NationStates Jolt Archive

Starting a new thread as this version is substantially different, and the entire previous thread was occupied with discussion of prizes.

Environmental Science
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational

The United Nations,

Aware that many of the most critical issues of daily life involve resource management and the maintenance of a harmonious balance with the natural world, and that meaningful action on them requires a full and developed knowledge of the underlying environmental science,

Recognising that environmental science can lead to the formulation of community and governmental policies, and personal and business strategies, to recognise and mitigate problems of environmental degradation while promoting sustainable development, thereby promoting ‘bottom-up’ solutions to environmental problems, allowing individuals to make rational choices rather than depending on stringent government oversight,

Considering the establishment of an impartial body capable of coordinating and conducting research free of political and private influence to be one useful means of promoting such goals through an international body:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'environmental science' as the pursuit of understanding of the natural environment through the scientific process, and especially that concerning the interaction of natural and artificial components, the effect of economic activities upon the environment, the development of solutions to problems within these relationships, and the search for sustainable modes of development;

2. Promotes the study of environmental science throughout all UN member nations, emphasises support for projects bringing understanding of the value and importance of environmental science to a wider audience, and encourages member nations to fund relevant research projects and courses of study;

3. Declares that persons in member nations may apply for funding for such from the UNEAF, subject to the approval of the nation in which the study or research is being undertaken, and providing such work abides by environmental regulations and academic best practice;

4. Establishes, as a neutral council capable of conducting independent research, the United Nations Environmental Agency (UNEA);

5. Declares that the UNEA shall:
- liaise with similar local, national and regional bodies, particularly through assisting with the establishment of such programs as advanced by this resolution,
- liaise with existing UN environmental and other relevant committees, while hopefully mitigating the need for further proliferation of such,
- conduct environmental science research, including work towards solving problems of environmental degradation, and make freely available their findings and recommendations,
- abide by academic best practice in all their endeavours;

6. Further declares that the UNEA shall:
- conduct, on an annual basis, surveys of the state of the natural environment, identify existing and potential problems of environmental degradation, and research and recommend solutions and mitigating measures,
- make freely available such findings in an International Environmental Audit Yearbook,
- conduct, where requested by the authority with jurisdiction over the particular area, further environmental surveys directed at more specific details,
- conduct, on a regular basis, such surveys over areas under UN jurisdiction or identified as international or non-national territory;

7. Prohibits the UNEA from accepting donations from private parties such as businesses, charities or NGOs, so as to prevent its research being skewed in favour of specific interest groups.
I'd like to particularly acknowledge the help of Rubina in drafting this at the Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank).

Comments welcome. The UNEA is intended an impartial research body, not an all-powerful tool of ecoterrorist world domination, and those quailing over its sweeping powers will not find them granted by this proposal (and can vote against any that tries to, as we will).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison
Quintessence of Dust

Boring and technocratic though this subject is, I'm hard-pressed to find any actual objections to this. And unfortunately I can make many suggestions for improvement. Maybe:

6. Further declares that the UNEA shall:
- conduct, on a annual basis, surveys of the state of the natural environment, identify existing and potential problems of environmental degradation, and research towards solutions to such problems and mitigating measures against further,Readability issues. Change to something like (gray text = omit): "conduct, on a annual basis, surveys of the state of the natural environment; identify existing and potential problems of environmental degradation; and research towards solutions to such problems and make specific recommendations, ..."

Although I may be misreading the last part. Not sure whether you mean the agency should "identify ... [existing] research toward solutions," or conduct their own. If it's the former, you can ignore my edit on "toward."

The representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny may be right that there's nothing wrong with it. But there's not really much right about it either. It's just a silly bureaucratic waste of time, money, and effort.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

While this looks good in principle, in practice I'm not sure how well it would work. Presumably, scientists have already set up international bodies for research, or if they haven't, wouldn't want a world government to be running it.

Clause 6 and the rest of clause 5 looks good though.

Malcolm K. Pratt
&c.

Ok, thanks: we hadn't particularly anticipated this being a very Kennyite proposal, and so the help is appreciated. I agree the clause made little sense and have tried to reword it, using some of your suggestions, such that it reads better (but I am very tight for the character limit so couldn't completely import all your suggestions).
While this looks good in principle, in practice I'm not sure how well it would work. Presumably, scientists have already set up international bodies for research, or if they haven't, wouldn't want a world government to be running it.
It's true that some similar international bodies presumably exist, and the UNEA is empowered to liaise with them. Why (I hope) the UNEA has an advantage as a station of independent research is that it cannot be skewed by national governmental policy or by private interest, which might colour the work of less independent bodies. So, that is the theory, anyway.

-- Samantha Benson

This has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=environmental). Not TGing for it, this time.

Someone must have been TGing:

Approvals: 111 (Bymistan, Nossie, Dr muu, Ottosam, Jey, WZ Forums, Santa Maria De La Loma, Hecter, Rubina, Icycomb, Jed Scott, JMDS, Whitemanada, Misplaced States, NewTexas, Psycotia Island, Cricket Fans, My 5th attempt, Alpacadom, ARC Captains, Iguana Isle, Totoral, Naga Morich, Ellenburg, Paxomenia, GreyHam, Southbeach, The Liberation Armies, Maniacal Accountants, Tyranic Moron, Karlsson of the Roof, Calgeria, Fancybottom, Thezoloman, Bats outta Mordor, Ashatwe, Grand Mitage, Kenoshinia, The Russian States, Iron Kenya, Jester160, Cooliestan, Garsidia, Kraapsundic, Ultrasabatical, LDT, Nueva Anahuac, The Kings Guard, Wishywashyliberal, Kivistan UN Bordello, Bjorktzchetzky, Mawonia, The Powerful States, Aurania-Shifre, Greal, COWCOWCOWCOW, Mottzealand, Eggerhexe, Sao Tome and Allies, Rheingua, North Riding, Tadyjos, E F A, MBinn Eadair, Dannoville, Imenethil, Discordials, Strashki, Meranthia, Trevorsaurous, The Great Trade Union, TripleKo, Spreag, The Phoenix Flame, Feniwick, New Loressia, FALCONKATS, Nixicos, The Grass-growers, Graimear, Grailquest, Kungpaomao, Manceir, Marcuse s people, Firebert, South Lorenya, Aztec National League, B A Mazz, Epigrammatics, Brosup, Miniature Midgets, Aidunbroagh, Oxymorontopia, DurkaDurkaJihadistan, Conchland, Haughtainia, San Cannabis, Gasamobia, Zansky, Living Rights, The-Hypnotoad, Moroboshi, Volteria, Belarum, Dizziness, Othimskad, Faybollah, Alantic States, Jesioneka, New Anonia, Finlandites)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue! Congrats, Quod and Rube.

OOC: Did anyone send telegrams for it? Certainly wasn't me: if so, then thanks, but also, if you could have let me known??? If not, then this is puzzling (but delegates do seem to go approval-crazy when nothing reaches vote for a while).

The reason I'm slightly ambivalent about it reaching quorum unexpectedly is I'm not sure how much I will be available this week to debate it. If 'not much', then I really apologise in advance.

The Protectorate understands how fragile and necessary it is to protect our environment and would like to take this opportunity to put its support behind this resolution.

Planting Mushrooms
Protectorate of Planting

The UN must support pursuit of knowledge, especially in area so important for industrially oriented civilizations. Without understanding of consequences of our actions, we will reach self-destruction very soon. We must help science save us from science.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Very interesting...what exactly would the purpose be if there are other similiar organizations? The South Parliamentary Republic of Uiri has many private businesses and many have tried to bribe these types of organizations because The Republic's corporations aren't exactly enviromentalists and the majority of the parliament is Conservative or Christian Democratic with only about 2 seats in the Senate and 16 in the Chamber of representatives so I beleive my nation will have to vote against the bill.

- Mark Stranason, Representative of the South Parliamentary Republic of Uiri appointed directly be Minister-President Edward Forgul.

as to being concerned about the neutrality of such a government ruled research.

If it included somekind of neutrality rules to protect the institution from getting biassed The Democratic States of Reptoids would have voten for the resolution, but unfortunately, this is not the case.

Past experience in Southern Ulster showed that environmental policies always have a negative impact on the economy. I am worried that a resolution like this will slow down the economy development of poor countries. It took me a very long time to revive my country's economy, I hope UNEAF will provide enough subsidies.

...Meanwhile at the Palentine delegation's desk, a crowd of interns, staffers, and other such that are found in such a retched hive of scum and villany know affectionately as the Halls of the UN. At the center of activity is the good, but slightly unwholesome Sen. Sulla. He is showing off his New toy (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/SW_500.jpg) to his admirers.
"...and the dealer assured me that if it can stop a charging Mastodon, it can certianly take down an angry Veceliraptor..."

Sen Sulla looks up, then closes the case and says,
"Sorry folks! Show and tell is over, there's business to be done."

As the various people saunder back from whence they came, the Senator adresses the delegates,
"Well, well, well, what have we here? Hmmm....looks like a piece of fluffy legislation. However on the plus side its kinda Natsov friendly. So heres the deal. Insted of blindly casting my vote against, For a nice bit of financial inducements I'd be willing to vote for the bugger. So make me an offer all you fluffies out there. To paraphrase Johannes Tetzel...The more coins in the coffer that ring, a the quicker a vote for fluffiness shall spring!"

At this point Sen. Sulla reaches from under his desk a places a large Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar on his desk with a sign that reads In God we Trust, all others must pay Cash!

as to being concerned about the neutrality of such a government ruled research.

If it included somekind of neutrality rules to protect the institution from getting biassed The Democratic States of Reptoids would have voten for the resolution, but unfortunately, this is not the case.

Did the representative not see these provisions?

5. Declares that the UNEA shall:
- abide by academic best practice in all their endeavours;

7. Prohibits the UNEA from accepting donations from private parties such as businesses, charities or NGOs, so as to prevent its research being skewed in favour of specific interest groups.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

3. Declares that persons in member nations may apply for funding for such from the UNEAF, subject to the approval of the nation in which the study or research is being undertaken, and providing such work abides by environmental regulations and academic best practice

What is UNEAF? Has it been previously established, or is it something that has, by some mistake, not been established in this proposal?
I assume the F is for 'fund'?

United Nations Educational Advancement Fund (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=170). It might have been a good idea to spell out the name, rather than use the initials, but as the author has indicated, he didn't plan on this making quorum so soon.

This resolution is supposed to be "educational" in nature but then establishes a brand new bureaucracy to fund, new regulations and, finally, prohibitions against donations by special interest groups. The resolution is simply a means for environmental interests to worm their way into the budgets of the member nations of the UN. The sponsor nation has a 100 percent income tax in his nation, indicating that he believes that government should get everyone's money and then spend it. Does anyone really believe that government or the UN is better suited to research environmental science than private enterprise? This is just one more way for government to take your money. Vote AGAINST the resolution.

Ausserland has voted FOR this eminently sensible and constructive resolution.

Protection of the environment is truly an international concern. Environmental problems don't pay attention to national borders. Having an international organization to conduct research in the area and promote and facilitate the sharing of information about on-going research efforts simply makes good sense. We can envision considerable savings through elimination of wasteful duplication of research efforts.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Um, we're abstaining.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Jirfog stands for this resolution. At this time, despite the morasse of bureaucratic nonsense it will bring about, it will lower the need for each nation to stand alone in an enviroscientific sense. I know that my nation has needed some assistance in the past, calling on our "special relief fund" to "relieve" nations with more advanced green science than us.

It was the phrase "promoting sustainable development" that first killed it for me. This usually leads to no-growth economics and society in the name of environmental defense. Since science tells us that nothing is truly, indefinitely sustainable, bring a halt to all growth in an attempt to preserve an ever-changing environment as it is now would only result in economic stagnation and ever-widening social divides as the rich continue to use their wealth to perpetuate their lifestyle under continually brutal restrictions while the poor suffer and die of easily cureable diseases, starvation and homelessness.

I've also never been a big fan of interdisciplinary sciences, especially those whose proponents have strong politcal ties. Why not simply have a resolution to promote funding and development of education in the individual fields; physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?

While it is true that some of the most important issues revolve around resource management, the solutions to these problems is not to restrict economic growth and development, it is to encourage technilogical development to increase productivity and efficiency and to distribute said technology around the world so that all people may, through their efforts in operating said machinery, benefit from it in greater abundance of resources and more efficient use of them. (OOC: For example, if the entire worlds agricultural industry were to switch to purely organic practices only about 2/3 of the worlds population would have enough food to survive. About 2 billion people would have to voluteer to die the first couple of years. If the entire worlds argircultural industry used only GE foods the entire world could eat like most of America.)

I have more objections that I would like to voice but I will need to do it at a later time. Have a good day.

United Nations Educational Advancement Fund (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=170). It might have been a good idea to spell out the name, rather than use the initials, but as the author has indicated, he didn't plan on this making quorum so soon.

Thank you. I have informed my region accordingly.

More Enviromental silliness? Well, I can tell you this as true; If any of the rare, endangered spotted orange flying pygmy orangatan wombats from our neighboring nation of The Most Serene Republic of Mosvani cross into our great Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris, our peasants bash them with electrified tennis racquets and cook it up in a nice stew.

As this keeps them happy and out of government business, we would be opposed to some enviro-group coming to our Empire and telling the rabble they cannot eat sofpow stew.

We vote no.

Um, we're abstaining.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We're with this guy.


M. Diegaus III
RFGI Rep

The Republic of Chamurray has voted against this waste of money and time and will not participate or recognize it as legitimate even if it passes. We encourage other states to oppose the trampling of economic and political liberty through so-called environmental pursuits. Any research conducted with out the input of all sides of the equation, i.e. private business and what not, is faulty and subject to the whims of political pressure groups. These matters are for the individual state's to resolve, not to be dictated by the UN.

Did you actually read the proposal? Or the UN rules about compliance, for that matter?

7. Prohibits the UNEA from accepting donations from private parties such as businesses, charities or NGOs, so as to prevent its research being skewed in favour of specific interest groups.

While the resolution does an excellent job in stating why this clause is needed, my government is not convinced that the prohibition of private funds is in the best interest of establishing a funding mechanism for any organization.

Is my assumption is that this clause applies only to financial donations, but that scientific information provided to the UNEA would still be reviewed is acceptable correct?

Howie T. Katzman

We'll be voting AGAINST.

Scientific minds already have international organizations with whom they share findings and publish papers and hobnob at least once a year in semi-tropical locations.

Am I to understand that prior to this resolution there was no UN office which would coordinate with such organizations and disburse their scientific findings?

Also, the resolution uses the hideous French-born, but English back-formed verb "liaise" far too often. That's not an official reason to be against, but rather a pet peeve I could not help but mention.

Neither the resolution itself nor any pro-ES posts have convinced me of a need for this piece of rambling minutiae...something of which there is already a superabundance.

While the resolution does an excellent job in stating why this clause is needed, my government is not convinced that the prohibition of private funds is in the best interest of establishing a funding mechanism for any organization.

Is my assumption is that this clause applies only to financial donations, but that scientific information provided to the UNEA would still be reviewed is acceptable correct?

Howie T. Katzman

While the nation of Kumida recognizes that private funding may in fact skew testing and their results, we can't help but wonder where exactly then, that the funding for this clause will come?

Sorry, Ambassador Madison and I really shouldn't have chosen this week to repaint our offices (green, of course). Some comments on the discussion thus far, but first: thanks to all those who've spoken in support of the proposal, and to those who've at least tolerated its boringness.

Texas Liberty: Unless you can point out the words of the proposal that grant the UNEA the power to 'make regulations', I fear you're mistaken. Its mission is stated as research; its duties as listed in this proposal are all of a data collection/dissemination nature. As for prohibiting private donations, you don't seem to have noticed that that would apply to environmental groups just as much businesses, thus preventing any 'worming', by anyone.

Dosuun: When you say 'science tells us that nothing is...sustainable', what science are you actually invoking? If you mean conservation of energy, then that might be taking the proposal a wee bit far: I do accept that when the universe ends, economic development may no longer be possible.

Your address is heavy on rhetoric, light on textual reference, and I'll ignore the more irrelevant stuff - the idea that this 'bring[s] a halt to all growth', for example. The reason for selecting environmental science rather than a natural science, there's no particular reason. The preamble outlines why we think environmental science is important: a proposal on chemistry, or on the sciences in general, we might well support as well. As for 'political ties', you'll note provisions have actually been taken to mitigate such, by preventing private interests exercising too much control.

As for what you say about encouraging 'technilogical [sic] development', I absolutely agree (as, in my impression, does this proposal: I still don't see where these phantom regulations are coming from). In Quintessence of Dust we're big believers in free and open trade, in technological and scientific cooperation, and in advances such as genetic modification of crops to increase yields (though personally, I believe such will still not be enough to curb global starvation if not associated with effective promotion of birth control; probably another debate, however). I just don't see how any of it is relevant, though: how does this proposal legislate against such?

Mikitivity: Yes, it applies to financial donations, not to the collection of data.

Intangelon: There is no such body in existence at the moment (no such UN body, anyway). As for liaisemania, blame George: he spent a year 'studying' in Ariddia and came back smoking clove cigarettes and quoting Camus.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Quintessential Department of UN Affairs
Acting Chair, Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Does anyone really believe that government or the UN is better suited to research environmental science than private enterprise? This is just one more way for government to take your money.

No offense Ambassador, but don't businesses spend lots of time and effort trying to separate you from your money? Can we assume that because they know how to make money that they are concerned about the environment? To be precise, this was more than likely written BECAUSE of big business taking away from the environment without replacing or repairing what damage it has done.

We have had to continually rebuff our corporations' efforts to mine our natural resources and overall take from the environment. We applaud the efforts of this resolution and eagerly await the benefits that our world will reap from this should it pass.

i'm not sure if this has been mentioned before,
but if we are talking about scientific understanding about the issue,
then it would be more fruitfull to consider including the knowledge about nature,forest covers and the environment at large, that is a legacy amongst various ethnic and indigenious people. their understanding and means of interacting with the environment will definitly provide a more rounded view on the issue.

The Republic of Chamurray has voted against this waste of money and time and will not participate or recognize it as legitimate even if it passes....These matters are for the individual state's to resolve, not to be dictated by the UN.

I must inform you Ambassador that being a member of the NSUN is by choice. We have the ability to object to legislation, even to the point of telegram campaigns if we feel that strongly. But in the end, we CHOOSE to be member nations. If you don't want to follow the guidelines this body has established, either work at changing them through your own proposals, or if all else fails, leave the NSUN. We all MUST comply with anything that gets passes. There is no choice other than to resign your chair. The statement about matters of state is an argument that many use here, and I must admit that I've thrown it around a few times myself. In this case, I see the need to raise the environment's needs above those of the state. Some nations don't feel the need to protect our home... in an effort to mend what we can I see this as a needed step in our advancement.

i'm not sure if this has been mentioned before,
but if we are talking about scientific understanding about the issue,
then it would be more fruitfull to consider including the knowledge about nature,forest covers and the environment at large, that is a legacy amongst various ethnic and indigenious people. their understanding and means of interacting with the environment will definitly provide a more rounded view on the issue.
I agree that this might prove very fruitful. The proposal uses a reasonably broad definition and the UNEA has a general research mandate: I see no reason why they wouldn't take note of your excellent suggestion.

-- Samantha Benson

I think that this is a Beuracratic piece of s***, excuse the blommed language. I mean fine it's a 'fruitful' issue but thats what i despise in many politicians today, they're changing all these tiny, crappy details whens they're are much much bigger issues on the agenda!!! not once do you here precautions on a full out nuclear war with the east no,no,no Smoking bans, the National Health Service these are issues but you really want to be sorting out the BIG PICTURE!!!

I think that this is a Beuracratic piece of s***, excuse the blommed language. I mean fine it's a 'fruitful' issue but thats what i despise in many politicians today, they're changing all these tiny, crappy details whens they're are much much bigger issues on the agenda!!! not once do you here precautions on a full out nuclear war with the east no,no,no Smoking bans, the National Health Service these are issues but you really want to be sorting out the BIG PICTURE!!!

[OoC:What?]

Cookesland Votes FOR this piece of legislation.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Am I to understand that prior to this resolution there was no UN office which would coordinate with such organizations and disburse their scientific findings?


As far as we're aware, that is exactly the situation. There are a number of committees which have been established to consider specific environmental problems, but there is no overrarching organization which is charged with taking a global view of the environmental situation. Since environmental problems are often complex and involve solutions which have impact on more than one aspect of the environment, this is a less-than-efficient, probably ineffective, and possibly dangerous situation. This resolution rectifies it.

The resolution would also preclude the need for proliferation of committee after committee as environmental issues are addressed. New duties could simply be assigned to the UNEA.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

In addition to the most excellent comments by my colleague (Good luck with that paint project, Sam! I'd offer to help, but I'm allergic to paint ... or work, one or the other), I'd like to add a few things.

Does anyone really believe that government or the UN is better suited to research environmental science than private enterprise?Since you ask, I certainly do believe that an independent body is better suited than private industry to perform environmental research and disseminate the resulting information. Private industry has, and rightly so, profit as its primary goal; any research conducted (or primarily funded) by private industry is subject to the pull of profit margins and unwelcome results have a history of being co-opted or, more simply, suppressed. Private industry and their funds are not evil, but the coyote doesn't make the best hen-house guard.

Jirfog stands for this resolution. At this time, despite the morasse of bureaucratic nonsense it will bring about, it will lower the need for each nation to stand alone in an enviroscientific sense.Jirfog's support is noted and welcomed. With work and providence, the UNEA will avoid devolution into morass. As you point out, the UNEA will assist national efforts, if only by reducing the necessity of every nation having to reinvent the wheel, as the saying goes. My ancestors long ago learned that a single cook-fire for the village was far more efficient than each family needing to tend their individual fire. By pooling knowledge and efforts, through the mechanism of the UNEA, we will all have more success than if each are left to their own.

It was the phrase "promoting sustainable development" that first killed it for me. ...[T]he rich continue to use their wealth to perpetuate their lifestyle under continually brutal restrictions while the poor suffer and die of easily cureable diseases, starvation and homelessness.Sustainable development is what you make of it. At the most basic level, it simply means growth that does not outstrip one's resources. The problems you attribute to stagnant economies (blaming sustained growth in the process) have existed in the most robust of growth economies; their source is complex and deserve better than simplistic blame.
Since science tells us that nothing is truly, indefinitely sustainable ... I've also never been a big fan of interdisciplinary sciencesScience tells us many things are sustainable when a balance is maintained, from homeostatic systems in the physiology of living creatures to the water cycle to the conservation of energy. As for interdiciplinary sciences... interdisciplinary problems require interdisciplinary solutions. Many environmental issues require not only the efforts of individual disciplines, but also those trained to integrate the different perspectives.

More Enviromental silliness? Well, I can tell you this as true; If any of the rare, endangered spotted orange flying pygmy orangatan wombats from our neighboring nation of The Most Serene Republic of Mosvani cross into our great Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris, our peasants bash them with electrified tennis racquets and cook it up in a nice stew.An oddly-named nation for one so antagonistic toward conservation issues... and one so misinformed. This resolution does not specifically address endangered species or any species at all for that matter, though I'm glad that the UNEA will be cooperating with the UNCoESB committee. You should probably review that particular piece of legislation since your compliance with it is mandatory upon admission to the UN.

...the good, but slightly unwholesome Sen. Sulla ... is showing off his New toy (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/SW_500.jpg) to his admirers. ... At this point Sen. Sulla reaches from under his desk a places a large Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar on his desk with a sign that reads In God we Trust, all others must pay Cash!Pretty new toy? Solicitation of funds? Coincidence? ;)

Ben Whitehorse
Special Ambassador for Environmental Affairs
and Liaison to the GTT

It appears to me that this proposal will have a negative effect on the economy of socialist countries. Research on the enviroment can increase taxes and decrease economy. Of course for capitalist countries such as myself it would be simple to privatise enviromental research, just like you can privatise space programs, prisons, beaches, etc. However I can see where a socialist country might not want to privatise research.

Intangelon: There is no such body in existence at the moment (no such UN body, anyway). As for liaisemania, blame George: he spent a year 'studying' in Ariddia and came back smoking clove cigarettes and quoting Camus.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Quintessential Department of UN Affairs
Acting Chair, Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Damned longhair egghead policy wonks and their high-falutin' vocabules. Very well. Especially given Ambassador Thwerdock's considered opinion (q.v., below), I shall reverse my vote (which, I admit, was a bit of knee-jerk).

As far as we're aware, that is exactly the situation. There are a number of committees which have been established to consider specific environmental problems, but there is no overrarching organization which is charged with taking a global view of the environmental situation. Since environmental problems are often complex and involve solutions which have impact on more than one aspect of the environment, this is a less-than-efficient, probably ineffective, and possibly dangerous situation. This resolution rectifies it.

The resolution would also preclude the need for proliferation of committee after committee as environmental issues are addressed. New duties could simply be assigned to the UNEA.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

This I like. Very well. If we can assure ourselves that all things scientific can stop being legislated one at a time and shunted to the UNEA, I'm eager to rescind my opposition and vote FOR. Thank you, Ambassador Thwerdock.

Looks over at Sephora, his assistant, and conspires: Make sure she gets on the "good cheese" list for Harvestide gifts, okay? The standard ambassadorial 10-year gruyere won't do it for someone of her stature and eloquence. Break out the 25-year-old stuff.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/BWWerepenguinBanner.gif

After due consideration the Nifty Nation of Retired Werepenguins in the Zhaucauozian Friendship Region is proud to support the tree hugging resolution of the nation of QoD even though technically our very cold nation doesn't have any trees. I saw a tree once when I was in Key West once.

We encourage all other nations to vote AYE as well.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We rise in favor of this resolution. Our nation has discovered that, as our people are re-settled in other lands, we are facing a wide variety of environmental challenges and opportunities. We could use all the environmental-science and educational resources the NSUN can rally to help our people adjust to their new homes and neighbors.

Surely this is but a stepping stone to the rights and sovereignty of my country and its citizens being infringed, violated, and unfairly burdened. Will my country face economic and other sanctions for failing to comply with whatever notions this body pulls out of their hat next? I can only shudder when I imagine the steps taken after this one. Soon, my people will have no jobs, because the factories they work in "pollute the environment" and the cars they manufacture "pollute the environment" and the tree the logger chopped down is more valuable then his livelihood and that of his family.

I accept that there is a great deal of people, even entire nations, who want research and data collecting done on the status of the environment, but such studies, and further ramifications thereof, should be left in the hands of individual countries, and financed in the same way.

Surely this is but a stepping stone to the rights and sovereignty of my country and its citizens being infringed, violated, and unfairly burdened. Will my country face economic and other sanctions for failing to comply with whatever notions this body pulls out of their hat next? I can only shudder when I imagine the steps taken after this one. Soon, my people will have no jobs, because the factories they work in "pollute the environment" and the cars they manufacture "pollute the environment" and the tree the logger chopped down is more valuable then his livelihood and that of his family.

I accept that there is a great deal of people, even entire nations, who want research and data collecting done on the status of the environment, but such studies, and further ramifications thereof, should be left in the hands of individual countries, and financed in the same way.

Oy gevalt (http://www.strangepersons.com/content/item/8531.html).

Honestly I couldn't care less about whether or not this resolution passes, so I'm going to follow in Sen. Sulla's footsteps somewhat.

*Bob reaches under his desk and pulls out two jars, one marked "FOR" and the other marked "AGAINST"*

Here's how this is going to work, however you want me to vote, place your bribe in that jar. Whichever jar has the most money in it will be the way I cast my vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/BWWerepenguinBanner.gif
This causes my head to hurt. Was that the intention?

stuff
I know I shouldn't ask this, because I suspect I know what the answer is, but did you even bother to read the resolution?

Yelda supports this legislation and has voted FOR.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

The Rogue Nation of Ethereal Blue has voted for this resolution.
Being a small, but environmental intact nation, we want to preserve intact forests, the wildlife and clean water for future generations. To maintain this, an institution like the UNEA will be able to provide valuable data by its research, research that especially small nations won't be able to shoulder alone. This might enable us to avoid making mistakes which can't be corrected in the future.
Although there is a necessity for industrial development in order to provide jobs and goods, we can't be as short-sighted and only act due to the wishes of the current generation. Remember, we only borrowed earth from our children!

This causes my head to hurt. Was that the intention?

No, but it is an interesting side effect. I will have to get my scientists to research it further.

On behalf of Altanar, we are most pleased to vote in favor of this resolution. The environment is, in our opinion, the epitome of an international issue, and presuming the resolution passes, we look forward to working with the UNEA to ensure that our own environmental practices are harmonized with best practices worldwide.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The Sovereign Principality of New Avarin fully supports international efforts to promote awareness and research into enviromental concerns. Therefore, we rise in favor of this resolution, and hope to see its speedy implementation.

The Brigadier looks up as there is a knock at his door. At his command of "Enter", one of his pages, a young staffer by the name of Ernest rushes in with reports from the General Assembly floor.

Ernest: Brigadier, there is resounding support for this Environmental Act on the floor.
Diegaus: What does that mean to the Isles?
Ernest: Sir, I believe we should change our vote from abstention to approval!
Diegaus: And why would I do something like that?
Ernest: Well sir, we want to look good in the eyes of the international community! Especially since our population just passed the 1 billion mark. It would look good for a large nation, such as ours, to support a resolution that wishes to preserve the environment.
Diegaus: Did I vote against it?
Ernest: Well no, but you didn't vote for it.
Diegaus: It's not a pressing matter for the Isles to take a stand on.
Ernest: The environment is not a PRESSING MATTER??? Sir, YOU HAVE TO VOTE "YES" RIGHT NOW!!! THE WHOLE WORLD IS AT STA...

The staffer stops talking as the former Marine Ambassador draws a pistol from under his desk and points it at the young man.

Diegaus: You're one of those tree-hugging hippies from the Island of Tovalos, aren't you?
Ernest: Someone had to come and speak for Mother Earth!
Diegaus: Sentries!

Two of the Genoshan Isles Marine Embassy Security Detail step into the office of their general, looks of purposed discipline etched on their faces.

Diegaus: Please get this gentleman out of my office, and on the next plane to Scire! The Isles will ABSTAIN!

Without emotion, the two sentries grabbed the young man, kicking and screaming, from the Ambassador's presence. Diegaus prepares a communique to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, warning him that if he sends another hippie staffer to him, the tingling feeling he'll have in his hindparts, will be the brigadier's boot up his ass.

The Free Land of Logopia

Believing that:

-Environmental issues are without question global issues, and as such well within the scope of the U.N.

The sharing of scientific knowledge that the UNEA will bring will be most beneficial to the smaller nations (such as

ourselves) who don't necessarily have the resources to devote to environmental research.

-Environmental problems are complex and interdisciplinary problems, best solved by the combined efforts of the

international community.

-Governments have an undeniable responsibility to protect the environment, since in the end the environment sustains all

economies and societies.

-The UNEA will be of great value in the advancement and dissemination of environmental science, helping governments in

the creation of sensible and environmentally aware laws and policies.

Noting that:

-This proposal does not endow the UNEA with any regulative or punitive power, and so does not infringe on national

sovereignty

-The proposal contains provisions enough so that the UNEA will remain free from the influence of private interest groups

Concludes:

-The passing of this resolution is in the best interest of Logopia and The World; and as so emits her vote in favor of resolution "Environmental Science"


Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The United Nations

I'm inherently distrustful of this proposal. I don't quite see the need for such an organization, and the funding would be murder. All of the needed liases between groups set up by the UNEA would further degrade the environment. It seems like an oppurtunity to waste huge amounts of cash to realize that population growth dictates that the environment will not stop being degraded until the population stops growing. It could indeed mitigate these factors; however, I'm not sure any significant mitigation could come out of establishing the UNEA.

I vote against.

Well, it seems The Palentine and Flibbleites have thrown down the gauntlet on good old-fashioned vote-buying, and the Federal Republic is gonna get a piece of the action! Our vote's for sale! It may be just one vote, but it's an extremely valuable one, let me assure you. Might be worth a new pair of expensive heels for yours truly! Or an otter-fur coat! Or an especially revealing, tight-fitting evening gown! A sexy negligee, perhaps? Or a brand new Lear jet! Act now, and assure the Kennyites' vote ends up in your column! Bidding will start at: a date with a charming young male diplomat from your delegation. Do I hear higher?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

We're with this guy.


M. Diegaus III
RFGI Rep

"We, too, abstain. Wait for us!"

Though the citizens of the Empire of Kondaxia understand the intent behind a resolution such as this, and applaud the initiative, we cannot help but be cynical towards the ultimate enactment of said resolution. As a small and relatively independent nation currently focusing on maintaining a strong capitalist economy, much of our current strength is derived from the shrewd utilization of the natural resources currently within Kondaxia's borders. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that such industry has occasionally had a negative impact upon the environment, yet the economic gains for our small nation have been vast. If this resolution is accepted, it is easy to see how larger nations will benefit--they can bear to lose some natural resources in the name of environmental preservation while gaining the support of organizations such as the UNEAF, as well as positive regard from individuals and nations who hear only words such as "environmental preservation" and "sustainable development" and refuse to think about the impact on everyone involved. However, smaller nations such as Kondaxia can ill afford to lose any of the rich resources we are currently using to drive our economic success. As the resolution currently stands, there is no mention of support for those nations who may be required to radically reform and update their industrial practices. As Kondaxia is most likely to suffer this fate and all the economic pitfalls that accompany it, we must vote AGAINST this resolution.

Disc Golfing: I hardly think the resources needed to supply a research council would be 'murder', even given the reasonably broad ambit of the UNEA's research mandate. That said, I'll admit there is a cost: I can only hope it is offset by increased technological development and mitigation of costly damages. Regarding the comment about population growth, I have already agreed that curbing overpopulation is a major policy requirement: I simply don't feel it's for this proposal to concentrate on.

Kondaxia: I'm going to have to repeat myself. All rhetoric and no textual reference makes Sam a dull girl. Your situation is exactly one type that would benefit from this proposal, which clearly states the importance of economic development. Quintessence of Dust is not a nation of 'dark green' primitivists, and this proposal is not radical environmentalism: if, incidentally, anyone feels it should be, they should vote against it. We're not trying to constrain developing economies: we're trying to find ways developing economies can make headway without severely depleting the resources they will depend upon in the future. There is no mention of nations required to radically reform industrial processes, because this proposal doesn't require them to.

-- Samantha Benson

The Sage people of Khormovia hail this new resolution as We recognize the problems facing our World.

Our small country cannot do this on its own and is very thankful for the opportunity to learn from Great and Wealthy nations until the Righteous nation of Khormovia becomes one herself.

Ambassador Of the Glorious nation of Khormovia!

We have to agree with our friends from Dosuun. JXL is not in the business of indulging the trivial whims of ideological/religious fads or their followers. (fluff?)
There are significantly better and more relevant ways for us to be spending our time, money and resources. Like genuinely working on this and other issues of actual importance.

As a small developing nation, newly admitted into the ranks of the U.N., Bemsha understands the concerns that a number of states have with the economic consequences of such an undertaking. However, we believe that there are few more important issues for the international community to tackle, and that the long-term benefits of successes from this type of research far outweigh the short-term costs. Next to socio-religious fanaticism, nothing sparks bloody conflict like the battle for control of limited natural energy resources. The search for easily-obtainable, inexpensive, eco-friendly energy sources can lead to peace, economic prosperity and a cleaner environment for everyone. Bemsha believes that these are goals worthy of the sacrifices required.

Though the citizens of the Empire of Kondaxia understand the intent behind a resolution such as this, and applaud the initiative, we cannot help but be cynical towards the ultimate enactment of said resolution. As a small and relatively independent nation currently focusing on maintaining a strong capitalist economy, much of our current strength is derived from the shrewd utilization of the natural resources currently within Kondaxia's borders. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that such industry has occasionally had a negative impact upon the environment, yet the economic gains for our small nation have been vast. If this resolution is accepted, it is easy to see how larger nations will benefit--they can bear to lose some natural resources in the name of environmental preservation while gaining the support of organizations such as the UNEAF, as well as positive regard from individuals and nations who hear only words such as "environmental preservation" and "sustainable development" and refuse to think about the impact on everyone involved. However, smaller nations such as Kondaxia can ill afford to lose any of the rich resources we are currently using to drive our economic success. As the resolution currently stands, there is no mention of support for those nations who may be required to radically reform and update their industrial practices. As Kondaxia is most likely to suffer this fate and all the economic pitfalls that accompany it, we must vote AGAINST this resolution.

Please point out to us exactly which provision(s) of this resolution would cause your nation to lose even one tiny bit of the rich resources you're dependent on. And which specific provision(s) would require you to "radically reform and update [your] industrial practices"?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Though we admit that there are no specific provisions requiring the reformation of current industrial practices, we find it difficult to believe that pressure to do so will not be enacted if this resolution passes. As with all resolutions put before the United Nations, one cannot simply stand on specifics; all resolutions have farther-reaching consequences than what the resolution itself may state. Current industrial practices in Kondaxia and, I am sure, many other nations are (regrettably) not as environmentally sound as everyone wishes they could be. With the passing of this resolution, one can hardly be naive enough to believe that pressure will not be exerted upon industry by the international community, the United Nations, and the UNEAF to change their practices, changes which will necessarily involve millions if not billions in total costs. Other smaller nations such as Bemsha might be willing to shoulder this burden, for which we applaud their sacrifice, but at this current stage of its development, Kondaxia is not.

One of the common problems many delegates in this august body suffer from is the inability to read the resolution at vote in the first place. Even if they read few take the time to understand the resolution. Consider the resolution up for vote. I ask the rhetorical question, “Does anyone really understand what this resolution does?”

It’s rhetorical so I’m not giving up the floor just yet. I don’t care if you think you have the answer, because you are probably wrong. This resolution does not directly or indirectly harm industry. The resolution does the following things; promotes “environmental science,” talks to people and makes surveys. That is it. It is an educational resolution, not an environmental one.

Given the scope of the resolution, I cannot see any significant costs in funding. In fact I don’t think it has any funding whatsoever, except if it can con a few charitable donations from nations, and even then that’s not in its mandate. Perhaps it will sell stuffed animals or produce award winning documentaries on pay per view. Who can say and who isn’t talking.

The Palentine, Flibbleites and Kenny have all resorted to vote buying. I would never sink so low as to accept payments for my one vote. However, my secretary Red Hot loves uni. That’s sea urchin roe in case you are not sushi experts. You would be surprised at how happy she can get after a few uni hand rolls. If she is happy and as a result I get to be happy I might reverse my vote and vote against this resolution.

Though we admit that there are no specific provisions requiring the reformation of current industrial practices, we find it difficult to believe that pressure to do so will not be enacted if this resolution passes. As with all resolutions put before the United Nations, one cannot simply stand on specifics...

I can't say as I've ever seen a committee anywhere do more than what they've been asked to do. It's just the nature of committees I suspect. UN committees are even more constrained; they are specifically required to conform to the specific requirements of legislation (in this case a research and education function). No specific provisions to force you to reform your practices? Then it's not going to happen under this resolution, chief.

... industrial practices in Kondaxia and, I am sure, many other nations are (regrettably) not as environmentally sound as everyone wishes they could be. With the passing of this resolution, one can hardly be naive enough to believe that pressure will not be exerted upon industry by the international community, the United Nations, and the UNEAF to change their practices ... Some of us think such pressure might not be such a bad thing, but that's a side issue. As Ms. Benson has already explained, the UNEA will be interested in research on how to improve environmental conditions while protecting nations' economic progress as much as possible. Better environmental conditions are a win-win for everyone.

Ben looks down at a sheet placed in front of him.

I've just been informed that Rubina has voted FOR this resolution.

Ben Whitehorse
Special Ambassador and Liaison to the GTT

I'm afraid I have to agree with Penguins on this one; the commitee has no way of securing constant, regular and reliable funding with the powers you propose. The way I see it, the UNEA requires some form of power to acquire funding from nations without relying on generosity. In addition, some nations, or their internal bodies, which qualify for research etc. funding could use such a loosely operated system to receive money regardless of whether the government in question, or government responsible for the body, has donated even a single Jamesingtonland Pound to the committee. For these reasons, Jamesingtonland is officially against the proposal.

As a represenetive of Ice Swords, I can say that this proposal may possibly work only if the members of the international effort can agree and follow through with the intended agenda which I believe is highly debatable.

Coming from the Federation of Eastern Noble, I believe that even if this proposal does not show as large of an effect as was intended, it is still better than nothing. The fact that it is being done now, and not in the future will help as well. Remember: an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.

Best Regards,
Jónas Ernst
General Ambassador

I'm afraid I have to agree with Penguins on this one; the commitee has no way of securing constant, regular and reliable funding with the powers you propose.

Given the repeated voting down of proposals for securing funds for the UN as a whole, no committee has any way of securing constant, regular or reliable funding. This committee has less need of it than most, so your objection is pretty meaningless really.

Scotchpinestan, a nation that has concern for the environment wirtten in its constitution, emphatically supports this proposal.

The hard-nosed people of the Kingdom of Tyler Cooper and more importantly its King, Tyler Cooper, fully support environmental protection and the betterment of the global environment.

At the very least, this bill will give the Kingdom of Tyler Cooper time to build up its principal industry of illegal black market gambling. After all, what kind of environmental havoc can be created by a few slot machines and sports betting parlors?

Though we admit that there are no specific provisions requiring the reformation of current industrial practices, we find it difficult to believe that pressure to do so will not be enacted if this resolution passes. As with all resolutions put before the United Nations, one cannot simply stand on specifics; all resolutions have farther-reaching consequences than what the resolution itself may state. Current industrial practices in Kondaxia and, I am sure, many other nations are (regrettably) not as environmentally sound as everyone wishes they could be. With the passing of this resolution, one can hardly be naive enough to believe that pressure will not be exerted upon industry by the international community, the United Nations, and the UNEAF to change their practices, changes which will necessarily involve millions if not billions in total costs. Other smaller nations such as Bemsha might be willing to shoulder this burden, for which we applaud their sacrifice, but at this current stage of its development, Kondaxia is not.

Sorry, but we find this "slippery slope" argument completely unconvincing. The UNEAF has no mandate or authority to exert pressure on anyone. The UN can exert pressure only through the passage of resolutions. Those resolutions can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The entire effect of this resolution is to promote the acquisition and dissemination of information about environmental issues. This can only benefit all nations. Nations whose economies don't permit large-scale efforts to protect or improve their environments may be enabled to find low-cost ways to contribute to the effort. They might even be helped by more prosperous nations concerned about the cross-border effects of their industrial operations.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Given the repeated voting down of proposals for securing funds for the UN as a whole, no committee has any way of securing constant, regular or reliable funding.

That way of thinking is disgusting! The previous proposals involving financial assistance from UN nations usually required huge bites out of national budgets. This proposal, on the other hand, wouldn't need such large funds and, if the resolution were to incorporate some kind of mechanism where AFTER the UNEA had decided where to send money and had actually sent it the nations were to give the appropriate amounts of money (which would be decided from the economic status of the nation at the time), every nation would be given a very small 'bill', with larger, more powerful nations, which are stereotypically more likely to want to save the environment, paying larger amounts than smaller, less economically developed countries, who would be paying smaller amounts. This would mean that the UNEA would not make a profit or a loss, and the amount of money it received would be equal to the amount it had decided to spend.

Thanks to those continuing to defend this in our absence. To those concerned about the UNEA's expansive regulatory powers, we can only repeat: they are not found in this proposal, the whole point of which is concentrated on research. If any future resolution grants the UNEA new powers, then that is an issue with that future resolution, not this one: this in no way establishes environmental regulations nor makes it any easier to pass new ones in the future.

To those concerned about funding, we do agree, but honestly, we would rather one single resolution tackled that. We supported Karmicaria's funding act, we've supported its redrafting of it, and have attempted to offer comments towards such: no one can accuse us of not being concerned about the issue. But we'd really rather it was discussed as one issue: establishing funding piecemeal, with each resolution setting different requirements, is only going to create more uncertainty and introduce greater possibility for waste and corruption. We would suggest those concerned address their comments here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533208).

-- Samantha Benson

The Palentine, Flibbleites and Kenny have all resorted to vote buying.

I'm not buying, I'm selling. *Bob looks down at his empty jars* Or, at least I'm trying to. Apparently nobody wants to buy a delegate vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

7. Prohibits the UNEA from accepting donations from private parties such as businesses, charities or NGOs, so as to prevent its research being skewed in favour of specific interest groups.

Won't it be better if charity, NGO's, businesses, etc CAN donate to aid the research as long as the money donated to the groups are around equal to the money donated to the other groups.

If not, then the businesses, etc can send the money to the educational department which will then send even amounts of money to each group.


Othwise, I am in favor of this bill..

Starting a new thread as this version is substantially different, and the entire previous thread was occupied with discussion of prizes.

Environmental Science
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational

The United Nations,

Aware that many of the most critical issues of daily life involve resource management and the maintenance of a harmonious balance with the natural world, and that meaningful action on them requires a full and developed knowledge of the underlying environmental science,

Recognising that environmental science can lead to the formulation of community and governmental policies, and personal and business strategies, to recognise and mitigate problems of environmental degradation while promoting sustainable development, thereby promoting ‘bottom-up’ solutions to environmental problems, allowing individuals to make rational choices rather than depending on stringent government oversight,

Considering the establishment of an impartial body capable of coordinating and conducting research free of political and private influence to be one useful means of promoting such goals through an international body:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'environmental science' as the pursuit of understanding of the natural environment through the scientific process, and especially that concerning the interaction of natural and artificial components, the effect of economic activities upon the environment, the development of solutions to problems within these relationships, and the search for sustainable modes of development;

2. Promotes the study of environmental science throughout all UN member nations, emphasises support for projects bringing understanding of the value and importance of environmental science to a wider audience, and encourages member nations to fund relevant research projects and courses of study;

3. Declares that persons in member nations may apply for funding for such from the UNEAF, subject to the approval of the nation in which the study or research is being undertaken, and providing such work abides by environmental regulations and academic best practice;

4. Establishes, as a neutral council capable of conducting independent research, the United Nations Environmental Agency (UNEA);

5. Declares that the UNEA shall:
- liaise with similar local, national and regional bodies, particularly through assisting with the establishment of such programs as advanced by this resolution,
- liaise with existing UN environmental and other relevant committees, while hopefully mitigating the need for further proliferation of such,
- conduct environmental science research, including work towards solving problems of environmental degradation, and make freely available their findings and recommendations,
- abide by academic best practice in all their endeavours;

6. Further declares that the UNEA shall:
- conduct, on an annual basis, surveys of the state of the natural environment, identify existing and potential problems of environmental degradation, and research and recommend solutions and mitigating measures,
- make freely available such findings in an International Environmental Audit Yearbook,
- conduct, where requested by the authority with jurisdiction over the particular area, further environmental surveys directed at more specific details,
- conduct, on a regular basis, such surveys over areas under UN jurisdiction or identified as international or non-national territory;

7. Prohibits the UNEA from accepting donations from private parties such as businesses, charities or NGOs, so as to prevent its research being skewed in favour of specific interest groups.
I'd like to particularly acknowledge the help of Rubina in drafting this at the Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank).

Comments welcome. The UNEA is intended an impartial research body, not an all-powerful tool of ecoterrorist world domination, and those quailing over its sweeping powers will not find them granted by this proposal (and can vote against any that tries to, as we will).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison
Quintessence of Dust

This delegate votes against, for style reasons. Much too wordy, and therefore broad reaching.

This delegate votes against, for style reasons. Much too wordy, and therefore broad reaching.

The length of a resolution somehow equates to its scope of effect? What utter nonsense!

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

This delegate votes against, for style reasons. Much too wordy, and therefore broad reaching.

With all due respect (and I mean that quite literally), your statement (inane as it is) would have more credibility (meaning, any at all) if your delegation hadn't just proposed a 19-word resolution that was far more broad (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533292) in its effects.

In other words, your argument, such as it is, is complete rubbish.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Congratulations on getting the resolution through! Even if I was against it... *grumbles*

The Good News:

The resolution Environmental Science was passed 6,393 votes to 2,813, and implemented in all UN member nations.

The Bad News:

My UNI donation fund jar is completely empty and as a result Red Hot will not get any Uni tonight. Since she won't get any, I'm not going to get any either.

Bah, this is worse than Key West where there were soo many girls all looking for Mrs. Right. :(

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h44/bobwhisler/sushi/uni.jpg

That way of thinking is disgusting! The previous proposals involving financial assistance from UN nations usually required huge bites out of national budgets.

Er, no. Completely and utterly wrong. Go and read the last attempt at funding the UN, do the calculations for your own nation, and then tell me with any shred of credibility whatsoever that you'd even notice it in your budget. It's not my way of thinking that's disgusting, it's the attitude of the freeloaders who don't want to pay anything for what they get.

(OOC: I did run the calculations for Gobbannium. The city I live in (around 100,000 people) would wince at paying the resulting figure, but could do it without utterly breaking the budget. A nation several orders of magnitude bigger isn't even going to notice.)

I'm not criticising YOU, I'm criticising, as you yourself said, the attitude (which is related to way of thinking) of the freeloaders who expect the UN to have an infinite amount of funds. I agree with you about some resolutions not needing large funds, but some which I've seen specify a particular amount of money in comparison to the Gross Domestic Product of each nation. Others which do not give such a specific figure occasionally would require large amounts of funding from each nation when you consider that some resolutions require MEDCs to give very generously to the less well-off countries in NS. When you consider that (just about) everyone who plays this game would consider their nation to be very well-off, thousands (if not more) fictitious nations which would be needed to create a varied world, requiring millions each to satisfy the proposal's intent.

On the other hand... leave my hyperbole alone!

Yay + thanks.

I must inform you Ambassador that being a member of the NSUN is by choice. We have the ability to object to legislation, even to the point of telegram campaigns if we feel that strongly. But in the end, we CHOOSE to be member nations. If you don't want to follow the guidelines this body has established, either work at changing them through your own proposals, or if all else fails, leave the NSUN. We all MUST comply with anything that gets passes. There is no choice other than to resign your chair. The statement about matters of state is an argument that many use here, and I must admit that I've thrown it around a few times myself. In this case, I see the need to raise the environment's needs above those of the state. Some nations don't feel the need to protect our home... in an effort to mend what we can I see this as a needed step in our advancement.

Its Chamurray's choice to be in the NSUN, it is also Chamurray's choice on whether or not to obey the resolutions passed by the NSUN. My question to you is, if Chamurray refuses to obey one resolution, what will you do about it?

Congratulations to the distinguished representative of Quintessence of Dust on the passage of another fine piece of legislation.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Its Chamurray's choice to be in the NSUN, it is also Chamurray's choice on whether or not to obey the resolutions passed by the NSUN. My question to you is, if Chamurray refuses to obey one resolution, what will you do about it?

If you're in the UN, compliance is enforced whether you like it or not. You may want to try learning something about how this whole process works. And now that the resolution has passed, you can either live with it, place a puppet in the UN like many others do, or just leave. Whatever you decide to do, though, perhaps you should keep your ignorance to yourself, as your display of "defiance" is petulant and unbecoming.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

If you're in the UN, compliance is enforced whether you like it or not.Um, no. Compliance is mandatory whether you like it or not. How you enforce it in your nation is your choice (ever hear of loopholes? :p). Outright defiance is generally considered Godmoding, however.

Yay + thanks.

How does it feel to have a proposal passed with little-to-no effort?

I wish I could do that...