends. But, if there is simply a council that looks for blame and forces responsibility, what's going to happen? That nation will simply leave the UN and the refugees will be buggered, and so will this assembly.

Most courteously,

Third, I'm still interested to hear what you, sheik, believe should be done in order to ensure that climate refugees are effectively resettled.

That's what we've got NGOs like the International Red Cross (OOC: yes, it does exist in NS) for. That's what we have voluntary contributions for -- and by voluntary, I mean truly voluntary, not forced contributions, as suggested in the final clause of the proposal.

This is supremely important because it demonstrates a key component- intent. Surely reasonable nations don't intend to cause tsunamis and global climate change? The key question is negligence- willful, intentional negligence, or simply obliviousness to the facts of climate change. The threat that the CRC can simply say "you did this. Pay up or open up." is simply not viable.


Why not? It brings us back to the smashed window analogy, which you mention later. If a nation unintentionally impacts on climate change, why should the victims be left to face the consequences?


I echo the sheik's statements questioning independent arbitration- the CRC may be generally fair, but shouldn't there be some form of arbitration?


As I've said, yes, that could have been a good idea. Although I don't think it's crucial, for reasons I've already stated.


We aren't trying to screw the refugees. Nations that have a desire to help the displaced already do so. They don't need a CRC to tell them they should accept refugees.


As you know (having read the proposal carefully), the CRC is there to supplement voluntary assistance, not discourage or replace it. The proposal clearly states that the CRC intervenes as a last resort. Which means that your point is moot.


Narcicissm? Hardly. The question, as I said, is not whether we should bugger the refugees. It's about the ridiculous mandate the CRC would have to dispense them or force nations to pay up. That has always been the question, that has always been the point of contention.


And instead you would suggest... what? Bearing in mind, of course, that the CRC only deals with refugees who have repeatedly failed in their attempts to emigrate by themselves.


Or are you suggesting that no nation has ways of dealing with refugees?


You haven't been paying attention. But I've answered this (yet again) just above.


The smashed-window analogy does not work- what nation intentionally causes a tsunami? Reasonable nations will see their mistake and make amends.


So, if I smash your window unintentionally, I should be asked whether I would like to compensate you voluntarily, and if I say no I shouldn't be required to? Instead, you will have to rely on third party voluntary aid... or pay for a new window yourself (or, if you can't, simply cope without that window), despite you being the victim?


But, if there is simply a council that looks for blame and forces responsibility, what's going to happen? That nation will simply leave the UN and the refugees will be buggered, and so will this assembly.


That's an alarmist view which I find extremely unrealistic. Are you suggesting these august halls will abruptly empty themselves, leaving refugees with nowhere to go? I'll lay down a bet, if you wish. My bet is that, if this proposal passes, the United Nations will continue to function without being "buggered". A crate of Ariddian grapefruit vodka as the wager.


That's what we've got NGOs like the International Red Cross (OOC: yes, it does exist in NS) for. That's what we have voluntary contributions for -- and by voluntary, I mean truly voluntary, not forced contributions, as suggested in the final clause of the proposal.

I'm well aware of the IRC; the Ariddian Red Star (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_Red_Star) is affiliated to it. But that's entirely beside the point since - you'll notice if you read the proposal again - the CRC intervenes exclusively when voluntary contributions are lacking. That is its very purpose.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Are you seriously saying the CRC cannot hope to measure the impact of human activity on the climate? There will be no "potential" about it.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


I'll say it, I know they can't. No where near enough is known or understood to fully grasp that. And what little is known points to there being no wide spread impact of human being's impact on the climate.

As for your 2 degrees celcius, I am guessing that you don't have any idea where you got that from, so I'll explain it to you.

If you measure the temperature at a specific spot in natural terrain, then measure it ten years later after concrete has been there for five years, the temperature will have risen 2 deg.

This is, technically, in the loosest intrepretation, environment. Extremely localized, but the environment. If however, you measure the temperature on a spot that has not been paved, you will find the temperature is the same or it has dropped. Why the difference? Because concrete is an excellent passive solar energy collector. It absorbs and releases thermal energy. This in turn provides the additional temperature.

It is extremely localized, and even if a country were for some reason decide to and be capable of paving over their entire country, the effect would not extend beyond their borders.

Originally Posted by Ariddia
Yes, true, albeit a minimal one. And it's not as if they were starting entirely from scratch.

But in the short-term, the CRC's finding won't be refined and precise enough to determine which nations should assume what responsibility. Just like how humans go through life. We make mistakes at first but then we learn through experiance and even then we can never know the answers to everything. I think it would be the same situation for the CRC.

Possible, yes, although the climate also forms a coherent whole. What are you suggesting, though? That victims of, for example, drought, should be left to fend for themselves while victims of flooding receive help? (This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'm not sure where you're going with this, in terms of what you feel should be done.)

In that example, I assume you are refering to the drought being caused by nature and the flooding being caused by humans.

In no way have I said that help shouldn't be given to the climate change caused by nature. As I have said earlier, I believe that the refugees should be evenly distributed amoung the nations. I am simply saying that this proposal wouldn't apply to the drought. Another one therefore would be written, stipulating that the refugees should be equally distributed if the climate change factor was caused by nature.

And with the short-term problem (which would actually be long - you refered to "decades") I stated before and the fact there will only be a small amount of refugees, I think that all climate change refugees should be evenly distributed no matter whether the change was caused by humans or nature.

I agree that nations do play a part in climate change and so should assume responsibility. But the responsibility should be implemented through another way other than basing it on saving human lives.

Billopesha would like a response to our statement. Thank you.

In no way have I said that help shouldn't be given to the climate change caused by nature. As I have said earlier, I believe that the refugees should be evenly distributed amoung the nations. I am simply saying that this proposal wouldn't apply to the drought. Another one therefore would be written, stipulating that the refugees should be equally distributed if the climate change factor was caused by nature.

And how would you distinguish between the two, except in very specific and obvious cases?


And with the short-term problem (which would actually be long - you refered to "decades") I stated before and the fact there will only be a small amount of refugees, I think that all climate change refugees should be evenly distributed no matter whether the change was caused by humans or nature.


In that case, you would have nations here clamouring: "Hey, you're forcing me to pay for the damage someone else has done?". I don't imagine that would be very popular, somehow.


I agree that nations do play a part in climate change and so should assume responsibility. But the responsibility should be implemented through another way other than basing it on saving human lives.

If by that you mean "we should be addressing climate change beyond the simple issue of refugees", then yes, but that's not what this proposal is about. If you would like to write and submit a proposal on climate change, though, I fully encourage you to do so, and it will probably have my support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

And how would you distinguish between the two, except in very specific and obvious cases?

Good to see you finally admit that you can't determine this "responsibility" stuff with any certainty unless it's practically slapping you in the face.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I must strongly disagree with that assessment, and I don't see how anyone can claim that the focus of this proposal isn't, first and foremost, on providing concrete help to refugees.

Because it is at least equally focussed on assigning blame using methods of determining responsibility that hve not been detailed at all, beyond saying "the CRC will figure that out". That's too big a leap of faith for my nation to make.

I strikes me as supremely ironic that several nations in this august Assembly are clamouring for the "right" not to be held responsible for their actions, and the "right" not to help refugees whose plight they are at least partially responsible for. As I (and others) have been at pains to point out, responsability is not punishment. Just because some esteemed representatives here feel threatened doesn't mean that the emphasis of the proposal itself is on them. With all due respect, stop being so narcissistic. This proposal's main concern is for climate refugees. And it brings productive, concrete solutions to their plight.

First of all, I've never claimed that not being held responsible is a "right", and I take offense that characterization. Second, it has not been shown that any one nation is in any way responsible (even "partially"). What you're calling "narcissism" is coming from, in my view, a position of supreme arrogance and condescension when you make statements like that without so much as a shred of proof.

Please -- resubmit this as a climate study resolution and I'll happily vote for it. I'd like to get to the bottom of this issue and have some sort of concrete data to examine. Intangible scientists in both the public and private sector have so far been unable to provide a definitive link between human activity and climate change, and trust me, they're funded rather well.

I have yet to hear a single critic reply to the question I have repeatedly put to them. Namely, how would you ensure that all climate refugees are effectively resettled?

You ask this question as if there has never been a natural disaster severe enough to cause a refugee crisis in the history of the world. You know that's not true. Tevhigian refugees from the Tevhigia Tsunami (caused by a seafloor lansdslide independent of climatological conditions) of 2003 were welcomed all across the former region of Greater Seattle -- in Torzacen, Boziis, Musicatopia and Intangelon. We did not need a specific UN resolution to tell us that people in need of homes and help should be aided. And we don't need this one.[/quote]

This discussion has constantly veered away from the issue of helping climate refugees, which is the core of this proposal. Asking nations to help those upon whom they have inflicted suffering and loss is not "unfair". No more than asking you to pay compensation for a window you've smashed is "unfair". You are asked to pay for the window, not primarily to "punish" you, but so that the victim can have a new window. Similarly, if you bring a child into this world you are responsible for it. That responsability is not punishment - and, I might add, your focus should be on the well being of that child, not on claiming it's "unfair" that you have to be responsible for it.

*sigh*

I have inflicted suffering upon no one. IF that statement proves to be incorrect, I will be the first in line to accept responsibility. However, it simply hasn't been proven at all, and you're asking us -- no, TELLING us -- that we are partially responsible for disasters which, individually, cannot be conclusively proven to be caused by sapient activity.

Another point -- we're talking the globe, right? That's a big place. So that globe whose climate changes affects not just one nation, but all nations in some way. My nation isn't going to feel terribly generous if the inundation of a corla archipelago happens in the same month as huge hurricanes on our own coast. So isn't that a form of responsibility? IF we had a hand in causing climatological enhancement of inclement weather, WE will be made to feel the consequences by -- wait for it -- the same principle! Weather!

The last thing I'm going to advise my Magister is to seek out those countries still burning lignite for energy and make them help foot the bill.

Good to see you finally admit that you can't determine this "responsibility" stuff with any certainty unless it's practically slapping you in the face.


You've not been paying attention, sheik. I've been saying all along that the degree of human agency in a specific environmental disaster would, except in obvious cases, be difficult to determine. Which is why the CRC aims to determine the impact of human activity on the climate in general, not for each specific disaster.

I have said this time and time and time and time again. I really don't mind answering questions, but it's getting tiresome having to repeat the same thing over and over because people haven't been paying attention.

Before you raise a point, please make sure I haven't already answered, and for goodness' sake please make sure you understand what the proposal says.

It's frustrating to see so many people opposing it because of their own faulty interpretation of the text itself.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You've not been paying attention, sheik. I've been saying all along that the degree of human agency in a specific environmental disaster would, except in obvious cases, be difficult to determine. Which is why the CRC aims to determine the impact of human activity on the climate in general, not for each specific disaster.

I have said this time and time and time and time again. I really don't mind answering questions, but it's getting tiresome having to repeat the same thing over and over because people haven't been paying attention.

Before you raise a point, please make sure I haven't already answered, and for goodness' sake please make sure you understand what the proposal says.

It's frustrating to see so many people opposing it because of their own faulty interpretation of the text itself.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Hold on a minute, I doubt you'll respond to this, but if it is so difficult to determine what is happening, then how do you propose to have your commission hand out these punishments based on what is happening?

Please take a moment to understand what the proposal is asking for.

It's frustrating to see so many people support it based on an ideaistic view so far divorced from reality.

Please -- resubmit this as a climate study resolution and I'll happily vote for it. I'd like to get to the bottom of this issue and have some sort of concrete data to examine. Intangible scientists in both the public and private sector have so far been unable to provide a definitive link between human activity and climate change, and trust me, they're funded rather well.
.


I agree, I would wholeheartedly support an independent study with full disclosure and open peer review of climate change. As of yet, we have not had one, and this proposal all but blocks the creation of one.

It is of my Opinion, that we vote against this Proposal, It has merit in it's goal of proividing help to peoples that are harmed by changes to their environment, however, opening people's border to refugees is a sure fire path to chaos.

We all know too well the troubles with controlling borders, and the Illegal immigration that follows, to expand this operation to account for the influx of foriegn peoples would be costly, and ultimately, disasterous.

Our Region is built of strong economies, but when you pour more people into the nation, you risk off setting the balanced ratio of demand and supply in the work-force.

While more people can effect your economy for the good, I implore that we do this through internal methods, at a rate at which we can control.

So please, vote NO on this proposal.

You've not been paying attention, sheik. I've been saying all along that the degree of human agency in a specific environmental disaster would, except in obvious cases, be difficult to determine. Which is why the CRC aims to determine the impact of human activity on the climate in general, not for each specific disaster.



Which is why the CRC's aims are a load of goat manure.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Because it is at least equally focussed on assigning blame using methods of determining responsibility that hve not been detailed at all, beyond saying "the CRC will figure that out". That's too big a leap of faith for my nation to make.


But there's no other realiable, objective and trustworthy way to do it.


Please -- resubmit this as a climate study resolution and I'll happily vote for it. I'd like to get to the bottom of this issue and have some sort of concrete data to examine. Intangible scientists in both the public and private sector have so far been unable to provide a definitive link between human activity and climate change, and trust me, they're funded rather well.


I honestly don't see why the two should be dissociated. Assume this were split into two proposals, with the first establishing the CRC and the second proposing to act on the basis of the CRC's data. How exactly would that be different?

(OOC: You do realise the OOC problem here, don't you? OOC, the CRC is never going to provide any such data, although we have to assume it does so IC. So what you're suggesting is impossible.)


You ask this question as if there has never been a natural disaster severe enough to cause a refugee crisis in the history of the world. You know that's not true. Tevhigian refugees from the Tevhigia Tsunami (caused by a seafloor lansdslide independent of climatological conditions) of 2003 were welcomed all across the former region of Greater Seattle -- in Torzacen, Boziis, Musicatopia and Intangelon. We did not need a specific UN resolution to tell us that people in need of homes and help should be aided. And we don't need this one.

I'll say this again, although I've said it a thousand times. This proposal does not assume there are no nations willing to take in refugees already; in fact, it does exactly the reverse. The CRC exists to intervene as a last resort, once... Oh, please just read clause 2. No offence, but I've said it enough times already.


I have inflicted suffering upon no one. IF that statement proves to be incorrect, I will be the first in line to accept responsibility.

Good. That's all this proposal asks of you. If you're right, then you have nothing to be concerned about, and this proposal will simply be exactly what you want it to be: a climate study resolution. If, on the other hand, you're wrong, then, as you've said, you're willing to accept responsability. In either case, this proposal does exactly what you say you want.


Another point -- we're talking the globe, right? That's a big place. So that globe whose climate changes affects not just one nation, but all nations in some way. My nation isn't going to feel terribly generous if the inundation of a corla archipelago happens in the same month as huge hurricanes on our own coast.

Of course. And the CRC is smart enough to deal with the two crises conjointly, and not send you a batch of foreign refugees (tiny as it may be) while you're busy coping with refugees of your own. In any case, the answer to your question is in the question itself. Resettling the population of a coral archipelago (say, 15,000 people), is hardly going to swamp anyone...


So isn't that a form of responsibility? IF we had a hand in causing climatological enhancement of inclement weather, WE will be made to feel the consequences by -- wait for it -- the same principle! Weather!


Of course. And I hope other nations will realise that too. But that doesn't absolve you of responsability to the victims of climate change. To go back to the window analogy, if you cut yourself badly while accidentally smashing that window, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for paying compensation on that window. Even if breaking the window has already had consequences by injuring you. Why? Because this is not about punishing you: it is about helping the victim.

Hold on a minute, I doubt you'll respond to this, but if it is so difficult to determine what is happening, then how do you propose to have your commission hand out these punishments based on what is happening?


With all due respect to the honourable representative of Seabea70, are you deliberately misreading me? Read again what I've just said.


Our Region is built of strong economies, but when you pour more people into the nation, you risk off setting the balanced ratio of demand and supply in the work-force.


No, no, no. I've answered this concern many, many times. I'll do it again, though.

The number of refugees resettled in each country would be so small as to pose no notable problem in terms on integration, in terms of employment, or in terms of anything at all. Consider, Ambassador, the number of nations in the United Nations. Consider the number of people made homeless by an environmental disaster. Now divide the latter by the former to give you an average. Lower that average significantly for nations which have fairly little impact on the climate. Now factor in, in addition, the number of environmental disasters per decade.

That should start to give you an idea, Ambassador, of how miniscule the numbers involved are (per host nation).

Now continue by removing from those figures all people who will be resettled within their home country. Of the small number left, remove those (i.e., the vast majority) who will be welcomed voluntarily by other, willing countries, without the CRC being involved at all.

Consider the tiny number left. That is what is divided between all the member countries of the United Nations. When I say that the impact of climate refugees on host countries will be negligeable, that is exactly what I mean. There will be, therefore, no “surge”, "flood" or "inpouring" of population in any way, shape or form.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Which is why the CRC's aims are a load of goat manure.


Run out of arguments, have you? Or not willing to respond to my replies? Isn't the point of this discussion to... well, have an actual discussion, which may lead you to question your views based on a fresh perspective, and on realising where you've been mistaken?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Run out of arguments, have you? Or not willing to respond to my replies? Isn't the point of this discussion to... well, have an actual discussion, which may lead you to question your views based on a fresh perspective, and on realising where you've been mistaken?

Why must it be me who is mistaken? Because I'm not the one who wrote the proposal? That's ludicrous. You've either ignored my arguments or tried to dance around them, my dear Ms. Zyryanov. Your proposal would create an unaccountable committee with the power to force nations to accept refugees and extort money out of nations should they refuse. It's that simple.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Why must it be me who is mistaken? Because I'm not the one who wrote the proposal? That's ludicrous. You've either ignored my arguments or tried to dance around them, my dear Ms. Zyryanov. Your proposal would create an unaccountable committee with the power to force nations to accept refugees and extort money out of nations should they refuse. It's that simple.


No it isn't, as I've tried to demonstrate, my dear sheik. I've answered both those points. Undoubtedly we have a different sense of priorities, but I don't believe my replies were "dancing around" your concerns. They were straightforward replies putting your concerns into perspective.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

And how would you distinguish between the two, except in very specific and obvious cases?

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make and I think quite a few of the nations in this thread have been trying to say. This is why I said that the refugees should be evenly distributed no matter whether humans are responsible or not.

You have just said that climate change factors can't be distinguished between whether they have been caused by humans or by nature. Instead, you want the CRC to generalise the situation and say that humans cause all specific factors of climate change. But doesn't that mean that there would be specific factors that could not be caused by humans. After all, you have just said that you couldn't distinguish between the two. Wouldn't that mean that if you give refugees to a nation, the nation could respond by saying "Hey, you could be making me pay for the damage that nature has done?"

In that case, you would have nations here clamouring: "Hey, you're forcing me to pay for the damage someone else has done?". I don't imagine that would be very popular, somehow.

There would actually be a "could" in there. They would only be justified if they said "Hey, you're forcing me to pay for the damage someone else could have done?". As I said before, it could have been only nature that affected that specific factor. They could also say "Hey, you could be making me pay for the damage that nature has done?". There is so much uncertainty no matter whether you believe it was humans or nature. That is why I don't this proposal should exist.

But of course this is about saving human lives. Climate refugees are in desperate need to leave their nation. So, if they are so desperate, let's just equally distribute them across the nations. After all, there is only a very small number, not enough for any nation to complain about, as you have so rightly said so many times before. And it would be inhumane to refuse them as they are in desperate need. And there are already refugees fleeing to different countries despite the proposal and countries can't complain much about that so why should they complain about this? As you have said so many times before, the proposal would organise the flow of refugees much better, not prevent it.

As you can see, you are actually going against many of the points you have so rightly put forward before.

If by that you mean "we should be addressing climate change beyond the simple issue of refugees", then yes, but that's not what this proposal is about. If you would like to write and submit a proposal on climate change, though, I fully encourage you to do so, and it will probably have my support.

I was actually saying that climate change shouldn't be addressed on the simple issue of refugees at all. The reason for this is stated above.

I would be happy to submit my own proposal on climate change but that is not the point. I agree with everything that the proposal states, except how the refugees are distributed. Again, the reasons for this are stated above. An alteration would be all that is needed.

I honestly don't see why the two should be dissociated. Assume this were split into two proposals, with the first establishing the CRC and the second proposing to act on the basis of the CRC's data. How exactly would that be different?

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


You see, that's your problem.

You want to start punishing before you even understand why you are punishing people.

You want to start a cure before you have even seen the patient.

You're basing an assumption on bad science, and bad scientific method, and trying to create bad policy from it.

The cart follows the horse, this is not ignorance or discrimination or narsicism, this is just how it works.

Our cart here is the solution, our horse is the problem.

You're trying to load up the cart before we even know what color the horse is.

You have just said that as climate change factors can't be distinguished between whether they have been caused by humans or by nature.

I said in the case of a specific environmental disaster. In general terms, however, man's impact on the climate can of course be measured.


Instead, you want the CRC to generalise the situation and say that humans cause all specific factors of climate change.


No. That's not what I'm saying, and, in addition, as I've said many times, I have no intention of dictating to the CRC what its findings should be.


Wouldn't that mean that if you give refugees to a nation, the nation could respond by saying "Hey, you could be making me pay for the damage that nature has done?"


Arguably, but how could they prove that in relation to a specific disaster?


That is why I don't this proposal should exist.


You answer your own point:


But of course this is about saving human lives. Climate refugees are in desperate need to leave their nation.


Indeed. And thank you for reminding everyone of that. There are some in this Assembly who are very eager to ignore that, and whose response is: "Even if we caused it, I don't want to see it as my problem!".


So, if they are so desperate, let's just equally distribute them across the nations. After all, there is only a very small number, not enough for any nation to complain about, as you have so rightly said so many times before. And it would be inhumane to refuse them as they are in desperate need. And there are already refugees fleeing to different countries despite the proposal and countries can't complain much about that so why should they complain about this? As you have said so many times before, the proposal would organise the flow of refugees much better.


All valid points. It brings us to minutiae and details, though. It appers we agree almost on everything, except saying "Nation A should house 17 refugees and Nation B 13" / "No, they should house 15 each". It's almost exactly the same thing, except that my solution puts at least some secondary emphasis on the notion of responsability.


I would be happy to submit my own proposal on climate change but that is not the point. I agree with everything that you proposal states, except how the refugees are distributed. Again, the reasons for this are stated above. An alteration would be all that is needed.

That, unfortunately, isn't possible. Except if I were to resubmit the proposal from scratch, with a tiny change.

Quite honestly, I've spent hours and hours every day campaigning to get this to quorum and then to try and get it through. And I don't just mean here, addressing you all and answering questions in the General Assembly. That's nothing compared to going out and contacting hundreds of foreign governments and representatives for support. It's tiring (as you'll realise when you submit a proposal of your own), especially when I have to come back here constantly and repeat points I've made over and over to representatives who haven't listened, who've misread my proposal, who haven't bothered reading it properly at all, or who are deliberately misreading into it things that aren't there. It's especially frustrating when I see, in discussions outside this assembly, ambassadors opposing this proposal for entirely erroneous reasons (for example, the mistaken belief that they would be swamped with refugees). I'm not prepared to go through the whole thing again any time soon.

Especially considering that most of those who have voted against it this time would again vote against what you're proposing... and I strongly suspect the number of votes against would actually be higher.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You want to start punishing before you even understand why you are punishing people.

It's not punishm- Oh, why do I even bother?


You want to start a cure before you have even seen the patient.

You're basing an assumption on bad science, and bad scientific method, and trying to create bad policy from it.


No. A most emphatic no. I'll repeat yet again:

I am not dictating to the CRC what its findings shall be. I am not making any statement on scientific theory or belief whatsoever. There will be no cure implemented until after the patient has been examined.

I thank you for your perspective on this issue, but you're misinterpreting the proposal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I said in the case of a specific environmental disaster. In general terms, however, man's impact on the climate can of course be measured.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


How?

If we do not understand the process, how can we possibly understand the effect?

Things are not as they are because you wish them to be that way, the yare the way they are because that is the way it is. This is not your supper, this is environmental physics.

No it isn't, as I've tried to demonstrate, my dear sheik. I've answered both those points. Undoubtedly we have a different sense of priorities, but I don't believe my replies were "dancing around" your concerns. They were straightforward replies putting your concerns into perspective.


With all due respect, Ms. Zyryanov, you did dance around our objections by throwing all of your faith in science that is neither proven nor accurate. If you want to address my concerns, please, tell us all precisely how the CRC will determine "responsibility" for climate change. Oh, and then you might want to address your blind faith in this proposed committee's infallability in its conclusions.

Sorry, but we're still not willing to give up our borders and decisions on who may cross them to a bunch of unaccountable UN bureaucrats.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambbasdor to the UN

It's not punishm- Oh, why do I even bother?



No. A most emphatic no. I'll repeat yet again:

I am not dictating to the CRC what its findings shall be. I am not making any statement on scientific theory or belief whatsoever. There will be no cure implemented until after the patient has been examined.

I thank you for your perspective on this issue, but you're misinterpreting the proposal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ever heard of reeducation camps?

The words you choose mean nothing, the effect is that you would punish people for your failed grasp of science.

Sorry, but we're still not willing to give up our borders and decisions on who may cross them to a bunch of unaccountable UN bureaucrats.

Thus is the reason that we are preparred to vote no. Our country has no desire to open our borders to people who are not accepted by other contries. This is not to say that we are racist, bigoted, or whatnot, but we are not the coutry of outcasts; we are not a country where the castoffs off all other nations can come. Those who enter our country are subject to screenings, tests, and such, and we are not about to let diseased, violent, or dangerous people into our country just because some people sitting on a panel decide we should.

At the Palentine delegation a woman sat down in Sen Sulla's chair. she smiled and said,
"My name is Velma (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/sm_Turasatana.jpg). I'm the good senator's secretary. I'm afraid that my boss is a bit indisposed right now,so he askedme to give the Palentine's responce. I of course told him I wasn't qualified, but he said my years working at Minsky's Burlesque House gave me better on the job training than most."

Velma smiled and read from a piece of paper.
"While the Palentine appreciates the representative from Arradia's time and effort on this legislation, the Palentine will not support and casts a vote no. Firstly the Palentine has a record of not supporting enviromental legislation...especially one that effects business. Secondly, the Palentine is really starting to dislike all the extra-govermental committees and bureaucracies that have been set up lately. The Palentine prefers as little government intervention as humanly possible.Thank you."

I said in the case of a specific environmental disaster. In general terms, however, man's impact on the climate can of course be measured.

But if, for instance there are some climate change refugees in desperate need to leave their nation because of long-term flooding. That flooding would be a specific factor of climate change. The CRC should then investigate that individual case of long-term flooding, identifying whether the flooding was caused by the human impact on climate change or nature's impact on climate change. You can't use a 'general' conclusion to make decisions on a specific factor. That incident could have been completely to do with nature. And yet you would still distribute the refugees depending on their impact on climate change? As you said before, with a specific incident like that, you could never know whether humans or nature caused it. Who says that climate change can be as generalised as you make it out to be?

You might ask what I would propose to do to save the refugees in desperate need. This goes back to what I said before:

Originally Posted by Billopesha
But of course this is about saving human lives. Climate refugees are in desperate need to leave their nation. So, if they are so desperate, let's just equally distribute them across the nations. After all, there is only a very small number, not enough for any nation to complain about, as you have so rightly said so many times before. And it would be inhumane to refuse them as they are in desperate need. And there are already refugees fleeing to different countries despite the proposal and countries can't complain much about that so why should they complain about this? As you have said so many times before, the proposal would organise the flow of refugees much better, not prevent it.

No. That's not what I'm saying, and, in addition, as I've said many times, I have no intention of dictating to the CRC what its findings should be.

But you are saying that the results they will produce will be on general climate change and not on a specific factor. You have also stated that you can't know if a specific factor has been caused by humans or not (which is kind of also dictating what the CRC will find). Again I say "Who says that climate change can be as generalised as you make it out to be?".

Arguably, but how could they prove that in relation to a specific disaster?

The point I am making there is that they couldn't. In the same way that you can't prove the impact humans have in relation to a specific disaster. Therefore there isn't enough evidence to put this proposal forward. The only reason I still agree with the proposal is the same reason I stated before:

Originally Posted by Billopesha
But of course this is about saving human lives. Climate refugees are in desperate need to leave their nation. So, if they are so desperate, let's just equally distribute them across the nations. After all, there is only a very small number, not enough for any nation to complain about, as you have so rightly said so many times before. And it would be inhumane to refuse them as they are in desperate need. And there are already refugees fleeing to different countries despite the proposal and countries can't complain much about that so why should they complain about this? As you have said so many times before, the proposal would organise the flow of refugees much better, not prevent it.

All valid points. It brings us to minutiae and details, though. It appers we agree almost on everything, except saying "Nation A should house 17 refugees and Nation B 13" / "No, they should house 15 each". It's almost exactly the same thing, except that my solution puts at least some secondary emphasis on the notion of responsibility.

I can understand that the difference is small but it's still very significant. Many of the nations arguing against this proposal are disagreeing with the responsibility matter, which I believe is also unfounded. They might refer it to being a 'punishment', which I don't believe is what the proposal is trying to say, but they are trying to point out the same problems as I am. The difference might seem insignificant in action but in words, you are saying that a nation would have responsibility for a specific factor of climate change that might be caused by nature. At this point in time, we will never know whether humans or nature caused a specific factor of climate change. So if you make a nation responsible for a specific factor of climate change, then there will always be that uncertainty lingering in the air. The question being: "Was receiving those refugees part of my responsibility or my punishment for having an impact on climate change?"

That, unfortunately, isn't possible. Except if I were to resubmit the proposal from scratch, with a tiny change.

As I said before, it's still significant.

Quite honestly, I've spent hours and hours every day campaigning to get this to quorum and then to try and get it through. And I don't just mean here, addressing you all and answering questions in the General Assembly. That's nothing compared to going out and contacting hundreds of foreign governments and representatives for support. It's tiring (as you'll realise when you submit a proposal of your own), especially when I have to come back here constantly and repeat points I've made over and over to representatives who haven't listened, who've misread my proposal, who haven't bothered reading it properly at all, or who are deliberately misreading into it things that aren't there. It's especially frustrating when I see, in discussions outside this assembly, ambassadors opposing this proposal for entirely erroneous reasons (for example, the mistaken belief that they would be swamped with refugees). I'm not prepared to go through the whole thing again any time soon.

I can undertand that and I'm sorry that you have to keep repeating yourself. I understand that other nations arguing against this proposal might be doing so for the wrong reasons. Many are annoyed that they will be recieving refugees at all but, just as you said, I believe their complaints to be unjustified. But most nations at this late stage in the disscusion are now arguing about the evidence for human impact. My alteration to the proposal would make those complaints invalid.

If there is a problem with the proposal, no matter how small it may be, it should be addressed and corrected. Surely that is the purpose of this discusion? It is sad situation if all this is for nothing.

Especially considering that most of those who have voted against it this time would again vote against what you're proposing... and I strongly suspect the number of votes against would actually be higher.

I understand what you are saying but by saying this you are almost allowing a proposal with a fault to pass through and become a law. Sometimes the minority can be more right than the majority. That is the problem with democracy.

Although I do believe that there would be less votes against it, concidering noone could argue against the responsibility issue.

But there's no other realiable, objective and trustworthy way to do it.

Then it does not need to be done.

I honestly don't see why the two should be dissociated. Assume this were split into two proposals, with the first establishing the CRC and the second proposing to act on the basis of the CRC's data. How exactly would that be different?

(OOC: You do realise the OOC problem here, don't you? OOC, the CRC is never going to provide any such data, although we have to assume it does so IC. So what you're suggesting is impossible.)

You split it by leaving refugees out of the first (climate study) resolution altogether. Once the data have been gathered, we;ll sort out the responisibility. Your point of view is that the responsibility is already there, and that it's merely a matter of degree and of who bears it. I disagree. End of story.

(OOC: Yes, I understand the game-logistics problem, but you must understand that you're asking us to pass a resolution that relies on the cause-effect model without any way of determining the cause and responisibility. This is one of the few problems with this game, and it certainly isn't your fault. However, asking us to ignore that for the sake of refugees is indeed an emotional ploy, whether you admit it or not -- you're playing on our sense of shame/responsibility.)

I'll say this again, although I've said it a thousand times. This proposal does not assume there are no nations willing to take in refugees already; in fact, it does exactly the reverse. The CRC exists to intervene as a last resort, once... Oh, please just read clause 2. No offence, but I've said it enough times already.

Doesn't the fact that you've needed to say it over and over again say something to you about the ambiguity in this resolution? No refugees are going to go un-resettled if this bill doesn't pass, and any assertion to the contrary is a mild form of the scaremongering of which you're accusing other representatives.

This resolution is unnecessary. End of story.

Good. That's all this proposal asks of you. If you're right, then you have nothing to be concerned about, and this proposal will simply be exactly what you want it to be: a climate study resolution. If, on the other hand, you're wrong, then, as you've said, you're willing to accept responsability. In either case, this proposal does exactly what you say you want.

(OOC: A climate study resolution with no possible outcome. I think this kind of proposal ought to be illegal. Not because of political or ideological reasons, but because using "research" to determine further actions of the UN when there is no possible way to show the results of that research outside of what would be a far-too-difficult-to-manage RP, seems pointless to me.)

I honestly cannot see the need.

Of course. And I hope other nations will realise that too. But that doesn't absolve you of responsability to the victims of climate change. To go back to the window analogy, if you cut yourself badly while accidentally smashing that window, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for paying compensation on that window. Even if breaking the window has already had consequences by injuring you. Why? Because this is not about punishing you: it is about helping the victim.

"Victims of climate change" is not a phrase I'm prepared to take seriously -- especially in connection with reparations of any kind. You assume far too much in seeking retribution and responisbility for a calamity whose individual causation cannot be ascertained.

Trust me, I am as sick of beating my head against your wall as you are against the forum's. You choose not to understand because you're the proud author. I get that. But think about it -- if you are continually forced to repeat yourself, surely that's not always our fault, is it?

I hereby end my open objection and presentation of the AGAINST viewpoint and will post no more in this thread on this topic. I am agreeing to disagree and saving Ariddia the exasperation of saying the same things to me over and over that continue to make the same absence of sense they did when I read the resolution.

End of story.

It would seem our valiant efforts are working...

The AGAINST vote is a little over 100 more than FOR.

At this point we are going to constantly monitor the proceedings from the Stranger's Bar.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative and
Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences
University of Kent, Akimonad

It's not over yet folks, the people pushing this will keep trying.

I offer a comprimise.

We, the people of Seabear70 believe that the debate concerning global warming and refugees has brought up a very good point.

We do not know enough about the cause or effect of global climate change. We do not even know enough to say with any certainty that this is even an accurate term for the shifts in weather paterns that our planet's experience.

To that end, we would like to take the first steps in proposing a comission to study Global Climate Change. This comission must have a fully open policy of peer review and full disclosure of sources and methodologies so that there can be no argument as to the results that are reached.

All experiments, experimental data, notes, and results must be a matter of public domain to allow repetition and verification of all results.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask The Republic of ESAT to submit the initial draft of the resolution establishing the CGCC.

Im very much against this proposal. If you need to know why just look at the other arguments against! They spoke my mind!

To that end, we would like to take the first steps in proposing a comission to study Global Climate Change. This comission must have a fully open policy of peer review and full disclosure of sources and methodologies so that there can be no argument as to the results that are reached.

All experiments, experimental data, notes, and results must be a matter of public domain to allow repetition and verification of all results.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask The Republic of ESAT to submit the initial draft of the resolution establishing the CGCC.

I'd like to thank the honourable representative of SeaBear70 for this suggestion.

Of course, I don't want to bury the CRC just yet. It ain't over til' it's over, as they say. Still, I do fully agree with the idea that all data, methodology, sources, findings, experiments and the like should be publicly available, and that they should invite peer review.

I would look forward to working on establishing such a proposal, and possibly submitting it... although I'm not going to start brainstorming on it just yet, if you don't mind. (OOC: The past few days have been damn tiring, and have used up way too much time I really should have been using for other stuff in real life. I'm not going to jump right back into that.)

Meanwhile, the plight of persons displaced by climate change remains, and, should the CRC fail to meet with the approval of this Assembly, I urge - nay, implore - the nations represented here to behave in a responsible and generous manner, to the very best of their abilities, in tackling this issue.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Extraterritorial Sovereign Ariddian Territory


(OOC: In OOC terms, though, there would be a couple of problems at least. First, the accusation that it would just be yet another damn committee - especially if its task is to identity problems without then doing anything about them. I'm not even sure whether this would be legal, unless it's carefully phrased with a few "urging" clauses here and there. But still, I'm concerned it would face accusations of being useless.

Second, there is, of course, the fact that the CGCC would never really hand in any kind of report, OOCly. That prevents any actual future use of it, and may again incite people to view it as useless.)

I suppose that Billopesha is glad that there are now many more votes against this proposal. We hope similar proposal is put forward sometime, either to do with climate change or the refugees so that the issue can be properly resolved. Although we would have liked to know what the response was to our last comment.

OOC : You have to understand, it's not just about getting results. It's about getting the right results.

I'm not talking about the right results for a few people, I'm talking about the right results for everybody, or at least most people and nations.

Let me explain what I mean.

The first national park, as I understand it, was Yellowstone National Park. People were concerned that it be available for future generations, and that it be preserved in exactly the state it was in inperpetum. So a comittee was established to make certain this was happening.

The park was more or less shut down to people, and all fires were quickly put out, and strict control was put into effect to keep wildlife in balance. It all sounded like a good idea, at the time.

A few years later it was discovered that the trees were dying, the animals were dying, the rivers and the lakes were becommng polluted, and the whole area was falling into decay.

They did a quick study, and discovered that the policies the yput into place had caused all of this distruction, so they changed them.

And things got worse.

So they changed them again to try to correct for the damage they had been doing.

And things got worse.

If i remember correctly, it took over a hundred years to realize what they were actually doing wrong.

They were trying to help without ever taking a good hard look at the way the ecosystem worked.

I could go into a description of dynamic equalibrium, butthat's really not the point.

The point is, by acting on a situation that you do not understand, no matter what the intentions, you almost always make the situation worse.

Now, you proposed studying the environment in three years. You also proposed studying the environment for decades. Neither of which is really adaquate, and especially not if the goal is already determined. And you had already determined the outcome, punishment.

Now, let's go on to the Peer Review process. A couple years ago a scientist in South Korea, I believe, announced that he had turned adult stem cells into infant stem cells. The world was thrilled, here was a major breakthrough, It was submitted to peer review journals, and it earned nothing but praise.

Until...

It was later learned that he had faked the whole thing. Peer reviewed or not, it didn't help. Money in the form of government grants and industry profits were on the line, so everyone gave things a coursory glance, and applauded his milestone in science.

Peer review in not a magic bullet. It is subject to the same influences as any form of research.

What I propose for this council is something entirely different. Everything they develop, all notes, experiments, results, everything must be done in an open fashion with no concerns for privacy, secracy, profit, or privilage.

I pitty the poor bastards on this comittee, because everyone from crackpot environmentalists to highschool students to college professors would be reviewing and replicating their work.

In the end, the ywould probably be hated by everybody on the planet.

(OOC: Replying to Billopesha's points as requested.)

But if, for instance there are some climate change refugees in desperate need to leave their nation because of long-term flooding. That flooding would be a specific factor of climate change. The CRC should then investigate that individual case of long-term flooding,


Stop.

Perhaps it should, yes. But that would, in many cases, be exceedingly difficult, and it's not what the proposal says.


As you said before, with a specific incident like that, you could never know whether humans or nature caused it. Who says that climate change can be as generalised as you make it out to be?


I never said every environmental disaster was attributable even in part to human factors. But that brings us back to the focus being on the refugees. The cause of the disaster is mostly immaterial to them.


I can understand that the difference is small but it's still very significant. Many of the nations arguing against this proposal are disagreeing with the responsibility matter, which I believe is also unfounded. They might refer it to being a 'punishment', which I don't believe is what the proposal is trying to say, but they are trying to point out the same problems as I am. The difference might seem insignificant in action but in words, you are saying that a nation would have responsibility for a specific factor of climate change that might be caused by nature. At this point in time, we will never know whether humans or nature caused a specific factor of climate change. So if you make a nation responsible for a specific factor of climate change, then there will always be that uncertainty lingering in the air. The question being: "Was receiving those refugees part of my responsibility or my punishment for having an impact on climate change?"

Fair enough, in a way, but:


I understand that other nations arguing against this proposal might be doing so for the wrong reasons. Many are annoyed that they will be recieving refugees at all but, just as you said, I believe their complaints to be unjustified. But most nations at this late stage in the disscusion are now arguing about the evidence for human impact. My alteration to the proposal would make those complaints invalid.


Sadly, the alteration would, I believe, generate new complaints (the ones I mentioned earlier).


If there is a problem with the proposal, no matter how small it may be, it should be addressed and corrected. Surely that is the purpose of this discusion? It is sad situation if all this is for nothing.


The proposal can't be changed once it's at vote. Whatever any of us may wish. That's entirely out of our hands.

Which is why I submitted this proposal for critical review, comments and suggestions before officially submitting it. This proposal wasn't written by my nation on its own. It incorporates suggestions and changes made by a variety of other nations.

Thank you, anyway, for your comments and questions.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Extraterritorial Sovereign Ariddian Territory

(OOC: Replying to Billopesha's points as requested.)

Stop.

Perhaps it should, yes. But that would, in many cases, be exceedingly difficult, and it's not what the proposal says.

You shouldn't have stopped me there. The point I was trying to make was that I believe that the CRC should examine specific factors. But seeing as it is exceedingly difficult to do so, then nothing should be done. A generalised view isn't precise enough.

I never said every environmental disaster was attributable even in part to human factors. But that brings us back to the focus being on the refugees. The cause of the disaster is mostly immaterial to them.

But it would be importent to the nations apparently assuming responsibility for that disaster.

The proposal can't be changed once it's at vote. Whatever any of us may wish. That's entirely out of our hands.

Which is why I submitted this proposal for critical review, comments and suggestions before officially submitting it. This proposal wasn't written by my nation on its own. It incorporates suggestions and changes made by a variety of other nations.

Thank you, anyway, for your comments and questions.

I understand that now and I thank you for your response. I just hope that another proposal will be submitted sometime that will deal with either climate change or the refugee issue.

The Republic of Libranistan has internally debated the merits and faults of this piece of legislation for some time now. While we recognize the humanitarian motivation behind said legislation, Libranistan can not support it for several reasons:

1) The directives outlined for the proposed CRC make no stipulations as to what limits may be placed on the process of harboring climate refugees. The Republic of Libranistan is not comfortable with having its immigration and naturalization policies trumped by an unmoderated committee.

2) While the legislation also creates an opportunity to compensate monetarily in lieu of accepting climate refugees, the Republic of Libranistan is also uncomfortable with the idea of there being no limitations placed on what monetary fees may be assessed.

3) The Republic of Libranistan's most profound concern is that this legislation forces accountability for the actions and environmental impact waged by other nations. Accountability should fall solely on the transgressing nations, and any harboring of refugees or foreign aid should be done on a voluntary basis only.

We feel that this legislation does not take into account the fact that not all nations enjoy the same environmental and economical status as others, and that some nations may not be able to support an influx of any size, or monetary restitution, without severe societal, political, and environmental ramifications.

We, the people of Seabear70 believe that the debate concerning global warming and refugees has brought up a very good point.
We, the Ambassador of the Gobbannaen Principalities, believe that the assertions concerning global warming were an irrelevance introduced into this debate solely due to the fixation of the representative of Seabear70 concerning the subject. But don't let that stop you.

We do not know enough about the cause or effect of global climate change. We do not even know enough to say with any certainty that this is even an accurate term for the shifts in weather paterns that our planet's experience.

To that end, we would like to take the first steps in proposing a comission to study Global Climate Change. This comission must have a fully open policy of peer review and full disclosure of sources and methodologies so that there can be no argument as to the results that are reached.
Would it not be preferable to expand the remit of the International Meteorological Organisation, an organisation established by United Nations Resolution 148 ('Meteorological Cooperation') which has been collecting appropriate data for some considerable while now?

I would like to take this opportunity to ask The Republic of ESAT to submit the initial draft of the resolution establishing the CGCC.
We would suggest, as has been suggested to us in the past, that the honoured representative write his own proposals, the better to reflect his own interests. In the mean time, the rest of us will endeavour to deal with the refugee problem which undoubtedly does exist.

A valid question. We did feel it preferable to include some clear factual marker to avoid accusations of vagueness - without going into too much detail on the other hand, so as not to hamper the CRC. 2°C is a significant change, as you rightly point out. A higher threshhold would have neglected the damage caused by a 2°C change (it has been pointed out on an offsite forum that grain production, for example, would not survive a 2°C change in temperature and climate), while a lower threshhold may have faced accusations of being too "extreme".

Calculations regarding each nation's impact on the climate will have been made prior to any such disaster, not in response to it. And measuring human impact on the climate is by no means an impossibility. As for your second question, yes, the fictional TUSoA would of course be entitled to invoke clause 3 and have its relief efforts recognised by the CRC.


I have two thoughts to add.

First, my government is still concerned about the 2 C change being used as our metric of significant impact. While certainly there are many nations that would agree, including my own, that this is a significant threshold, I suspect that there are many that would argue against this case. Bearing this in mind, I'd suggest that the CRC actually use numerical models to justify its decisions -- a point that addresses your response to the Most Glorious Hack.

I would not believe that the CRC or anybody else would have to perform a detailed analysis prior to a change, but rather any time that some event can be modeled, a base case "no event" simulation could also be used to determine the percent change in a host of variables: daily temperature extremes, daily average temperature, atmospheric water content, wind velocity, dew point, radiative heat fluxes, etc.

That said, Mikitivity has voted in favour of this resolution on the grounds that we do believe nations should work together to slow anthropogenic climate forcings and on our continued belief that UN resolutions are recommendations and not meant to be absolute rules where the finer details distract from the overall message.

Mikitivity will be happy to send hydrometeorologists (a profession which has its roots in the Thuvian mountains and where we are proud to claim to be an international leader in the fields of hydrology and meteorology) to any international organization focused on studying climate change.

Howie T. Katzman

To the representative from Gobbannaen:

This has been a hard fought debate with bruised feelings on all sides. I have been debating against this resolution since the beginning, and while I do not take back anything I have written, I do regret feeling the need to sink to some of the levels I have had to to get my point across.

I am not alone in fighting against this, and I am certain others have done more than their fair share in this debate I salute them for their efforts.

But the outcome seems a foregone conclusion at this point, and barring a sudden upswelling of support, the resolution appears to be doomed.

My request for the drafting of a resolution for the formation of a comitee to study this problem was both a gesture of good will, and an honest acknoledgement that this is an area that needs to be studied further so that we may in the future have the tools and data nessecary to actually do something productive concerning global climate change, and so that we may finally resolve, scientifically, the question of human involvement in this change.

I am sorry if this bothers you or upsets your world view, but I will nto appoligize for my efforts.

This has been a hard fought debate with bruised feelings on all sides. I have been debating against this resolution since the beginning, and while I do not take back anything I have written, I do regret feeling the need to sink to some of the levels I have had to to get my point across.You would hardly be the first to overreact in these debates, and probably not the last.

I am very disappointed that this proposal has been turned down. I feel sick for those of you on Earth. This could cause a catastrophic disaster!

I shall hunt down and destroy the nations who voted against this proposal.
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Bring it on, munchkin.


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

Minyos, as International Communist Union UN Delegate has cast a resounding FOR the CRC and urges any nation/region with any sense of reality and justice and accountability of wealthy nations who are causing and have caused climate change (hint hint guys - you can't have an economy in an uninhabitable world) to vote FOR. Telegram your friends who are opposed to climate change and like breathing, tell your allies and other UN Delegates who you know will be on our side, we can get this resolution up!

Iain. (International Communist Union UN Delegate, ICU Defense Minister, World Left Wing Alliance Global Moderator)

Minyos, as International Communist Union UN Delegate has cast a resounding FOR the CRC and urges any nation/region with any sense of reality and justice and accountability of wealthy nations who are causing and have caused climate change (hint hint guys - you can't have an economy in an uninhabitable world) to vote FOR. Telegram your friends who are opposed to climate change and like breathing, tell your allies and other UN Delegates who you know will be on our side, we can get this resolution up!

Iain. (International Communist Union UN Delegate, ICU Defense Minister, World Left Wing Alliance Global Moderator)


OOC: you may want to note that communist countries can be recognized on first view by their almost universal destruction of the environment.

Also, according to all verifiable research, it is the poorest countries that tend to contribute most heavily to polution, something that is being addressed in the drafting of a bill that is in what I guess you would call pre-debate.

In addition, the cleanest countries in the world are universally capitalist countries. Communist countries do not care what anyone says about the environment, poor countries do not have the ability to act upon the concerns of their own people, capitalist countries both care and have the money to do something about the environment.

Minyos, as International Communist Union UN Delegate has cast a resounding FOR the CRC and urges any nation/region with any sense of reality and justice and accountability of wealthy nations who are causing and have caused climate change (hint hint guys - you can't have an economy in an uninhabitable world) to vote FOR. Telegram your friends who are opposed to climate change and like breathing, tell your allies and other UN Delegates who you know will be on our side, we can get this resolution up!

Iain. (International Communist Union UN Delegate, ICU Defense Minister, World Left Wing Alliance Global Moderator)


Hey there, smart guy! Did it ever occur to you that it's the poorer, less developed nations that can't afford alternative sources of energy that contribute more to climate damage than the wealthier ones, because they use lots and lots of fossil fuels, especially coal? Nice try, but your classist (i.e., typical Marxist claptrap) argument falls flat on it face here.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The previous point is true, poor nations cant afford to completely overhaul there methods of generating power, thats why its up to richer nations to become more efficient with their usage of power and ship out any surplus they have to developing nations.
consider this, if every home in a nation like the uk had just one or two affordable renewable energy sources on tap, like say a solar panel or a small wind turbine to power the lights. And in addition used a no mix toilet scheme like the ones being tested in Scandinavia (no mix seperates the urine from the fecies making sewage treatment up to 40 times quicker, this gives the treatment works the ability to burn off enough bi product methane to create electricity for a whole neighbuorhood.) then after a short time the need for fossil fuels and large dirty power stations would be gone.
The homes involved themselves could become the national grid with just a few , maybe nuclear, power stations as back up.
It is in countries like uks interest to expert cleaner energy to the developing world, because any rise in sea levels could seriously reduse the islands land mass. low lying cities like London would become uninhabitable. (maybe not all bad then)

Good King Simmo

It is interesting to note that I live in Australia, a rich developed nation.

We happen to be the biggest exporters of coal in the world.

We, Australians, per capita, are amongst the world's worst offenders regarding greenhouse gas emissions - 70% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from coal-fired power stations.

Note I said "per capita" NOT global percentage. From memory, as an environmental planning and policy student, I believe that Australia's contribution is about 2%. Upon checking, it is 1.5%. The Australian population is slightly over 20,000,000, so on a global scale we are not major polluters, however, when the amount of greenhouse gas produced by Australia is divided amongst that 20 mill, yes, we are, depending on the survey you read, the second or third worst per capita country for greenhouse gas emissions in the world. In fact, for a country with a relatively small population like Australia to be a contributor of 1.5% of the world TOTAL is quite alarming. The US contributes 35% of the total.

Please check your facts next time, as Australia is most definitely a rich Western nation. It may also interest you that most, not all, Western countries have about 30-40% at least coal-fired electricity production, including the United States. Coal is coal is coal, wherever it is used. China is of great concern - they are developing rapidly and installing a LOT of coal plants.

Lastly, and this is an irrelevancy, Australia also has the largest known deposits of uranium - 38% of the known uranium ore deposits are here.

I do not regard the nations that call themselves Communist as anything but barbaric dictatorships. Nothing after 1924 in the USSR was at all socialist. Anything but - Stalin turned the USSR into a giant death camp, and I regard Stalin and Stalinists as being scum, like Nazis and fascists. I am a Trotskyist, Trotsky fought hard to stop Stalin and his brutality and ultimately lost his life doing so even abroad. If you wish to find out more about my beliefs you can go to Wikipedia and input "International Socialist Tendency" - this is rather off topic of you both SeaBear and Cluichstan, but I have responded.

It is interesting to note that I live in Australia, a rich developed nation.

We happen to be the biggest exporters of coal in the world.

We, Australians, per capita, are amongst the world's worst offenders regarding greenhouse gas emissions - 70% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from coal-fired power stations.

Note I said "per capita" NOT global percentage. From memory, as an environmental planning and policy student, I believe that Australia's contribution is about 2%. Upon checking, it is 1.5%. The Australian population is slightly over 20,000,000, so on a global scale we are not major polluters, however, when the amount of greenhouse gas produced by Australia is divided amongst that 20 mill, yes, we are, depending on the survey you read, the second or third worst per capita country for greenhouse gas emissions in the world. In fact, for a country with a relatively small population like Australia to be a contributor of 1.5% of the world TOTAL is quite alarming. The US contributes 35% of the total.

Please check your facts next time, as Australia is most definitely a rich Western nation. It may also interest you that most, not all, Western countries have about 30-40% at least coal-fired electricity production, including the United States. Coal is coal is coal, wherever it is used. China is of great concern - they are developing rapidly and installing a LOT of coal plants.

Lastly, and this is an irrelevancy, Australia also has the largest known deposits of uranium - 38% of the known uranium ore deposits are here.

I do not regard the nations that call themselves Communist as anything but barbaric dictatorships. Nothing after 1924 in the USSR was at all socialist. Anything but - Stalin turned the USSR into a giant death camp, and I regard Stalin and Stalinists as being scum, like Nazis and fascists. I am a Trotskyist, Trotsky fought hard to stop Stalin and his brutality and ultimately lost his life doing so even abroad. If you wish to find out more about my beliefs you can go to Wikipedia and input "International Socialist Tendency" - this is rather off topic of you both SeaBear and Cluichstan, but I have responded.

It might surprize you to find out that Iam aware of these facts.

I suspectthat you might also be surprized to note that the biggest danger from coal is not in fact CO2, but radiation.

Which, if you understood that last statement would explain why I am such a proponent of nuclear reactors.

It might surprize you to learn that the people pushing this Human global warming agenda are in fact the some of the greatest poluters in the world, and some of their pollicies are contributing to and creating a future environmental disaster of unimaginable consequences.

It might also surprize you to know that my concern for the environment is why I hate the global warming agenda.

Wow, such deranged rantings from the representative of Minyos. All this mythical RL stuff? Come now.

Anyway, our work here is done. This proposal is rightfully about to die, and we are off to the bar for some much needed drinks.

Come along, Tarquin.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Tarquin, I said come along...


http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Fine. Stay here if you like. I'm off to the bar.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*sni[*

OOC: Can you cut the OOC nonsense? You did the same thing in the last at-vote thread. Quit with the RL spam. When people criticize your nation's politics, you don't have to take it so personally.

I am fully aware of how much radioactive material is produced by coal-fired power stations.

I am not getting High Distinctions in every subject that I am undertaking in my academic career - Bachelor of Social Science (Environment) for nothing.

I am not sure where you are headed/heading with the what seems to be conspiracy theory re global warming.

I personally am totally opposed to nuclear reactors for anything but small scale numbers for production of medical isotopes, as the technology is inherently dangerous - and disposal of high-level waste problematic to say the least.

There are alternatives, to both fossil fuel and nuclear, which are not being fully explored or have been supressed to a larger or smaller degree. For example, hot dry rock geothermal, which has the potential to create electricity at steady load with capacity for peak load, at equivalent prices to coal - yet with zero emissions, and no danger of radioactivity whatsoever.

This is not the time and place for this conversation, if you wish we can continue this in PM if you like, as I think this is getting off-topic.

Iain.