NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello there,

I would like to post the following proposal.
But first, I would like to hear about some ideas you might have regarding this potential resolution.
Since english is not my first language, there might be possibilities to improve expressions, etc.
The idea is based on a former proposal, which I am allowed pick up as a base for mine.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Here is is:


Members of the United Nations do not only have a duty towards their people, but as well towards their environment and nature.
The United Nations and its members are

1) OBLIGED to replace any chopped tree by another tress of the same species, in order to protect our forests and woods.

2) ENCOURAGED to support godparenthood towards animals and plants.

3) OBLIGED to recycling rates of at least 30% and 95% of all products must be over 60% bio-degradable. Time will be given until the year 2010 to achieve these figures.

4) OBLIGED to maintain a nuclear power supply of not more than 30% of its total power supply for it is creates unsafe radioactive waste, and if a nuclear power plant explodes it can have catastrophic effects on the environment.
As off the year 2012 all countries are obliged to reduce their nuclear power by 10% each year. Base for the calculation is the nuclear power supply of the year 2011.
Until then, no nation is allowed to dispose its radioactive waste on or under the ground of any other nation – no matter whether this other nation is a member state of the UN or not.

5) OBLIGED to be moving away from non- renewable energy sources, as they waste the world’s resources and release a lot of carbon- dioxide. The economy has to reduce their CO2-exhaust by 8% each year as off the year 2010. Businesses that do not follow this arrangement are to pay a fine of 7.5% of their annual revenue. Businesses that are reducing their annual exhaust by more than 15% shall be given a reward of 3% of their annual revenue.

6) ENCOURAGED to improve investments into improving public transport in order for people to stop using their cars as much. The additional expenses are counter financed by additional vehicle and gas taxes.

Well first off I think your proposal tries to do too much. Generally a resolution does one thing and does it well. Yours does many things and not well for any of them.

Also It would be wise to check to see if your proposal duplicates any existing legislation, and to run it thru a grammar and spell checker.

Also bear in mind that co2 emissions may or may not be classified as pollutants in some nations. There are a variety of sentient beings in the un, swearing dolphins, easily enraged dinosaurs, goblins and others as well as humans. For a species of sentient beings which inhaled carbon dioxide and expelled oxygen for example...co2 would not be considered a pollutant.

Overall while we support the intent of the proposal we must say that it needs work. a lot of work.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

I'd suggest this proposal tries to do so much. I can understand the desire to write an all-encompassing environmental resolution, but I really think it's better to pick one thing and do it, rather than spreading yourself a little thin. Also, there is the problem of duplication and contradiction of previous legislation.

1) can be dropped. Replanting is a good idea, but Forest Management covered this whole area much more successfully; besides, Replanting Trees was repealed for the very reason that mandating replanting doesn't always make sense.

I'm not sure I understand what 2) does, or tries to do. Does it mean literal godparenthood, as in some Christian communities two people become 'godparents' to a child, with intention to provide moral guidance as they grow up, at the baptism? If so, that seems a somewhat inappropriate concept to import to plants and animals, given I am a human and have no godparents.

3) is simply not practical. It doesn't really duplicate UN Recycling Commission, but to suggest that in under 3 years we should have so lowered our dependence on nonbiodegradable resources. However, it may the section of the proposal most worthy of expansion: I would suggest concentrating on eliminating wasteful use of plastics, which depletes oil reserves, involves polluting processes, and resides as waste.

4) we most vehemently disagree with, because we believe nuclear power the best option to avoid carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, given our nuclear supply is presently well over 50%, we not have the energy to convert our products as required by 3) without resort to polluting forms of energy (or, anyway; you can't retool a national energy grid in a few years). What would be much better to concentrate on is safe disposal of radioactive waste, bearing in mind the existing Nuclear Energy Research Act and Waste Disposal Covenant.

5) seems to simply be another emissions reduction regulation; we already have at least two, and another is probably unnecessary. The financial figures are also a tad unrealistic: where will these bursaries come from? A better idea might be a carbon quota trading system, which would introduce a financial incentive to reduce emissions not dependent on government subsidy.

6) is not unreasonable, but seems beneath the scope of international legislation.

I would strongly suggest concentrating on one or two sections, no more; I will try to offer further help, though, here or at the GTT if you would like to discuss your ideas there. I do appreciate the difficulty of writing new environmental legislation, given the patchwork system already in place, and I certainly don't mean to discourage you entirely.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

You would have to get rid of (4) before we would or could even think about it. The people of JXL view nuclear as the best, if not only real option. Plus, about 65% of our power comes from nuclear and it will be even higher in the next few years.

The existing United Nations Resolutions (UNRs) regarding the environment in general and particularly nuclear power are quite a mess. For example, see UNR39, which contains loads of factual errors (i.e. mixes up ozone depletion and global warming), is completely void of definitions, and acts on a very limited scope.

Another example is UNR58, which appears to violate rules about real world references and dependence on earlier resolutions.

Apart from these two, I suggest that a thorough review of the following UNRs is performed: 71, 72, 75, 109, 126, 151, 154, 172 and 200. Several of these resolutions directly conflict each other, and I'm convinced that it will be necessary to repeal some if not all, and replace them with more clear and coherent UNRs. These new UNRs should deal with different aspects of the complex issue in a clear and distinct way.

Tidying up all this might seem quite a task, but it would really be great to get order in the areas of environment and fission technology.

Another example is UNR58, which appears to violate rules about real world references and dependence on earlier resolutions.

It also, if I recall correctly, predated said rules and as such is grandfathered in.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It also, if I recall correctly, pre-dated said rules and as such is grandfathered in.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

There sure is work enough here to keep one busy for a while. Organizing work is the key to getting it done; Would it be possible and legal to form a commission reviewing the UNRs on the issue and making recommendations?

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

Which doesn't mean you can't do this outside the remit of UN legislation. Here I would cite the recommendations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494752) of the Sunset Committee.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

Which doesn't mean you can't do this outside the remit of UN legislation. Here I would cite the recommendations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494752) of the Sunset Committee.

Yes, I am aware that nations cannot participate in UN commissions. I was thinking along the lines of what I am now aware is the work the Sunset Committee, and I thank you for pointing me to it.