NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I have this idea for a new proposal, wanting to create one resolution that will hopefully go into enough depth for ecological sustainability, in all areas (forestry, agriculture, fisheries, etc), instead of needing a new proposal for every little issue put forward. However, there are multiple such resolutions in effect at the moment.
Resolution #184: Sustainable Agriculture Centre
Resolution #155: Waste Disposal Covenant
Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
Resolution #116: Mitigation of Large Reservoirs
Resolution #119: UNCoESB
Resolution #71: Sustainable Energy Sources
Resolution #72: Reduction of greenhouse gases
Resolution #70: Banning whaling (currently at vote for repealment)

In effect, the resolution would ideally read something along the lines of (but in the correct format), we need to have a renewable world in which we keep everything safe, thus we need to start working seriously to ensure that everything that we use is renewable, whether it is meat, fish, whales, trees, fuels or whatever. To achieve this, some kind of system for measuring the effects of what we take, and constantly assessing the effects to make sure that we do not have a detrimental effect to the environment for example, by ensuring there is no reduction to the animal numbers to help prevent extinction/endangerment. I would like ideas/help for how to go about dealing with two issues.

1) Creating a resolution that effectively renders 8 previous resolutions useless
and
2) The practical application of such an idea. I don't feel that any one idea I come up with will be as good as it can be, so a discussion about which method would be best to work this idea in which ideas are thrown around, refined, thrown out or something similar. I do, however, wish to be the person to propose this resolution.

So, any thoughts?

So, any thoughts?
Not to be harsh, but I think it's a bad idea. Given assorted legal (duplication and contradition) and technical (character count) barriers, I would imagine any such resolution would probably be interminably vague (and hence of less use than a series of more precise resolutions) or too blindly restrictive (and hence if nothing else prone to repeal). Besides, I question whether some of the resolutions you mention would be rendered redundant, or should be: for example, the Waste Disposal Covenant does not particularly deal with the sustainability of resources, nor is it a bad resolution in my opinion.

If you still want to go ahead, so be it, and we'll try to offer any help we think possible. However, there are some avenues that might be better:
- something more specific on one of the areas the UN hasn't really legislated on (such as fish stocks)
- something better to improve on one of the areas has legislated on rather poorly (energy would be the obvious example, given the terrible Fossil Fuel Reduction Act)
- some general means of promoting sustainability, such as something promoting increased research, information availability, or trade.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

"Sustainable whaling" on the commercial level is an oxymoron.

"Sustainable whaling" on the commercial level is an oxymoron.

I'm so tempted to make a "moron" remark...

1) Creating a resolution that effectively renders 8 previous resolutions useless

If you end up duplicating or contradicting portions of any of them, much less all of them, your proposal would be deleted. If you attempted to repeal them without going through the repeals process for each (a massive and highly improbable task), your proposal would be deleted.

In short, you've got a hard row to hoe, as they say.

I think if you are trying to protect the environment you'll do a better job just leaving the existing resolutions. If you were to repeal all of the past environmental protection resolutions and pass one large blanket proposal to cover all the issues you risk loosing it all at once if it somehow gets repealed. With the resolutions being seperate you can only loose one at a time to a repeal rather than loosing all of your environmental protection.

as a ambassador for zeroina i would have to state we as a whole would be more then encouraged to help with this proposal are main industry has to deal with nature we need to protect the future people and the future is now the sooner we do something the easier iot will be to resolve the problem Zeroina is behind you

sincerly
faulk monok
the peoples republic of zeroina