NationStates Jolt Archive

Air Pollution Convention
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ithania
Description: The United Nations,

Recognising the adverse effects air pollution has on the environment,

Determined to promote relations and cooperation in the field of environmental protection,

Believing that member states have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies,

Also believing that member states have an obligation to ensure that activities within their jurisdictions do not cause damage to the environment of other States,

Hereby:

1. Defines “Air Pollution” as the non-natural introduction, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the air resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;

2. Defines “transboundary air pollution” as air pollution whose physical origin is situated within the area under the national jurisdiction of one State and has adverse effects in the area under the jurisdiction of another State;

3. Requires member nations to provide the UN Environmental Agency (UNEA) with meteorological, physico-chemical, and biological data relating to the effects of transboundary air pollution with a view to establishing a scientific basis for dose/effect relationships;

4. Mandates the creation and maintenance of monitoring stations in member nations. The collection of data shall be carried out under the respective national jurisdictions of member nations;

5. Tasks the International Meteorological Organisation with cooperating, as appropriate, in the collection and analysis of data;

6. Charges the UNEA with the following:
a. Creating and subsequently maintaining a list of air pollutants for international use,
b. Establishing a standardised procedure for monitoring air pollutants that allows for effective comparison of data,
c. Creating models utilising data collected from member nations in order to better understand the transmission of air pollutants and their transboundary fluxes,
d. Assessing alternative economic, social, and environmental measures for attaining the objective of reducing transboundary air pollution,
e. Providing education and training schemes related to the environmental consequences of air pollution,
f. Acting as independent adjudication upon request if a member nation believes another to be responsible for environmental damages within their jurisdiction;
g. Objectively assessing whether there is quantifiable environmental damage and whether a causal link between the accused nation(s) and any damage can be established based on collected data;
h. Assigning liability for damages in cases where a causal link is established.

7. States that nations found to be liable for damages by the UNEA shall either provide reparations equal to the resources required to remediate and prevent environmental damages within the aggrieved nation, or consult with the UNEA to establish an economically feasible timetable to reduce the emission of air pollutants;

8. Requires member nations to provide the UNEA with notification of major changes in national policies and industrial development that will likely cause significant changes in transboundary air pollution;

9. Urges member nations to create national, sub-regional, and regional strategies to combat and control air pollution beyond the confines of this resolution.

Co-authored by Lots of Ants

(Eap, sorry about taking so long dears. I’ve been a tad busy today)

We apologise for the delay in our delegation initiating and participating in debate but there were several matters of national importance for us to attend to prior to departing.

Naturally, we are pleased that our proposal has received sufficient endorsement to be put to vote before the esteemed delegates of this chamber and hope that the intent of the proposal is clear. We seek to promote and protect the rights of individual member nations on the international stage so that equal importance is attributed to their national borders rather than strength determining the worth.

We would like to stress that we have no desire to infringe unjustifiably on national sovereignty but we refuse to allow egocentricity over issues that affect others and disrespectful disregard for national jurisdiction.

Our delegation welcomes all comments, whether positive or negative, so that we may continue to assess whether this resolution serves the greater interest and to aid us in the creation of a document detailing the critical points of the debate so that we may provide them to ambassadors entering the debate at a later time.

Emodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

OOC- Frequently Asked Questions:

Is this proposal focusing on Global Warming?

There is no effective way of assessing “who does what to whom” so it is not relevant to this proposal, the focus of this is on specific receptors and specific sources with quantifiable environmental damages.

Is it possible to effectively assign blame?

I’d like to illustrate this with an example adapted from real life. Some years ago it was revealed that 92% of sulphur fallout in Ithanian Lanara (Scandinavia) came from external sources, compared to only 20% in Sexagogo (United Kingdom). Given the direction of prevailing winds from the south-west and an extensive air pollution monitoring network observing overall national concentrations and local concentrations it was possible to use meteorological data in conjunction with environmental impacts and sulphur emissions from within Ithanian Lanara to conclude that Sexagogo was responsible for a rather accurate amount of the acidification of lakes and subsequent loss of biodiversity.

The UNEA will have far more extensive data from within the offending nations and aggrieved nations so should prove to be even more effective at assigning blame.

:)
Could you also add a component to research as well? There are some that believe that there is an inter-relationship between ocean and atmosphere which could mean that adding monitoring devices at certain areas to measure ocean data could actually help in determining air quality. Maybe... hmmm. Or is it too late to modify the proposal because it is now currently at vote? Oh and if it does not pass, I suggest that those who did vote for it, try to implement it amongst each other as a multilateral agreement in which I would like to be included. :)

I have a problem surrending any part of my nations sovereignty to what can be described as nothing more than a debate society. the direction of a nations government should come from the citizens of that nation. not from people who have never lived, but have only visited that nation.
If the people of your nation have a problem with pollution, take care of it in YOUR country, and leave the rest of us alone.

I have a problem surrending any part of my nations sovereignty to what can be described as nothing more than a debate society. the direction of a nations government should come from the citizens of that nation. not from people who have never lived, but have only visited that nation.
If the people of your nation have a problem with pollution, take care of it in YOUR country, and leave the rest of us alone.

In case you haven't noticed, we're all breathing from the same atmosphere, and air pollution isn't known to respect national boundaries.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have a problem surrending any part of my nations sovereignty to what can be described as nothing more than a debate society. the direction of a nations government should come from the citizens of that nation. not from people who have never lived, but have only visited that nation.
If the people of your nation have a problem with pollution, take care of it in YOUR country, and leave the rest of us alone.

You know, I'm one of those who does not find "National Sovereignty" to be a swear word like some around here, but even I'm a little offended by that as a reason not to vote for this one. This is a sovereignty-friendly resolution in that it's not really so much about mandating what stays within your borders as it does what goes beyond them and affects others. I'm sorry, but if you live next to me and you're polluting the air me and my people breathe we're going to have some issues. I can see this proposal as one of the obvious reasons I would think most reasonable people would agree the UN should exist for.

I'm on the fence with this resolution. I see the nobility in making sure that we all have the cleanest air possible. However, some nations' industries are, by their very nature, polluting. These industries, such as refining, smelting, and other resource extraction/modification and manufacturing processes, are critical to the standard of living around the world.

I am also unaware of significant progress in the science of determining air pollution origin, but that's no barrier to a yes vote, seeing as I'm nobody's scientist.

I am leaning toward approval, but I'd like to hear more specifics. For example: can environmental damage be objectively quantified? What mechanisms are in place to prevent fraud leading to environmental extortion? Is an appeal possible?

I like that the penalty for infringement of pollution upon another nation is spelled out as the value of amelioration. I like the resolution's wording overall, in fact.

However, some nations' industries are, by their very nature, polluting. These industries, such as refining, smelting, and other resource extraction/modification and manufacturing processes, are critical to the standard of living around the world.

So those nations can pass the cost of meeting this measure's requirements on to the industries in question, who can pass it on (via the prices that they charge for their products) to their customers, who -- if those industries are indeed "critical to the standard of living around the world" -- will presumably see that as acceptable...
Or, at least, might (hopefully) see it as acceptable if they couldn't buy those goods at cheaper prices from industries in non-UN nations, because those could undercut the UN-based ones due to not having to allow for this factor...
H'mm, that could be a problem....

If industry is caught in "inconvenience" with the resolution. Perhaps we should take the inconvenience. for the greater good... National Sovereignty be forsaken.

New Sequoyah votes against this resolution. Smoke from our many wildfires could cause asthma in our neighboring countries, and New Sequoyah does not wish to have to pay for the asthma bills that could result, nor pay for the smoke damage in people's homes.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

I have a problem surrending any part of my nations sovereignty to what can be described as nothing more than a debate society.We suggest you review the nature of membership in this "debate society". You're guaranteed to be disappointed with membership under the conditions you've specified.

.. buy those goods at cheaper prices from industries in non-UN nations, because those could undercut the UN-based ones due to not having to allow for this factor...
H'mm, that could be a problem....Granted you haven't gotten to the obvious conclusion yet; but let us interrupt your train of thought.

The argument that a resolution that might place a member at a disadvantage to a non-member and thus is unworthy of support is truly unworthy of support. It can be (and probably has been) used to pooh-pooh everything this body has attempted in its short history. We make these efforts because we are members and believe them to be worthy of forward-thinking, civilized beings. In the specific circumstance you reference, goods from non-members are open to tariffs and penalties. We suggest such be used to balance the books, as it were.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

We in Magick and Witchcraft have already taken steps to prevent air pollution and we welcome any help from the UN. So we vote yes on this.

New Sequoyah votes against this resolution. Smoke from our many wildfires could cause asthma in our neighboring countries, and New Sequoyah does not wish to have to pay for the asthma bills that could result, nor pay for the smoke damage in people's homes.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

Here's a great reason to vote in favor of this proposal. New Sequoyah, or one with similar attitudes, might live next to your nation.

Edit: I do wonder what New Sequoyah would feel about neighboring countries doing the same or worse to the air they breathe.

Could you also add a component to research as well? There are some that believe that there is an inter-relationship between ocean and atmosphere which could mean that adding monitoring devices at certain areas to measure ocean data could actually help in determining air quality.
We believe that aquatic biodiversity is already included in the proposal under the requirement to provide biological data as acidification of water does noticeably affect living orgasms. However, we also believe that the wonderfully crafted and complimentary Water Quality and Conservation deals with many concerns over observing the level of water contamination within nations.

However, some nations' industries are, by their very nature, polluting. These industries, such as refining, smelting, and other resource extraction/modification and manufacturing processes, are critical to the standard of living around the world.
We are aware of this but we do disagree that they are inherently polluting, only the present process is polluting. Such industries are the primary reason economic feasibility is to be a core concern and the resolution is intentionally vague on the internal affairs of nations so that they have a variety of options to choose from as best suits their nation’s society.

Also the assessment of alternative measures detailed in the resolution includes cleaner extraction/modification methods using low/non-waste technologies or techniques. Many industrialised nations possess the technology already such as electrostatic air cleaners or other particulate controls, wet or dry scrubbing, and complete overhauls of the fundamentals which can be phased in over a period of time if nations desire it. It does not have to be economically damaging and the UNEA is charged with avoiding such a result unless completely necessary.

can environmental damage be objectively quantified?
We know it can; there is no doubt that effective methods exist that can be employed by even Lesser Beings involving the strategic placement of monitoring stations within nations. The networks of stations observe chemical composition in the air constantly thus when the concentration data is used in conjunction with meteorological and biological information it becomes possible to identify a stationary source and receptor. We believe the best demonstration of this is acid precipitation.

Further, the UNEA is charged with establishing a dose/effect relationship between pollutants and subsequent damage which would include observing agriculture, forestry, materials, aquatic environments and other natural ecosystems thus it is possible to calculate required concentrations of pollutants to within an acceptable margin.

OOC: Eap, I’d give methods dear but nations are oddly secretive about how their monitoring stations work. I really have no idea what national secret they’re protecting.

What mechanisms are in place to prevent fraud leading to environmental extortion?
We were concerned with such potential but we believe the standardised monitoring process will clearly illustrate irregularities as data is collected from multiple sources. Any attempt at fraud will result in conflict of data which the UNEA will invariably discover during analysis of all available information.

I like that the penalty for infringement of pollution upon another nation is spelled out as the value of amelioration.
We thank you for your approval, it is greatly appreciated. We understand all too well the necessity of healing the environment in the name of restoring life to its former diversity.

Smoke from our many wildfires could cause asthma in our neighboring countries, and New Sequoyah does not wish to have to pay for the asthma bills that could result, nor pay for the smoke damage in people's homes.

We would direct the ambassador to the very definition of an air pollutant detailed in the resolution, you would have nothing to fear as long as you do not set your nation ablaze intentionally. We apologise if you do indeed do it deliberately and admit that it’s entirely possible; you Lowers have such... curious habits.

1. Defines “Air Pollution” as the non-natural introduction, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the air resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;

Embodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

Logopia fully supports this proposal. We have voted for, and asked our regional delegate to place their vote accordingly.


----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

You know, I'm one of those who does not find "National Sovereignty" to be a swear word like some around here, but even I'm a little offended by that as a reason not to vote for this one. This is a sovereignty-friendly resolution in that it's not really so much about mandating what stays within your borders as it does what goes beyond them and affects others. I'm sorry, but if you live next to me and you're polluting the air me and my people breathe we're going to have some issues. I can see this proposal as one of the obvious reasons I would think most reasonable people would agree the UN should exist for.

If you have a problem with MY nation, then negotiate with MY nation. why should regulation be put on all of us because of just a few that can't "get along"? Why should MY nations sovereignty suffer because 2 podunk countries on the other side of the world can't make friends with eachother?

Am I correct in assuming that this resolution will not only extend to industrial pollution, but that of agricultural as well. Those not familiar with the fragrant aroma of our Blatter Beast ranches are in for an eye burning surprise.

You have the support of the Snefaldian people. Protecting our environment is one of the most important duties we have as stewards of the world, and combatting pollution is one step toward making the world more beautiful.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

If you have a problem with MY nation, then negotiate with MY nation. Why should regulation be put on all of us because of just a few that can't "get along"?
“If you’re capable of negotiating an amicable resolution to issues resulting from air pollution via bilateral and multilateral agreements then what is your fear about this resolution? Appealing to the UNEA is optional for the aggrieved nation thus you would be completely unaffected by this if your nation is as diplomatic and understanding as you claim.

Unfortunately many Lowers default to vile egocentricity and this resolution exists to protect the vulnerable from those predator nations that have no care for fellow sapient beings and no respect for the rights of other member nations.

We would like to ask something of the Secure Populaces ambassador. How would your government feel if deposition of air pollutants resulted in dead lakes, “burned” forests, caused respiratory related deaths among your citizens, and damaged your agricultural industry? You would seek to negotiate with those that were causing it, would you not? What if they refused and continued polluting? Would you not want a mechanism to protect your people from the offending nation?"

Am I correct in assuming that this resolution will not only extend to industrial pollution, but that of agricultural as well. Those not familiar with the fragrant aroma of our Blatter Beast ranches are in for an eye burning surprise.
Ganatra rises to speak, apparently immune to any notion of humour: “If the agricultural pollution in question is spreading to other nations and causing the deleterious effects detailed in the definition of air pollution then it would fall within the domain of this resolution.

However, we seriously question whether the chemical in question is long-range in nature or capable of causing negative effects in other States. Anything local such as the burning of eyes is entirely within the jurisdiction of the hypothetical member nation.”

Embodiment Ganatra,
The Council of Three.

Miserere firmly objects to this proposal. We didn't join the UN to be told what our private industries can or cannot do. Even I do not have the right to regulate such a thing.

Gregorio XXIII

Speaking purely for my own great nation, I, Acervus, believe that Pollution is something that happens no matter how much people try and regulate it. I see this as simply a silly idealistic tactic to attempt and take down big business, and I wont fall for it.

Miserere firmly objects to this proposal. We didn't join the UN to be told what our private industries can or cannot do. Even I do not have the right to regulate such a thing.

Gregorio XXIII

When your private industry begins poisoning OUR environments, we feel we have the right to do something about it. Private industry is in no way above the law and any particular nation who wishes to make it so should not be entitled to force this decision upon the rest of the world for generations to come by means of its result.

Roseariea supports the proposal and applauds its creator for defending the air we (at least most of us) enjoy breathing.

- as read by Gordon Tills, ambassador to the UN, from a letter by Melvin Stafroy, Roseariean Environmental Minister.

If I want to pump CO2 into the athmosphere I can. I don't want to be foced to change my nations ways for a more exspensive disposal method.

while it is a good idea to create a board for monitoring air pollution. Air pollution does not respect national boundaries in respect to other nations air being polluted by another nations industry. In addition to that all this does is set up an enviromental board and give scientist the job of researching air pollution. What should be done is to not just urge nations to reduce air pollution but require them to meet certain levels of air quality, which if they do not a monetary fine or some other punishment should be enforced. Simply stated we should not just go half way with an air quality bill, it should either be for the enviroment or for industry. ps I must apologize if there are any spelling errors.

While the Kingdom of Loathingish agrees, in principle, with the basic tenets of this proposal, we do not agree with the provision of reparations. It is all fine and good to blame pollution on specific national entities, but proof of the source of said pollution cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Plus, what is to stop feuding nations to blame their own pollution on each other in order to gain reparations (or to cause the other nation to have to pay reparations to another nation)? If this provision is removed, then Loathingish will support this proposal wholeheartedly. Until then, however, we have no choice but to oppose it.

i agree that we should cut down on big industries pollution but my big issue with making this binding is that it will cut down on my economy (national socialist ecomomy) and in the event of war or others matters of the short i need the option to use my industries build up more income for the government. long story short it should not be binding!:cool::

If I want to pump CO2 into the athmosphere I can. I don't want to be foced to change my nations ways for a more exspensive disposal method.


Its seems a little bit selfish to not restrict CO2 output for the sheer reason that you don't want to be told what to do. We need to be cognizant of what we do in the present so that future generations are not stuck with the problems we create. I respect your vote against the resolution, I just wish that it were cast for a more grounded reason.

The UN has Eternam's full support on the issue. We have voted in favor of the resolution and will be suggesting to our regional delegate that they do the same.

General Blakemore
President of Eternam

OOC: It would be nice if something like this was done in real life, but much stricter. Pollution is a serious problem, and it needs to be dealt with. I agree with this. I know it will pass. Sadly, Trey Dreizehn, Ambassador of the Dourian Confederacy, does not. I'll let him speak for himself.

If I were to shoot a gun at another nation, from within my own, does this constitute pollution? If I fire a missile that causes smoke to plume up in another nation, is that pollution? If I allow mustard gas to float like a deadly cloud over our border into neighboring Kharjackistan (http://www.nationstates.net/kharjackistan)(which is, quite frankly, asking for it), is that pollution? If I order industry to fire up the incinerators and make sure the wind is blowing towards Kharjackistan, is that pollution? If I pollute, is that pollution? These are serious questions which I feel this resolution fails to address. As the ambassador from Ithania is a smoking hot chick, I will of course allow her to rebuff my statements.

However, that said, my nation does take it's right to self governance seriously(considering how many nations it has conquered), and it's industry will be adversely affected by this. I cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution that will destroy jobs in my nation. I'm firmly against.

If I were to shoot a gun at another nation, from within my own, does this constitute pollution?
We were under the impression that such constituted a declaration of war, rendering talk of pollution somewhat moot. Aside from that, we're quite happy to let the honoured Emperor strangle himself in his own rhetoric.

i agree with fighting pollution but i do not want this to get in the way of my
economy growth. this resolution will keep me from getting enough income from government owned corporations incase of an emergency such as war or
economic downfall! the short of this is that i always need the boost of big industry for a rainy day. i am all for making a cleaner nation but there is a limit to the restriction put on large corporations. and i know that alot of other nations agree. we must vote against this resolutions. i know for a fact that fellow national socialist nations agree. SIEG HEIL! :mad:

The Federation of Schalak Strongly Opposes this resolution. The United Nations has no right to tell my private industry if they can or can't pollute. As reflected by many in this forum, This is a severe violation of National Sovereignty. In our great nation, even our national assembly does not have the right to regulate business.


José María de Arroyo
Schalak Ambassador to the UN

Even if my great nation were to support the Air Pollution Convention which we don't. Without the support of all nations UN or otherwise conventions such as this are doomed to failure. This is due to the fact that the incentives for non-compliance are just too high.

agree. we must vote against this resolutions. i know for a fact that fellow national socialist nations agree. SIEG HEIL! :mad:

OOC: two things, first, you just voiced your opinion about 4 posts up or so. this doesn't add anything or address any new comments, you could've posted it with your last bit using 'edit'. or just shut up and not have repeated yourself. whichever.
second, i don't see the need for "sieg heil". to someone like me it makes you look like a giant asshole. there's not an in game call for it and out of game it's stupid, annoying and needless. in my opinion, of course.

Is their a way to tell who votes for what? or is it a secret ballot?

Is their a way to tell who votes for what? or is it a secret ballot?

If you click "Delegate votes" under the tally you can see which regional delegates voted for or against the issue at hand. Besides delegates, I don't believe you can check how specific nations voted. Someone will say if I'm wrong I'm sure.

There are several things we like about this new piece of UN legislation and yet several we don't. It starts out promoting the reduction of air pollution and calls on member nations to provide data and equipment and send findings to the UNEA.

However, it doesn't specify how the member nations are to afford it all, how the data is being used, what else the members of UNEA might do with the data, nor how these monitoring stations are to be used.

The UNEA is gathering a lot of biological and chemical data, that if placed in the wrong hands can spell disaster for the member nations it is trying to help. How is the UNEA safeguarding the data it is collecting. Who is doing the background checks on the members of the UNEA and what protections are the members of the UNEA being afforded as they perform this "service" for our global community?

Monitoring stations with no specified purpose, just an assumed one, is a major red flag when it comes to protection from invasion of privacy. Stations will be created in every member nation, with no idea who is running them, what data they are gathering, since this legislation doesn't specify it, nor where that information is going.

Should member nations be found liable for damages by the UNEA, then reparations are to be made. In what amount are these reparations going to be decided and based on what criteria? "Equal to the resources required to remediate and prevent environmental damages within the aggrieved nation, or consult with the UNEA to establish an economically feasible timetable to reduce the emission of air pollutants." Hmm, pay reparations or reduce emissions over time? (Which one would you pick?) If you were to pay reparations and can't afford the figures proposed by the nation with the complaint, your economy could go bankrupt. If your society is mostly industrial and that industry is the only source of income for your nation, reducing emissions might be impossible and unaffordable.

Lastly, the UNEA is collecting more information that poses a security risk to many member nations with regard to "notification of major changes in national policies and industrial development that will likely cause significant changes in transboundary air pollution" If your nation has a breakthrough in industrial development, perhaps trade military secrets or biochemical secrets that would benefit your nation, but harm many nations if shared openly with the UNEA, is your nation just going to hand that information over?

There are many holes in this legislation that are "polluting" our common sense that need to be plugged up before we agree to go through with it.

For these reasons we can not support this resolution at this time and are voting against it.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

We cannot and will not support this resolution. It should not be up to the United Nations to regulate what Nation A does because it is deemed bothersome by Nation B. It is something for those two nations to decide based on the way their system of government operates. Yet another attempt by the United Nations to take control of an issue that is not their responsibility and taking away the sovereign right of nations to manage their own diplomatic proceedings.

=================
Prince Dirk Koller, P.Aff.M.
Deacon Prince
Heir-Apparent
Ambassador to the United Nations
Head of Financial and Constitutional Affairs
Constitutional Monarchy of Relikmere

I am against this UN resolution. It is important to care for the air we breathe. However after carefully reading the resolution it allows the state to conduct its own policy to prevent air pollution but it has to be notified to the UNEA for their opinion or scrutiny. I am against World Socialism and will not be slaves to the UN and to the nationstates who complain about air pollution accused of coming from another state.

:upyours:FOR THE JERK <snippity>SIEG HEIL SIEG HEIL SIEG HEIL SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:upyours::upyours::sniper::upyours:ooc: Yo, NSDAR. Flaming is never a good idea. Neither is spamming, which posting repetitively with nothing new can be interpreted as.

And yeah, the "Sieg Heil" and sniper smilies certainly deprecate anything that you post.

HAND

IC: Oh my! There are National Socialists here? Where's Felix when you need him?

--L.T.

As previous nations have stated, this resolution is too invasive. The UN should not have the authority to regulate the industry of private nations. Environmental protection is a responsibility of a nation's government.

The nation of Krissland is in complete support of this resolution. Polluting nations should be made to take responsibility for the pollution that spreads to other nations. In some extreme cases, negotiation with certain nations is impossible and a uniformed solution to the entire issue is welcomed. Though the proposal does have it's flaws, it is a step in the right direction. Through popular demand the nation of Krissland is voting in support of this proposal.

OOC: Please dears, don’t disagree and bicker OOC. We’re a community here, a dysfunctional one but a community nonetheless.

While it is a good idea to create a board for monitoring air pollution.
We did not create the committee; the UNEA was brought into existence by Resolution #217 “Environmental Science” thus we are merely assigning new duties in order to ensure it serves the member nations to the maximum.

In addition to that all this does is set up an environmental board and give scientist the job of researching air pollution
We believe that research is of paramount importance, it is necessary to understand a problem in order to cure it so we question the lack of worth you attach to it.

Further, we would recommend that the ambassador re-read the resolution as we believe it achieves far more due to the fact it provides a protection mechanism for vulnerable nations, assesses alternatives, and provides training.

What should be done is to not just urge nations to reduce air pollution but require them to meet certain levels of air quality
We considered such a possibility but we estimate that there is a high likelihood of such a proposal being rejected and it would not conform to Ithanian values. In our view, this proposal serves the overall interest as much as possible without inhibiting group interests and is far better than nothing at all.

We would also note that there is nothing preventing the ambassador’s delegation from creating a proposal regulating air quality within nations if they so choose.

Simply stated we should not just go half way with an air quality bill, it should either be for the enviroment or for industry.
Lessers perplex us frequently; they insist on perpetuating a perception of the world that only contains extremes and opposites. In our view any proposal must include all considerations and an approach lacking any consideration for economic feasibility is incomprehensible as significant industrial damage does not serve the greater interest.

These are serious questions which I feel this resolution fails to address.
We do not believe the resolution fails to address these issues as the definition of an air pollutant is clearly included within the proposal and all the examples offered by the esteemed representative can be judged utilising that definition.

However, we freely acknowledge that we did not consider potential implications during times of war and apologise for that. Ithania has not been involved in a military conflict for millennia meaning warfare was on the periphery of our mind.

Fortunately, this error will have little impact on the overall implementation of the resolution as quantifiable environmental damage typically requires consistent pollution over a protracted period of time.

As the ambassador from Ithania is a smoking hot chick, I will of course allow her to rebuff my statements.
What a truly fascinating Lesser social concept, we cannot say that we have encountered correlations between willingness to listen and physical appearance prior to this debate so we thank the ambassador for expanding our knowledge of the impact evolution has on other cultures.

However, we are incapable of returning a gesture illustrating a belief that the ambassador meets evolutionarily desirable physical traits as we lack any kind of sexuality thus any perception of attraction.

It is all fine and good to blame pollution on specific national entities, but proof of the source of said pollution cannot be determined with absolute certainty.
We cannot understand why the representative came to such a conclusion; causal links can be established with minimal margin of error. All scientific processes can be said to suffer from some degree of inaccuracy but the collection of biological, chemical, and meteorological data in conjunction with the scale of damage provides more than sufficient basis for establishing any causal link that might be present.

Plus, what is to stop feuding nations to blame their own pollution on each other in order to gain reparations?
As we have previously stated, this cannot occur as the UNEA utilises all collected data during its deliberations which is from multiple sources thus any fraudulent claims would be uncovered.

or to cause the other nation to have to pay reparations to another nation?
The resolution states that members may seek arbitration if they believe another to be responsible for damage “within their jurisdiction” thus the aggrieved nation must petition the UNEA; malicious outside interference is not possible.

This is due to the fact that the incentives for non-compliance are just too high.
We believe compliance is mandatory; there is no option in the matter. If this legislation is successfully passed then the Compliance Ministry will ensure that all nations abide by it so your fears are quite unfounded.

However, it doesn't specify how the member nations are to afford it all,
They may contact us and we will readily provide them with the necessary components for the monitoring stations in the name of environmental protection and we will freely share the schematics so that nations can satisfactorily ensure that security concerns are addressed.

The technology is Lesser in nature thus backwards for Ithania and easily created in sufficient quantities with minimal effort.

Monitoring stations with no specified purpose, just an assumed one, is a major red flag when it comes to protection from invasion of privacy.
We consider it a reasonably assumed purpose; the resolution charges the UNEA with addressing transboundary air pollution thus the stations serve the purpose of monitoring said transboundary air pollution. We do not view is as a great leap that opens the door to potential abuse as the committee is not charged with duties that requires them to overstep their boundaries.

Stations will be created in every member nation, with no idea who is running them.
We disagree; the resolution clearly states that data collection will take place under the control of respective member nations.

what data they are gathering.
We believe that this can be reasonably assumed; the UNEA is not charged with collecting data that doesn’t relate to transboundary air pollution thus it will not expand its field of study to infringe upon national security or other such unrelated issues when creating the standardised data collection method.

We regard listing the functions of monitoring stations as arbitrary and we do not wish to prevent future adaptations should the committee find a more effective method for monitoring stations to collect data pertaining to transboundary air pollution.

In our assessment it is far more sensible to allow the UNEA as much freedom as possible within the confines of the resolutions overall aims so that this resolution is universally applicable irrespective of technological or social developments into the far future until transboundary air pollution no longer exists.

Nor where that information is going.
The UNEA is to receive all chemical data relating to transboundary air pollution, monitoring stations observe concentration of air pollutants thus the data is chemical in nature and also goes to the UNEA.

If your society is mostly industrial and that industry is the only source of income for your nation, reducing emissions might be impossible and unaffordable.
As we have stated previously, economic feasibility will be at the core of the UNEA’s deliberations in order to ensure detrimental effects on the economy are mitigated as far as possible.

However, we refuse to believe that it is “impossible” to reduce emissions as there are various technologies with differing costs that can be phased in with new construction projects or added to already existing facilities. We consider hiding behind the veil of cynicism and impossibility to be another attempt to justify the unjustifiable and avoid consideration for other nations.

If your nation has a breakthrough in industrial development, perhaps trade military secrets or biochemical secrets that would benefit your nation, but harm many nations if shared openly with the UNEA, is your nation just going to hand that information over?
We would note that the resolution merely requests “notification” of changes but does not require any secrets or methods to be revealed to UNEA thus we do not perceive any security threat. The resolution also contains no mechanism for other nations to utilise in order to obtain data from the committee thus no other nation will become aware of the planned developments.

However, it is entirely possible that we have totally misunderstood the representative as we consistently observe unusual behaviour among Lowers thus it is a possibility that your nation would seek to classify the very air pollutants themselves irrespective of the impossible nature of such an endeavour.

The sole purpose of the clause is to make the UNEA aware of all factors that effect transboundary air pollution so that data can be analysed effectively, nothing more.

Embodiment Ganatra, (http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s92/Ellevarna/Nationstates/EmbodimentGanatra.jpg)
Council of Three.

OOC: The only responses I could give to the rest of your IC issues over potential for corruption or privacy issues would be OOC which isn’t very fair of me is it dear? I can only recommend reading how UN committees function and the lovely lil mystical beings that compose them, that should explain why I simply cannot answer this. I’m very sorry.

If I had an unlimited character count then there would be a great deal of elaboration rather than assumption but I didn't have an unlimited amount so I simply could not add layers of oversight until everybody was pleased that there was minimal risk of corruption. I just kinda have to hide behind the fact that the sweet souls of the UN bureaucracy are incorruptible and exist just to implement resolutions to the letter of the law while looking cute in their gnomish hats.

Anyhoo, I really wish you’d been here when I was drafting. Your input would have been most helpful but sadly it’s too late now.

If I am not mistaken, this basically amounts to a tax on nations less developed than the major powers. This is just another tool by which those rich nations, capable of affording environmentally sound industries, keep those nations unable to afford such industry in poverty.

This proposal sounds good, and I will suggest it to the regional delegate.
Those who are hiding behind the argument of "NatSov" needs a realty check. Sovereignty only applies for things happening within your borders. With joint-use resources "water and air" constituent as not sovereign.

Oh and, honored ambassador from NSDAR, please stop while you're ahead. I just got back from hiatus, and I'd rather not blow up at you for your seemingly inadequate command of the basic language, shown by your blatant use of emoticons in your initial speech and reply.

Frankly, it's too early in the day, I haven't had my rum and coffee, and I'm pretty much dead without it.

Respectully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III,
Deputy Ambassador
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

My government has directed me to inform the general assembly the Hirota votes FOR this proposal after much research into the atmospheric effects of our Nuclear power plants. Our research determined that emissions created by Nuclear power plants are largely negligable, removing the key concern my government had for this legislation.

We commend the work done by the government of Ithania to bring this legislation to the floor of the UN for general consideration

To all those cowering behind Natsov, I'll point out the only absolute cast-iron right a nation has is to join or leave the UN. Everything else is entirely subjective and entirely flimsy.

There are several things we like about this new piece of UN legislation and yet several we don't. It starts out promoting the reduction of air pollution and calls on member nations to provide data and equipment and send findings to the UNEA.

However, it doesn't specify how the member nations are to afford it all, how the data is being used, what else the members of UNEA might do with the data, nor how these monitoring stations are to be used.



Precisely. As a delegate of the socialist dictatorship of Vinithu, it feel that these UN monitoring stations could very easily monitor many things apart from weather and use them against countries like mine. Additionally, I would be very displeased to know that a monitoring station inside my country is maintained by countries who may well seek to harm Vinithu.


The UNEA is gathering a lot of biological and chemical data, that if placed in the wrong hands can spell disaster for the member nations it is trying to help. How is the UNEA safeguarding the data it is collecting. Who is doing the background checks on the members of the UNEA and what protections are the members of the UNEA being afforded as they perform this "service" for our global community?

Monitoring stations with no specified purpose, just an assumed one, is a major red flag when it comes to protection from invasion of privacy. Stations will be created in every member nation, with no idea who is running them, what data they are gathering, since this legislation doesn't specify it, nor where that information is going.

....

There are many holes in this legislation that are "polluting" our common sense that need to be plugged up before we agree to go through with it.

For these reasons we can not support this resolution at this time and are voting against it.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Agree with every word here - very well said. Precisely why we should not support this legislation.

Yaybor votes for. That should reduce the pollution that drifts into our pristine paradise from all those polluting nations.

The argument that a resolution that might place a member at a disadvantage to a non-member and thus is unworthy of support is truly unworthy of support. It can be (and probably has been) used to pooh-pooh everything this body has attempted in its short history. We make these efforts because we are members and believe them to be worthy of forward-thinking, civilized beings. In the specific circumstance you reference, goods from non-members are open to tariffs and penalties. We suggest such be used to balance the books, as it were.

*Ahem!* And just where did I say that the possibility of this problem arising made this proposal "unworthy of support"? As it happens, after further consultation with my government, I have cast the vote of the St Edmundan Antarctic FOR this proposal. We recognise the possibility of using tariffs or other penalties to "balance the books" in such cases, as you suggest, but -- given the absence of any clause specifically allowing that from this proposal -- remain at least slightly concerned that some 'Free Trade' resolutions might be written in ways that accidentally or even deliberately rendered doing so illegal.

And "No", before you ask, this doesn't mean that my government is dropping its general support for the concept of Free Trade. It just means that we'd prefer it if all UN Resolutions that increase the costs to businesses in member-nations include clauses guaranteeing those nations the legal right to apply comparble charges to competing imports from any non-UN countries where businesses are not subject to comparable legislation anyway, in order to level-off the playing-field...

Or perhaps we could have a single resolution that guarantees nations' rights to place tariffs and other such extra charges on particular imports from non-UN nations, for the specific and single purpose of balancing any increases that UN Resolutions (and only those, not national laws and policies as well) might make to the costs of producing equivalent goods inside those UN nations?

This suggestion definitely doesn't mean that either I or my government considers tariffs to be a good thing, or thinks that their use should generally be promoted, but one of the things that we do believe is that when if and the UN causes a problem for its member-nations it should try to present those nations with a solution to that problem, too, and in this case I see no obvious answer other than some such type of charge...
"Yes", before any of you asks, we do also think that if a government causes a problem for its people then it should try and solve that problem: However it is an established rule that the UN doesn't have to leave its members' governments with complete freedom of action in such matters, and although my government thinks that the UN should generally leave nations' 'internal' affairs strictly alone the use of tariffs on international trade clearly isn't just an 'internal' affair... So, we think that any national governments whose policies place undue burdens on their local businesses should try to find some means apart from tariffs or other protectionist measures of keeping this from making those businesses significantly less competitive against foreign rivals...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

We are suspicious of any outside presence attempting to " oversee " our pollution levels, and whatever else they be doing in the name of preserving the world and so on. This to us, would be an excellent platform to conduct illegal information gathering sessions on the honorable nation of Machina Haruspex.

Our council has agreed to vote against this proposal, and will support any repeal if this law should pass. Also, we will not comply with the mandates set if it should be passed in any fashion. Any attempt made to cross within our airspace, or territorial waters shall be met by military forces.

This is a direct breach of our sovereign rights and it will not be tolerated.

The Hard-Working Colony of Lots of Ants is a "Sovereign Nation."

We also recognize that EVERY proposal the U.N. herein discusses would limit a nation's sovereignty to some degree. With that said, the argument, should it not, be focused on what types of issues should fall under the jurisdiction of a United Nations in this game?

(1) If a blanket "National Sovereignty" argument is thrown out as the reason to oppose this or any resolution, you may have full sovereignty by resigning from these United Nations and not being forced into any compliance whatsoever.

(2) I believe that what a country does within it's borders is, for the most part, a discussion of national sovereignty. But this proposal has to do with what a nation does within it's borders - that afterwards leaves it's borders - and affects the health of those in other sovereign nations around it. Therefore, to oppose this resolution because of "National Sovereignty" is not really a valid argument. The real issue is flagrant negligence and shows exactly why this particular proposal should be adopted, in order to protect us from the likes of those who have presented arguments desiring not to be accountable for their destructive pollution affecting others. Thank you for making a very valid argument for voting in the affirmative to all of you who have made these statements here.

Also, we will not comply with the mandates set if it should be passed in any fashion. Any attempt made to cross within our airspace, or territorial waters shall be met by military forces.

Complete compliance with the letter of all UN resolutions is mandatory for all UN member-nations (although exploiting loopholes in the wording is perfectly allowable...), as a part of the terms to which those nations' governments agreed when they chose to join this organisation. If your government so blatantly continues to reject this proposal's terms after it has passed as a resolution then they would therefore be in violation of your own laws -- as it is a generally accepted principle of international law that any treaties that have been ratified by a nation's government possess the full force of [national] law within that nation's boundaries -- unless you chose to relinquish membership here...
(Doesn't your government regard the treaties that it signs as legally binding?)

[In name alone, by hook or by crook we'll skirt them. We'll find other ways to dump nuclear reactor rods into the ocean.]

By the barrel of the UNEA as it appears to us to just that, does this supposed better the economy law come, peering through the sights of progress to remove the unsightly that created the paradise economies for others.

Principality may in fact adhere to this should it be passed, though we will not allow stations to be built in our land, nor inspectors within without escort. Serving those who would not comply with this as we feel, lie of a law, will not be bettered by a voice that dissents by resigning.

We know what it will serve and the enviroment we highly doubt is it's true agenda. These, reports will come if they must, broad and ill-defined as they are no less, for a so called purpose, if and when this ever so just law is passed.

We would direct the ambassador to the very definition of an air pollutant detailed in the resolution, you would have nothing to fear as long as you do not set your nation ablaze intentionally. We apologise if you do indeed do it deliberately and admit that it’s entirely possible; you Lowers have such... curious habits.

Sparks from our trains or vehicles cause some fires, as well as house fires that spread to the forests. Those are not natural causes, and therefore we would be liable for asthma caused by the smoke.

This is a ridiculous resolution, one that New Sequoyah is FIRMLY against.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

*Ahem!* And just where did I say that the possibility of this problem arising made this proposal "unworthy of support"?Indeed you didn't Ambassador Sweynsson, and I noted as such. However, your musings were quite transparent and it was only a matter of time before someone made such an argument. Think of our statement as preemptive retort, if you will. We learn of your "for" vote with good humor and suspect the Ithanians are pleased as well.

[G]iven the absence of any clause specifically allowing that [ed.: tariffs and other trade protection] from this proposal -- remain at least slightly concerned that some 'Free Trade' resolutions might be written in ways that accidentally or even deliberately rendered doing so illegal.An excellent reason to oppose such free trade proposals, no? :)

And "No", before you ask, this doesn't mean that my government is dropping its general support for the concept of Free Trade. Oh shucks. Then again, proof that the world is spinning as it should. We'll resist the urge to further hijack the discussion and save it for the next time New Leicester's "Durable Goods" rears its ugly head.

We are suspicious of any outside presence attempting to " oversee " our pollution levels, and whatever else they be doing in the name of preserving the world and so on. This to us, would be an excellent platform to conduct illegal information gatheringLuckily for the Machina Haruspex, the overseers designated in this legislation will be a combination of your own government and those imminently unbiased, blabberless gnomes that people the UNEA.

--L.T.

Sparks from our trains or vehicles cause some fires, as well as house fires that spread to the forests. Those are not natural causes, and therefore we would be liable for asthma caused by the smoke.

This is a ridiculous resolution, one that New Sequoyah is FIRMLY against.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

Please, Mr. Brown, don't be obtuse. Clearly if the causes are natural, evin if the origins are not. Vehicles exploding (a problem in and of itself, we think) would not be subject to the resolution because it's something unforseen and unnatural. Now, vehicles pouring pollutants into the atmosphere with the full knowledge and approval of the New Sequoyah government would be.

Forest fires accidentally caused by someone's careless cigarette aren't pollution. Forest fires caused by industrial agriculture are. Do you understand the difference of intent and accidence?

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Duke Mattamo supports this legislation in the interest of a cleaner, healthier atmosphere(air quality in New Mattamo is very important). Though he advises an eventual repeal in which to address the concerns made clear by his fellow leaders and to possibly add Oceanic Dumping to the context of this proposal.

In case you haven't noticed, we're all breathing from the same atmosphere, and air pollution isn't known to respect national boundaries.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


But in case you haven't noticed, it is the decision of the NATION to go along with this or not. The state of Narogam does not believe this is anything except another attempt for the UN to gain a tighter control over the nations. And if my region agrees with me, there will be many, many votes against it.

But in case you haven't noticed, it is the decision of the NATION to go along with this or not. The state of Narogam does not believe this is anything except another attempt for the UN to gain a tighter control over the nations. And if my region agrees with me, there will be many, many votes against it.

There is one surefire way to retain complete and utter control over your nation- leave the UN. That way, you don't have to worry about the implied control collective UN decisions have over you.

Because really, it's not the "United Nations" that's making the decisions, it's the nations themselves.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Chiarizio likes most of this resolution; however we object to certain of its provisions; namely 4, 6f, 6g, 6h, and 7.

4. Mandates the creation and maintenance of monitoring stations in member nations. The collection of data shall be carried out under the respective national jurisdictions of member nations;

6. Charges the UNEA with the following:
f. Acting as independent adjudication upon request if a member nation believes another to be responsible for environmental damages within their jurisdiction;
g. Objectively assessing whether there is quantifiable environmental damage and whether a causal link between the accused nation(s) and any damage can be established based on collected data;
h. Assigning liability for damages in cases where a causal link is established.

7. States that nations found to be liable for damages by the UNEA shall either provide reparations equal to the resources required to remediate and prevent environmental damages within the aggrieved nation, or consult with the UNEA to establish an economically feasible timetable to reduce the emission of air pollutants;

Our objection to these subprovisions is sufficiently strong that we vote against this resolution and urge all others to vote against it as well.

But in case you haven't noticed, it is the decision of the NATION to go along with this or not. The state of Narogam does not believe this is anything except another attempt for the UN to gain a tighter control over the nations. And if my region agrees with me, there will be many, many votes against it.

*yawns*

Yes, you have 276 delegate votes. And even Gatesville is not in full agreement as evidenced by your forum voting. My region has yet to vote it's 408 delegate votes in it's favor (which the vote is heavily slanted that way on our forum). But this is not really an argument.

Again, see my comments about linking this proposal with sovereignty arguments above. I'm really supportive of alot of what you all do over there. But you need to think on this one a bit more than just having a knee-jerk reaction to voting against anything that's not a repeal. I know that is not always the case with Gatesville and it's my hope that it won't be the case this time either.

Edit: Be all about sovereignty. . . but my God, be responsible when you affect other sovereign nations with your decisions.

And if my region agrees with me, there will be many, many votes against it.Your region's knee-jerk position on anything before this body is a foregone conclusion. Imagine, two hundred seventy-five (give or take) nations that don't understand the simple equation: nation + UN membership = ceding one's unfettered sovereignty.

in case you haven't noticed, it is the decision of the NATION to go along with this or not.Up until said legislation is passed, then the nation, whoever they may be, either "goes along" with this or leaves. That is the only decision left to them.

--L.T.

Hehe. Use of the phrase "knee-jerk" in this statement was completely independent of that of Lots of Ants. My secretary can vouch for that. ;)

Need we remind the members of this honorable Assembly, specifically the ones bleating over national sovereignty, that while the mandates of Articles 6 and 7 may seem punitive, they are entirely voluntary? The UNEA only reviews specific cases "upon request," meaning if you don't request its services, you don't have to do what it says. We would have preferred more specific language imparting something on the order of "upon request of all interested parties," but this will do. We will not mourn the passage of this legislation.

That said, we vote against. Simply because we hate the air, and all who breathe it.

~Cdr. Chiang

Need we remind the members of this honorable Assembly, specifically the ones bleating over national sovereignty, that while the mandates of Articles 6 and 7 may seem punitive, they are entirely voluntary? The UNEA only reviews specific cases "upon request," meaning if you don't request its services, you don't have to do what it says. We would have preferred more specific language imparting something on the order of "upon request of all interested parties," but this will do. We will not mourn the passage of this legislation.

That said, we vote against. Simply because we hate the air, and all who breathe it.

~Cdr. Chiang

It's really hard to argue that. :fart:

Interesting observation, Cdr. Chiang. We're quite glad that participation in the adjudication of such matters doesn't require agreement of all parties. What alleged perpetrating nation would agree to such a process?

We like it. This resolution has more teeth than we at first thought.

Psst, Lots of Ants... no need to gas us all, borrow our Beano.

--L.T.

I, the Sovereign Dominator of Kalashnivoka, am in full support of this proposal.

For years now the Dominion of Kalashnivoka, along with its Great Leader, has been carbon neutral, while its citizens and Great Dominator have sat and endured temperatures and sea levels climbing globally due to others irresponsibility with their carbon emisions. The Dominion of Kalashnivoka banned cfcs before we even began using them widespread, yet a hole in the ozone layer grows over its borders and puts its brave citizens at risk.

Every emitter in the world must take responsibility for the effect they are making on the environment. This world is going to Hell, and the Sovereign Dominator of Kalashnivoka refuses to stand by while the reckless, irresponsible emitters of this world drags its intelligent, responsible citizens down with it.

I, the Sovereign Dominator of Kalashnivoka, have spoken!!

In response to Omgtheykilledkenny:

"that while the mandates of Articles 6 and 7 may seem punitive, they are entirely voluntary?"

Articles 6 and 7 do not mandate anything. However Article 4 does, and articles 3 and 8 also requires.

As far as article 4, the UN can keep their slimy hands out of Schalak, and furthermore keep away from the air of our great country. As far as the content, while the Federation of Schalak is considered pro-business, we do keep the air minimally healthy at least. The word choice of Mandates, and even Requires are much too strong for a nation that truly believes that less regulation of business is the way to go.

In conclusion, the Federation of Schalak remains Strongly Against this resolution due to the unnecessary regulation of our businesses by an IGO which shouldn't have that power.

José María de Arroyo
Ambassador to the UN

We did not create the committee; the UNEA was brought into existence by Resolution #217 “Environmental Science” thus we are merely assigning new duties in order to ensure it serves the member nations to the maximum.

Well then I apologize for not having read other resolutions.

We believe that research is of paramount importance, it is necessary to understand a problem in order to cure it so we question the lack of worth you attach to it.

Again I apologize if I sounded as if i were insulting research. Research is needed but is not the only thing that should be done..

Further, we would recommend that the ambassador re-read the resolution as we believe it achieves far more due to the fact it provides a protection mechanism for vulnerable nations, assesses alternatives, and provides training.

It states that countries have a right to exploit their natural resources but then goes on to state that these countries must meet certain standards. This does not make much sense

We considered such a possibility but we estimate that there is a high likelihood of such a proposal being rejected and it would not conform to Ithanian values. In our view, this proposal serves the overall interest as much as possible without inhibiting group interests and is far better than nothing at all.

I disagree with it being better than nothing. All my nation will be doing here is spending its citizens tax dollars on equipment and scientist to study the air. If we are goin to spend the money on this we might as well try to reduce air pollution as well. If not then we should not research the subject at all.

We would also note that there is nothing preventing the ambassador’s delegation from creating a proposal regulating air quality within nations if they so choose.

I am unfortunatly unable to get the endorsements for the proposal. Therefore I must rely on ambassadors such as yourself representing my values as well.

Lessers perplex us frequently; they insist on perpetuating a perception of the world that only contains extremes and opposites. In our view any proposal must include all considerations and an approach lacking any consideration for economic feasibility is incomprehensible as significant industrial damage does not serve the greater interest.

Lessers? What is that supposed to mean? Aside from that i realize that you wish to create a nonbinding solution to many nations problem with air pollution. I myself am normally against any radical ideas, however when the enviroment is being discussed action must be quick if you wish to keep the enviroment intact. Nations must decide now if they choose to save the enviroment or to just let it be destroyed. While gaining knowledge and research is crucial in all matters simply urging countries to protect the enviroment is basiclly saying that enviromental pollution is bad and that any country can do what it wants.

That any one here has done any research on the green house effect or any other significant source of polution?
I say this because at least here(in america) although the CO2 levels have incresed the temperature is still simply folowing its natural up and down range over the hast sixty years.
Also all teh graphs they show you on the news or by those running the "green house effect" campain are in PPM(parts per million) now for example if the green house gas level is at 200 that is less than .0002 percenct. :headbang: that is allmost an inmeasurable amount.
Now I know this has mostly been about the private industry so far but it is an ecological dillema so it should be looked at from the eco point of view.
So I say do not pass this for it is irational.

Strongly Opposed

As much as I like the idea of regulating cross-border pollution I have serious problems with some of the methods outlined in this proposal for accomplishing that goal. Among other things, this proposal would be much more relevant if all NationStates nations were UN members. Short of that, how can airborne environmental damages be accurately quantified in a world or worlds where there are more non-UN nations than UN nations by more than a 2:1 margin. Further, we don't live in a test tube (well at least not all of us--I'm sure there is a nation or two out there that exists in a test tube). Most of our nations are located in massive, complex environmental ecosystems. I do not feel confident that airborne pollution and its effects could be accurately quantified and the appropriate blame assigned, if any. Further, I applaud this proposal's efforts to limit and reduce transborder airborne pollution, but this proposal seeks to accomplish that while putting UN nations at an unfair advantage to non-UN nations whose industries would not be restrained by strict regulation and monitoring. I'm not too keen about the reparations and punitive clauses of this proposal either.

(OOC--reading this proposal brings to mind the "Kyoto Protocol"--good in theory, but if the biggest polluters refuse to sign, it looses its effectiveness)

this resoltion is breaking international privacy and right to run a country the way i and you and whoever want to run their own country. i mean what are you the world police. this is rediculous why do you people want to vote for this. this is nothing more than an attempt a taking away a nation individuality.
if their is a nation states illuminati then i am sure the guy who proposed this is one of them.;)EIN VOLK,EIN REICH, EIN FUHRER

Addressing the "concerns" of the highly confused delegate of NSDAR:

this resoltion is breaking international privacy

When you make a claim you should give evidence to support your claim.

... right to run a country the way i and you and whoever want to run their own country. i mean what are you the world police.

You have, for some reason, joined the UN. In doing so you agreed to accept that your nation would carry the responsibility of acting in accordance to the laws it passes. What you gain is the ability to contribute to the formation of these laws. It is not the world police.

this is rediculous why do you people want to vote for this. this is nothing more than an attempt a taking away a nation individuality.

We suggest you learn to spell. The people of Roseariea want to vote for this because the people of Roseariea are rather fond of breathing their oxygen. Our nation prizes its environment above nearly all else, including its industry. Our value system in no way forces you to give up the industry present in your nation that affects YOUR nation. What we ask is for your value system to not destroy ours. What this proposal will do is ensure that this protection is given. What we want is to make sure that your freedom to national individuality, for lack of a better term, does not give you the right to destroy ours.

if their is a nation states illuminati then i am sure the guy who proposed this is one of them.;)EIN VOLK,EIN REICH, EIN FUHRER[/QUOTE]

And given that the leaders of some UN nations are of the same mind, or lack thereof, as you, we are greatful to the international community for its support given to this proposal so far, and look forward to its inevitable success.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador.

What's to stop nations from falsifying data?

As far as article 4, the UN can keep their slimy hands out of Schalak,
If this is the honoured ambassador's most earnest desire, then we strongly suggest that the nation of Schalak leave the UN forthwith, preferably without looking within itself in the process. Should the ambassador chance to look, he will note that the UN already has its "slimy hands" (and we understand that there are readily available treatments for such conditions these days) quite thoroughly in the governance of Schalak, by dint of requiring that certain laws be passed, certain occurances measured, certain actions taken, and so on. All this the government of Schalak agreed to upon requesting entry to this organisation, and must adhere to as a condition of membership. This is how it has been, and we honestly cannot see the point of a United Nations in which it is not the case. That being so, Schalak can only reclaim complete autonomy by departing not just from the United Nations, but also from all other international relationships that impose upon it, be they so great as regional membership or so small as a single trade agreement.

If this is not the honoured ambassador's most earnest desire, we would appreciate him refraining from further hystrionics.

and furthermore keep away from the air of our great country.
Were the air of the nation of Schalak kept away from everyone else, this would be a reasonable request. As it is, the ambassador is merely shouting at the wind.

As far as the content, while the Federation of Schalak is considered pro-business, we do keep the air minimally healthy at least. The word choice of Mandates, and even Requires are much too strong for a nation that truly believes that less regulation of business is the way to go.
As a nation completely convinced that more regulation of business is the way to go, and disappointed that the resolution at vote in many ways lets industries off the hook for their crimes, we suggest that the honoured ambassador look up the word "compromise".

In conclusion, the Federation of Schalak remains Strongly Against this resolution due to the unnecessary regulation of our businesses by an IGO which shouldn't have that power.
We hope that our colleagues in this chamber who are rational supporters of the concept of national sovereignty will not take it amiss if we observe that statements of this nature, particularly coupled with the prior assertions, make us suspect that the speaker is a particularly bad neighbour.

You know, hypothetically, if I pollute Kharjackistan (http://www.nationstates.net/kharjackistan), and say, invade and killed everyone there afterward(they are, after all, asking for it). I obviously wouldn't have to pay them for it, right?

We believe that aquatic biodiversity is already included in the proposal under the requirement to provide biological data as acidification of water does noticeably affect living orgasms. However, we also believe that the wonderfully crafted and complimentary Water Quality and Conservation deals with many concerns over observing the level of water contamination within nations.

Well, NOW you have my full attention.

Okay, seriously -- thank you for attending to my concerns. I am off the fence and voting FOR this resolution.

What's to stop nations from falsifying data?

Embodiment Ganatra has already addressed my version of your question thus:

We were concerned with such potential but we believe the standardised monitoring process will clearly illustrate irregularities as data is collected from multiple sources. Any attempt at fraud will result in conflict of data which the UNEA will invariably discover during analysis of all available information.

Will that answer suffice? It did for me.

If I want to pump CO2 into the athmosphere I can. I don't want to be foced to change my nations ways for a more exspensive disposal method.

Very well. I want to pump cyanide and botulinum toxin into the source that feeds your nation its drinking water. I assume you'll be fine with that, given your stance on the air.

Sparks from our trains or vehicles cause some fires, as well as house fires that spread to the forests. Those are not natural causes, and therefore we would be liable for asthma caused by the smoke.

This is a ridiculous resolution, one that New Sequoyah is FIRMLY against.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

General Brown, you can't be so ignorant as to believe that smoke from one fire actually causes athsma, in and of that one incident, can you? If you're looking for even passably lame objections to this resolution, I urge you to look harder.

Chiarizio likes most of this resolution; however we object to certain of its provisions; namely 4, 6f, 6g, 6h, and 7.

4. Mandates the creation and maintenance of monitoring stations in member nations. The collection of data shall be carried out under the respective national jurisdictions of member nations;

6. Charges the UNEA with the following:
f. Acting as independent adjudication upon request if a member nation believes another to be responsible for environmental damages within their jurisdiction;
g. Objectively assessing whether there is quantifiable environmental damage and whether a causal link between the accused nation(s) and any damage can be established based on collected data;
h. Assigning liability for damages in cases where a causal link is established.

7. States that nations found to be liable for damages by the UNEA shall either provide reparations equal to the resources required to remediate and prevent environmental damages within the aggrieved nation, or consult with the UNEA to establish an economically feasible timetable to reduce the emission of air pollutants;

Our objection to these subprovisions is sufficiently strong that we vote against this resolution and urge all others to vote against it as well.

Sir, your objections are not strong at all -- in fact, they're non-existent. If you wish to have your objections taken seriously...or indeed heard at all...you must tell the Assembly what they are. That is, unless you're afraid they are either pathetically weak or that you're merely objecting to be contrarian or are just plain biased against anything being done to safeguard environmental quality. Now, any of those reasons are perfectly valid (with varying degrees of relevance and value), but we cannot know why you object until you let the Assembly know. Speak up, man, we don't read minds. Well, my species doesn't, at least.

first of all i was in a hurry so i am sure there were numerous spelling errors.
second i will follow any laws past . i was aware of what i was getting into when i signed up! and lastly it is just an opinion. i mean really what in game international pollution is there!! what about a resolution that would actually help somebody. instead of just throwing random stuff out there just because you are bored and want to look cool coming up with some realistic sounding ideas. why don't we come up with something useful. like trying to put an end to regional invasions (just a thought). this resolution will do more harm than good.
how about this:WHY NOT MAKE IT ONLY APPLY TO THE MAJOR REGIONS LIKE THE PACIFICS INSTEAD OF MAKING IT APPLY TO EVERY REGION. WHAT IS PASSING THIS UNIVERSALY GOING TO HELP.
AND ONE MORE THING. SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE A POOR ECONOMY WILL NOT GET A CHANCE TO BUILD UP! YOU ARE COSTING NATIONS LOTS OF INCOME. WHERE IS THE MIDDLE GROUND.:sniper:

first of all i was in a hurry so i am sure there were numerous spelling errors.
second i will follow any laws past . i was aware of what i was getting into when i signed up! and lastly it is just an opinion. i mean really what in game international pollution is there!! what about a resolution that would actually help somebody. instead of just throwing random stuff out there just because you are bored and want to look cool coming up with some realistic sounding ideas. why don't we come up with something useful. like trying to put an end to regional invasions (just a thought). this resolution will do more harm than good.
how about this:WHY NOT MAKE IT ONLY APPLY TO THE MAJOR REGIONS LIKE THE PACIFICS INSTEAD OF MAKING IT APPLY TO EVERY REGION. WHAT IS PASSING THIS UNIVERSALY GOING TO HELP.
AND ONE MORE THING. SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE A POOR ECONOMY WILL NOT GET A CHANCE TO BUILD UP! YOU ARE COSTING NATIONS LOTS OF INCOME. WHERE IS THE MIDDLE GROUND.:sniper:

First, the smilies and absent capitalization don't help your argument. All-caps and red help it even less. We will read the intent and import of your words, not your accessories.

Second, UN legislation cannot be applied selectively to regions. That's because any region can have any number of non-UN nations in it.

Here's an idea: please tell the Assembly exactly how you think this resolution "will cause more harm than good", and we'll start the debate there.

I'm gonna reply but I ain't quoting NSDAR(no need for anyone to hear it twice, even you).

OOC: Why not pass something that'll really help people? Knock knock, this is a game not reality. This resolution has it's faults, Douria is firmly against, but it's actually a half decent proposal. I'm glad my delegate is negating that vote. Oh, and NSDAR, what's your excuse for the spelling errors this time around?

IC:
Did everything just taste purple for a second? Weird.
I would ask the honorable delegate from... NSDAR to request his country send an ambassador that can actually speak in a normal tone of voice. I can't imagine the need to shout in this hall, you may just scare the International Security Officers(lord knows they can't do anything to stop you if you go on a rampage and kill everyone, on second thought forget I said anything). I am not, however entirely sure what a regional invasion is.

I'm sorry for my ignorance, and yours.

... why do you people want to vote for this. this is nothing more than an attempt a taking away a nation individuality.
First, we'd like to thank Ambassador Tills from Roseariea for a calm and rational response to the NSDAR ambassador's question. Although we would in part provide the same answers, there is perhaps one other reason.

A few representatives here can vouch for the fact that I can be a vindictive bitch at times. Though my vote was originally made for good, rational reasons, there is a tiny part of it now that has been cast because it pisses off representatives like you, NSDAR.

why don't we come up with something useful. like trying to put an end to regional invasions (just a thought).Another ambassador has addressed the requirement that resolutions apply equally to all. We will point out that UN legislation (fourth wall alert! ahooga! fourth wall alert!) can not be used to make changes to the game.

this resolution will do more harm than good. ... WHERE IS THE MIDDLE GROUND.:sniper:Again with the sniper smiley. :rolleyes:

The resolution at vote is the middle ground. Some of us would be far happier sticking it far more painfully to polluters than the author has done here. Then again, a great many of us realize that compromise is necessary in as varied a body as the NSUN.

Leetha Talone
Not yet contrite UN Ambassador

WHERE IS THE MIDDLE GROUND.:sniper:

Seeing as many of my fine fellow delegates have addressed most of the NSDAR delegation's incoherent, aggressive rabble, I will address only this final point in a bit more detail than the aforementioned delegates:

The first extreme, we will say, is the individual point of view of the Roseariean nation. We have a 100% income tax rate and dedicate this money to education, the environment, and welfare. We would rather that all pollutants be banned, nearly all weaponry be banned, and your nation be turned into a park. Fine.

Extreme B, we will say, is the land of NSDAR. Tax money is spent on sniper rifles, likely, and obviously the corporate sector is valued to the point where not only is it permissible to destroy your environment, it is dandy and swell to ruin ours as well. As far as you're concerned, useless hippie welfare nations like Roseariea should likely be obliterated anyway - maybe turned into a landfill or something. Fine.

This proposal is the middle ground you are so desperately searching for. You get to keep doing whatever the hell it is you people do so long as it affects your lands. You do not get to affect mine. I will say it again, THIS is the middle ground. It is a workable compromise that the Roseariean people are all for, we welcome you to join us in ensuring a better future for all of our people.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador.

ok the spelling errors are entirely my own no excuse this time around.
also i just adore those dang smilies. they are so cool (hahahaha).
what i was saying by no middle ground is that in this game everything is exagerated. so if i come to an issue that says something like:
blah blah blah blah blah we have a problem with pollution from factory blah blah blah.
1. this is blah blah blah wrong pollution is going to kill the (insert here).
2. forget those hippy freaks lets push more production.
3. middle ground opinion (won't help)

what resolution do you think i will choose from this new law. 1 will decrease economy and 2 will boost it but bring more pollution. 3 will do nothing, it will
most likely not even be in my nations description either. i will be forced to choose 2. and okay you want an opinion to debate. just make it so that the nation has till whenever to decrease pollution. that way the economy will be eased to a stable level. instead of just free falling into a hippy love fest.

i can't wait to see that backlash on this.
p.s. who cares about spelling on the internet. big deal. that does not make me retarded because i made some errors on a forum.

p.s. who cares about spelling on the internet. big deal. that does not make me retarded because i made some errors on a forum.Quite true, but it does reflect poorly on you.

(OOC) I just took a look at the description of NSDAR's nation: Rather amusingly, considering his stance on this proposal, heavy industry must go to expensive lengths to dispose of waste and avoid even more costly cleanup costs, there...

I voted against on this. I don't disagree with the philosophy, but I think that it needs more thought and tweeking before it becomes acceptable. Research into the causes of, levels of, and the available responses to air pollution can be an expensive endeavour. Surely not all governments have money to throw at this issue, as many other, more crucial areas could lack necessary funds. This is an important issue though, so maybe the UN could help with funding these programs in developing nations.

The Nation of New Sequoyah urges everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution.

This will harm the economies of small countries, and send them back to the Dark Ages. The resolution will institute even more bureaucratic red tape, that will decrease the efficiency of government.

This bill must not pass.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

We find the alarmist rhetoric from some of our colleagues on this resolution to be quite amusing. Hearing some of them talk, this resolution will cause hamstrung governments, chaos, turmoil, economic collapse, and might even cause some little old lady somewhere to stub her toe and miss the church social.

It really boils down to a simple fact, which has been mentioned by many delegates already: nations have a responsibility to their neighbors and the international community. If you desire to turn your nation into a polluted hellhole, that's your right. That right ceases the instant it affects another nation.

Altanar is voting FOR this resolution.

Incidentally, for those of you opposed to the resolution, since you're so open-minded on pollution, can we Altanari start dumping our industrial waste upon your shores? Given your cavalier attitude towards dumping your pollution on others, you shouldn't mind that, right?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I wish to congratulate the authors of this resolution. They have done an excellent job. However I have a reputation to uphold, so I will be voting against this resolution. Its nothing personal, its just business. however a very sizable offer(ie Bribe) might cause me to reconsider my stance.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
(the Good but slightly unwholesome Ambassador from the Palentine UN Office)

My country votes in favour, and shares Ambassador Askanabath's amusement at the alarmist babbling from some sections of this Assembly.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

ok the spelling errors are entirely my own no excuse this time around.
also i just adore those dang smilies. they are so cool (hahahaha).
what i was saying by no middle ground is that in this game everything is exagerated. so if i come to an issue that says something like:
blah blah blah blah blah we have a problem with pollution from factory blah blah blah.
1. this is blah blah blah wrong pollution is going to kill the (insert here).
2. forget those hippy freaks lets push more production.
3. middle ground opinion (won't help)

what resolution do you think i will choose from this new law. 1 will decrease economy and 2 will boost it but bring more pollution. 3 will do nothing, it will
most likely not even be in my nations description either. i will be forced to choose 2. and okay you want an opinion to debate. just make it so that the nation has till whenever to decrease pollution. that way the economy will be eased to a stable level. instead of just free falling into a hippy love fest.

i can't wait to see that backlash on this.
p.s. who cares about spelling on the internet. big deal. that does not make me retarded because i made some errors on a forum.

Your arguments carry no weight because you do not explain them. They carry even less weight in this Assembly when you so brashly exhibit your intellectual laziness for all to see. Short answer to your last question: THIS ASSEMBLY cares about spelling, lad.

You keep saying things like this resolution "will decrease economy" -- which is already painfully vague and syntactically boned -- but you have yet to explain why or how. Can you imagine what things would be like if that's how everything worked? THIS WILL BE BAD FOR YOU! And nobody asks "why" -- that's how dictatorships are allowed to flourish, son, and we're not going to let that happen. So grab yourself a shovel and dig this: explain your arguments or you will have less use in this Forum than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.

just make it so that the nation has till whenever to decrease pollution. that way the economy will be eased to a stable level. instead of just free falling into a hippy love fest.


Your "suggestion" is that your odd little berg will be able to do whatever it pleases to my environment until somebody notices, at which point the damage to my environment is already done (how else shall we notice?) and at which point you have an indeterminate amount of time to "decrease pollution". This means that once my environment has been adversely affected, you'll probably have a couple years to "decrease" the pollution output of your nation by an as yet undetermined percent (you ought to be specific when proposing solutions, or at least give us a REASON and not just a vague claim. So far your words have shown this to be beyond you, though). Where does this leave my already damaged environment? To continue receiving what may be irreparable damage.

This is utterly unacceptable and you ought to put a bit more forethought into your next suggestion.

Given that the rest of the NSDAR delegates speech was largely incomprehensible and concerning some "game" that is wholly irrelevant to the environmental security of the Roseariean people, this is the single point we shall address.

- An agitated Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador

OOC: You're right, NSDAR, your poor spelling doesn't make you retarded. It only makes you look that way to the people who read it.

It really boils down to a simple fact, which has been mentioned by many delegates already: nations have a responsibility to their neighbors and the international community. If you desire to turn your nation into a polluted hellhole, that's your right. That right ceases the instant it affects another nation.

My government is NOT elected to protect, care for, or in anyway serve other nations, or the citizens of other nations. The Government of New Sequoyah is supposed to stand for the People of New Sequoyah; the Government of New Sequoyah will stand for the People of New Sequoyah, and the People of New Sequoyah ALONE.

My Government has one responsibility, and one responsibility alone; and that lies with the People of New Sequoyah. New Sequoyah owes nothing to any other nation, and has a responsibility toward no country, save our own.

Again, I urge my fellow colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution. This is my plea.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

I very much agree with the idea of this bill and the idea of those behind this bill. I know that all of the authors of this bill wish to have a cleaner environment for us all to live in, so I don't understand why this was not added into the bill. Yes it is a good idea to punish countries whose pollution affects other nations, but we should not just stop them from polluting other countries we should stop them from polluting their own countries. That is why I vote against this bill because it does not express strong enough regulations for protecting the environment So technically whether or not this proposal is pass another one should be created, a proposal with stricter policies that will protect the environment of all nations.

Thank you those of you who took the time to read this oh and I made one part bold that way anyone who was not reading this all the way through would know what this is about and what I stand for.

The Federation of United Dependencies Office of the UN Ambassador

My government is NOT elected to protect, care for, or in anyway serve other nations, or the citizens of other nations. The Government of New Sequoyah is supposed to stand for the People of New Sequoyah; the Government of New Sequoyah will stand for the People of New Sequoyah, and the People of New Sequoyah ALONE.

My Government has one responsibility, and one responsibility alone; and that lies with the People of New Sequoyah. New Sequoyah owes nothing to any other nation, and has a responsibility toward no country, save our own.

Again, I urge my fellow colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution. This is my plea.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

If that is truly the stance of your government, then your goverment's self-serving and careless attitude is disgusting. It boggles the mind as to why your nation even bothers to have a delegation here. Some of us still believe in trying to work with our fellow nations - even ones such as yours, whose people apparently believe that they are somehow more important than all other nations. I hate to break it to you (actually, who am I kidding, I greatly enjoy it), but your nation isn't so important.

You can promote your complete lack of disregard for the international community all you wish, but I doubt such an attitude will carry a great deal of weight. Since you're obviously only in this for yourselves, I hope you won't be surprised when your "plea" is ignored by other nations who aren't quite inspired by it.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

In case you haven't noticed, we're all breathing from the same atmosphere, and air pollution isn't known to respect national boundaries.

The government of Blue Booted Bobbies cares strongly for our atmosphere. I’m sure the people of Blue Booted Bobbies care even more strongly for it because they have to breathe it every day. The problem of pollution crossing national boundaries is a world nay a universal problem. And therein lies the rub.

You see, as much as we may wish to consider otherwise, we are not the world. We’re not even the universe for that matter. We are, for better or worse the United Nations a voluntary organization of nation states that in fact represent a small minority of the nation states at large. The United Nations is powerless to prevent “transboundary air pollution” from non member nation states.

Yet on the other hand, while this is the same argument we often see used against the absurd notion “why not just throw away all out nuclear weapons” there is a subtle difference. No one has ever suggested mutual assured destruction through transboundary air pollution. We can’t get them to clean up their act, but we can clean up our own acts, and every little bit helps.

Therefore as representative of Blue Booted Bobbies it is my intent to … hmmm … is there anyone from my region watching this debate … LOOK! A DIVERSION!

Vote in favor of this resolution.

Thank you for your kind consideration on this matter.

Here it is. Nation States is not set up on a complex level. Anything that I choose gets exagerated to one extreme or the other (depending on which resolution to an issue I choose). The only issue resolution I can choose to uphold the air pollution resolution is the one that will lower mass production in my nation. Having said that I agree with what one of you said (I forget who) about how being a U.N. member means that you should be prepared for compromise.

P.S. I love the fact that anything I say makes someone mad.

I am sorry for not making anything I say clear enough. I have a problem with rushing through things on the internet and not thinking through anything I write. Hope this clears things up. I still stick to my view though.

Here it is. Nation States is not set up on a complex level. Anything that I choose gets exagerated to one extreme or the other (depending on which resolution to an issue I choose). The only issue resolution I can choose to uphold the air pollution resolution is the one that will lower mass production in my nation. Having said that I agree with what one of you said (I forget who) about how being a U.N. member means that you should be prepared for compromise.

That's only in regard to national issues, which I hope you've realized are something independent of the United Nations. When we pass UN legislation, we might know what it says- but we don't know what the actual effects on our nation will be. Only the Secretariat knows that.

P.S. I love the fact that anything I say makes someone mad.

I am sorry for not making anything I say clear enough. I have a problem with rushing through things on the internet and not thinking through anything I write. Hope this clears things up. I still stick to my view though.

If it makes someone mad, rethink what it is you're saying. I'm just glad that you had the courage to apologize. I've seen horrible things happen to people in this assembly... horrible things...

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

I can make my argument very simple as to why I vote yes.

Air pollution-->bad

Easy breathing-->good

Individual nation to solve problem on its own-->improbable

Global community to solve problem collectively-->plosible

its a no-brainer

I have been wondering this for a while.
How does the amount of pollution in my country affect another country?
You said it best. The way I run a country only affects things at a national scale. So what is up with all of this international pollution I keep hearing about?

:D I have to add that I must me the most quoted person in this whole forum:D

:D I have to add that I must me the most quoted person in this whole forum:D

:rolleyes:
Are you in direct competition with my nation as the most arrogant of the forum? I'll have you know that I was voted as having a boundless ego: Does your ego know any bounds?So don't bother competing, I've already won... oh and drop the smilies at the beginning and at the end of statements.... people will assume you and I are the same human player... and that is one association I don't want to have (no offense)... besides, its my nations' trademark here!!! :p

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY....GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE!!:p

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY....GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE!!:p

:(
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

as Churchians finally leaves the UN building pulling out his hair while running and stumbling. :gundge:

:rolleyes:
Will Churchians come back? :eek:

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

We rise in support of this proposed resolution. The air around us is one of the greatest gifts of the Cute One, Its very breath which keeps you and I alive each moment. To befoul it with pollution is an offense, not only against one's neighbor, but against the Cute One Itself. Our nation prides itself in its commitment to the purity of the air, but as a nation now living among various foreign states, we find ourselves at the mercy of our hosts' own commitments to the environment.

Thus, we say to those who oppose this measure on "national sovereignity" grounds: The air in your sky is your sovereign responsibility, true. But is it not your responsibility to protect it from neighbors who may lack your diligence? Why not use this tool to protect your people?

=
How does the amount of pollution in my country affect another country?

Follow my train of thought, please.

1) Air becomes polluted.

2) Wind moves air. (please no one point out the flaw that wind IS air, this is an illustration for the confused delegate only.)

3) Polluted air moves to my country.

Question Answered. If you are still having a spot of trouble with the answer to your question the Roseariean delegation will be more than pleased to provide you with a simple chart / power point presentation / crap etched into rocks.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador to the UN.

PS: There is a good way to be the most quoted, and a bad way to be the most quoted. Guess which role your delegation fulfils.

I AM NOT A 5 YEAR OLD I FREAKIN KNOW HOW POLLUTION AFFECTS OTHER NATIONS IN REALITY. I AM TALKING ABOUT IN GAME. JESUS... WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO THROUGH TO YOU PEOPLE. THE GAME DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. POLLUTION WHICH CAN ONLY APPEAR BY THE WAY I AM RUNNING MY COUNTRY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER NATIONS. NATION STATES IS NOT THE DETAILED. COME ON... YOU ARE CLEARLY THE RETARDED ONE HERE. LOOK..........WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING.
OK.....HERE IS AN EXAMPLE:
I CHOOSE THE PRO BIG INDUSTRY RESOLUTION ON NATIONAL ISSUES. OK.
THEN MY NATIONS DESCRIPTION TELLS ME THAT THERE IS A LARGE BLACK CLOUD OVER MY FACTORY. THAT IS AS FAR AS IT GOES. THAT DOES NOT AFFECT NATIONS IN THE SAME REGION AS I AM IN. SEE WHAT I AM SAYING.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: I HAVE TRIED TO BE REASONABLE BUT NOW YOU JUST CAN'T GET WHAT I AM SAYING. HOW MORE CLEAR CAN I MAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM NOT A 5 YEAR OLD I FREAKIN KNOW HOW POLLUTION AFFECTS OTHER NATIONS IN REALITY. I AM TALKING ABOUT IN GAME. JESUS... WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO THROUGH TO YOU PEOPLE. THE GAME DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. POLLUTION WHICH CAN ONLY APPEAR BY THE WAY I AM RUNNING MY COUNTRY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER NATIONS. NATION STATES IS NOT THE DETAILED.

OOC: It's called roleplaying. It's not just about game mechanics.

that is all i needed to know.:):):):):):):)

that is all i needed to know.:):):):):):):)

OOC: You're welcome.

The People of Liberpaultopia have expressed grave concern over several aspects of the proposed Air Pollution Convention. It is thusly our duty to oppose this proposal, and so we shall. There are several points that the state of Liberpaultopia would like to address:


While the People agree that indeed, air pollution is harmful and regrettable, they also rightly recognize that the Invisible Hand of the free market will move to correct this.
The definition of "air pollution" as defined in Section 1. of the proposal is unacceptable, as it can be interpreted to apply towards energies such as radio waves, microwaves, and radar. This broad, overarching definition could even include local pesticides, cloud-seeding aerosols, or aircraft and airships.
A requirement to share meteorological, biological, and physico-chemical, as outlined in Section 2. would be detrimental to the state of Liberpaultopia and other nations as it would require disclosing the personal information of citizens and private business secrets.
Mandatory expensive monitoring stations (outlined in Section 4.)would, by necessity, be created and maintained by funds from the state in which they reside. The People of Liberpaultopia vehemently object to any increase in taxation, and inquire why voluntary donations are not instead allocated by nations which are willing to foot the bill.
Monitoring stations, as outlined in Section 4. of the proposal, are mandatory and thus a threat to the sovereignty of Liberpaultopia. The People are confident that corporations and industry will regulate themselves once the free market corrects air pollution.
A supposedly objective UNEA is tasked with creating and maintaining a list of pollutants in Section 6.a. What assurances could possibly be given that an international committee would not be swayed to add safe domestic products of the state of Liberpaultopia by a jealous and more powerful foreign state?
The UNEA is charged with providing education and training in environmental concerns in Section 6.e Which nations volunteer to fund this, or will all member states again be subject to increased taxes?
In Section 6.f and 6.g of the proposal, disputes between nations regarding air pollution will be subject to UNEA adjudication. Again, the People wish to know what assurances can be given that the UNEA will remain unbiased?
Member nations found guilty of the above are required to pay reparations or provide resources, under Section 7. Poorer nations are more likely to be "dirty" compared to richer nations. Will poorer nations then have to deepen the holes in their pockets to enrich the rich?
The enforcement of Section 8. is open to question. Will nations that fail to provide information which the UNEA deems relevant thus suffer military action or economic sanction? Further, the People question why a time period for changes in the UNEA classification is not given.


With such grave concerns, the People of Liberpaultopia cannot morally or ethically support this motion.

Wolfgang, startled from his napping state by the shouting delegate, yawned. Guess I'll have to go somewhere quieter. Like the Bar. Ha! he thought as he sleepily walked off.

OOC: Greetings one and all from the Grammar Nazi! Did you know that Mozilla Firefox 2.blah has inline spell-checking? Just like Microsoft Word and numerous other word processors? Studies also show that writing printed in all caps is actually more difficult to read, and will make most people not bother to read said text. Furthermore, there is nothing life-or-death about NationStates. Calm down, compose your thoughts. Rather than become upset, practice at restating things in a new way. Becoming upset usually just damages your case, rather than strengthen it, and name-calling is frowned upon. Remember, this is supposed to be a discussion. *takes off his Nazi hat* Ahem. As you were.

I can't help but noticing you're debating ozone depleation [however you spell that]. I'm mad enough so......listen to me now.

:eek: :headbang: What's wrong with you? I care that we're polluting the OZONE but we need cars! We need our transportation to get to work lest we not get paid! If we don't get paid, we're not going to do anything with our lives are we?! No, I don't think so!!!

We wish to clarify that we do not speak unless it serves a purpose thus we have remained silent for the majority of the debate; addressing many of the delegations would have been pointless in our opinion as their positions were not negotiable based upon egocentricity of two forms, extreme environmentalism and an extreme dedication to sovereignty.

We are reserving our considerations for those that we believe have legitimate issues preventing them from formulating a position and for representatives that have wholly misunderstood the resolution's content in our assessment.

The definition of "air pollution" as defined in Section 1. of the proposal is unacceptable, as it can be interpreted to apply towards energies such as radio waves, microwaves, and radar. This broad, overarching definition could even include local pesticides, cloud-seeding aerosols, or aircraft and airships.

In order to correctly define “transboundary air pollution” we believe it is a necessity to have an effective and all-encompassing definition of air pollution in order to allow flexibility.

The representative has made the critical mistake of viewing the definitions as independent from each other which is not the case; they are intrinsically linked. If we were to create an independent definition of air pollution for the purpose of regulating national air quality then it would contain radically different information.

We would also note that the few non-questionable examples that the ambassador offers do not have transboundary fluxes and are purely local in nature thus do not fall under this proposal, the Air Pollution Convention deals solely with the consequences of actions in one state affecting another which requires consistent large-scale pollution over a protracted period of time.

A requirement to share meteorological, biological, and physico-chemical, as outlined in Section 2. would be detrimental to the state of Liberpaultopia and other nations as it would require disclosing the personal information of citizens and private business secrets.

We are presently attempting to collectively neurally assess how the ambassador reached this conclusion but we simply cannot understand the thought process unless the ambassador has fundamentally neglected to consider the entirety of Section 2.

We would direct the representative to Section 2 again and request that he note that only meteorological, biological, and physico-chemical data “relating to the effects of transboundary air pollution” is required. Personal information is not necessary and business secrets are safe in our assessment as the UNEA does not need information relating to methodology or the final marketable product, it only entails the chemical data of waste by-products that have negative ecological consequences in other States.

Mandatory expensive monitoring stations (outlined in Section 4.)would, by necessity, be created and maintained by funds from the state in which they reside. The People of Liberpaultopia vehemently object to any increase in taxation, and inquire why voluntary donations are not instead allocated by nations which are willing to foot the bill.

In order to assist with environmental preservation Ithania will be providing the resources necessary to create and maintain the monitoring stations should nations request them. We will also provide the schematics for the monitoring stations so that member governments may verify the purpose in order to dispel security concerns.

The People are confident that corporations and industry will regulate themselves once the free market corrects air pollution.
Your faith is insufficient for us.

A supposedly objective UNEA is tasked with creating and maintaining a list of pollutants in Section 6.a. What assurances could possibly be given that an international committee would not be swayed to add safe domestic products of the state of Liberpaultopia by a jealous and more powerful foreign state?

The UNEA is not directed to consult with foreign nations in the addition of air pollutants. We believe that safe aerosol products will not have any easily quantifiable and consistent deleterious effects thus will not meet the definition for an air pollutant, which is the only criterion the UNEA has available for use.

The UNEA is charged with providing education and training in environmental concerns in Section 6.e Which nations volunteer to fund this, or will all member states again be subject to increased taxes?

(OOC: Sadly the UN has never dealt with funding, it tried once but it wasn’t passed because nations seem to want to make all these lovely lil shiny committees without actually paying for them so you’ll have to forgive the following dear.)

Receiving donations from public entities is not prohibited thus is possible in our assessment and heavily implied by Resolution #217 which established the UNEA as it specifically excludes the committee from receiving donations from private entities meaning public entity donations are permissible.

If our assessment of “private parties” is incorrect and it is perceived to extend to donations from national governments then any attempt to include a provision making donations permissible would be a contradiction of previous legislation thus not possible.

In Section 6.f and 6.g of the proposal, disputes between nations regarding air pollution will be subject to UNEA adjudication. Again, the People wish to know what assurances can be given that the UNEA will remain unbiased?

Members of the United Nations Bureaucracy are virtually incapable of becoming corrupt, fallible, or biased in our assessment. We believe that the efficient and instant implementation of passed resolutions is sufficient proof of this.

We would also note that UNR 217 also states that the UNEA shall “abide by academic best practice in all their endeavours” which we believe includes any additional duties assigned to it within this resolution.

(OOC: If you’d like me to write pages of IC oversight with separation of duties for committees to satisfy IC issues dear then please feel free to campaign for the 3500 character cap to be removed, until then I’m going to share in the common idea that the cute gnomes are perfect beings... even if they lack fashion sense.)

The enforcement of Section 8. is open to question. Will nations that fail to provide information which the UNEA deems relevant thus suffer military action or economic sanction?
The United Nations possesses no military force and there are no provisions for economic sanctions resultant from non-compliance as non-compliance is not possible, we believe the Compliance Ministry enforces all laws to the letter. If a planned development will result in deposition of air pollutants in other states then the member is required to inform the UNEA in advance so that they are aware of all factors affecting transboundary air pollution.

Further, the People question why a time period for changes in the UNEA classification is not given.
Elaborate. We have insufficient information regarding the Section this refers to; which “classification” does the representative mean?

I can't help but noticing you're debating ozone depleation [however you spell that]. I'm mad enough so......listen to me now.
We are attempting to collectively neurally assess how the ambassador reached this conclusion but we are unable to understand the thought process. We are not discussing Ozone depletion as this resolution could not be considered applicable to Ozone depletion as it is a global issue and accurately establishing causal links is not possible.

We believe the only consideration Ozone would receive based upon the content of this resolution would relate to the transboundary fluxes of ground level Ozone which is an entirely unrelated issue.

Embodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

Well, NOW you have my full attention.

Oh my, would you believe that people have seriously dared to say that I have a one track mind? Tisk, shame on them. :p

The part of my economy that is socialized (large industries) will be the only thing affected for me, but that is my most important tool for governing effectively.

off the subject: ANYBODY WHO SAYS THAT A NAZI COUNTRY IS A WELFARE STATE IS DUMB. WE DO NOT GIVE HANDOUTS. OUR PEOPLE WORK FOR THEIR REICHMARKS. ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE INSURENCE FOR THE ELDERLY.

off the subject: Anybody who says that a Nazi country is a Welfare State is dumb. We do not give handouts. Our people work for their Reichmarks. Although we do have insurance for the elderly.

OOC: Indeedy, it is rather completely off the subject. Posting policies related to international air pollution is very welcome but internal issues about welfare are pointless. Please keep those to your RPs and Wiki article.

I don't care if Global warming is true or not, I just want to stick it to the Oil companies.


Greedy bastards. All of them.

"1. Defines “Air Pollution” as the non-natural introduction, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the air resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;"

What is "non-natural"? Humans are a part of nature and therefore when they introduce substances into air which is also part of nature.

Maybe you could argue that "non-natural" refers to anything that humans do. If that is the case, the UN would then have the right to regulate the breathing of every citizen in every member nation (humans exhale CO2). Where do we draw the line?

Until the language of the resolution is fixed to be more specific, I will be voting against it and I encourage every other nation to do the same.

We find the alarmist rhetoric from some of our colleagues on this resolution to be quite amusing. Hearing some of them talk, this resolution will cause hamstrung governments, chaos, turmoil, economic collapse, and might even cause some little old lady somewhere to stub her toe and miss the church social.

It really boils down to a simple fact, which has been mentioned by many delegates already: nations have a responsibility to their neighbors and the international community. If you desire to turn your nation into a polluted hellhole, that's your right. That right ceases the instant it affects another nation.

Altanar is voting FOR this resolution.

Incidentally, for those of you opposed to the resolution, since you're so open-minded on pollution, can we Altanari start dumping our industrial waste upon your shores? Given your cavalier attitude towards dumping your pollution on others, you shouldn't mind that, right?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador


It's a good point. But UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #222 would get in the way of you're doing that I would think.

It seems to me this resolution should have next to no power because of how much it relies on businesses to provide correct data. There is nothing in this resolution to stop my country from providing false data. The countries provide the data as stated in article 3. I believe this resolution should fall on the UNEA to collect the data and have the cost of data collection on them rather than our businesses.

I believe that a nations duty is to provide a better economy and more fair jobs to its people as long as that does not affect another country by spreading pollution from factories. I am a nationalist. That means my country first. That also means that I do not harm other nations.
Although I still am voting against the resolution.

What is "non-natural"?
We consider this a pedantic argument attempting to introduce ambiguity where there is none; illustrating an inability or unwillingness to appreciate shared practical definitions or reasonable assumptions in addition to the critical error of viewing the first definition as independent of the second. We believe that natural is commonly accepted as referring to anything produced by nature in this context therefore non-natural refers to anything produced by an artificial process.

Maybe you could argue that "non-natural" refers to anything that humans do. If that is the case, the UN would then have the right to regulate the breathing of every citizen in every member nation (humans exhale CO2)
We consider this alarmist; respiration is a process resultant from the evolution thus completely natural and not artificial. We believe the highly dubious nature of this assertion demonstrates the lack of basis for the ambassador’s objections over this matter.

Further, the environmental experts of the UNEA shall be those with the only relevant interpretation of the definition as they create the list of air pollutants. We would suggest that they are more than capable of appropriately differentiating between natural and artificial as specialists in this area thus eliminating concerns over conflicting or extreme interpretations.

We would also question why the representative is so selective when requiring definitions; surely many or all words in the proposal would also require definition unless the ambassador accepts that there are reasonable assumptions relating to meaning.

Embodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

OOC: Sorry sweeties, I have a darn migraine again so I’ll address the rest a little later when opening my eyes to read the darn resolution and complaints doesn’t hurt.

While the People agree that indeed, air pollution is harmful and regrettable, they also rightly recognize that the Invisible Hand of the free market will move to correct this.

How?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

By being motivated by their customers. Should citizens feel that "green" products and methods are superior, and worth the extra money, inconvenience, etc., then they will spend their money accordingly. When a non-green company starts to lose money because of their environmental practices, then they'll adjust said practices. Once the lost revenue outstrips the increased cost of being green, of course.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We consider this alarmist; respiration is a process resultant from the evolution thus completely natural and not artificial. We believe the highly dubious nature of this assertion demonstrates the lack of basis for the ambassador’s objections over this matter.
But then isn't technology (whether or not it pollutes the environment) a process resultant from our evolution of intelligence?

OOC: Great, I would have to respond to what I really, really didn’t want to come up right at the very end wouldn’t I?

But then isn't technology (whether or not it pollutes the environment) a process resultant from our evolution of intelligence?
We do not to waste our time and energy on consideration for a meaningless hypothetical given the existence of the words “natural” and “artificial” which are distinctly separate and opposite in meaning; any debate does not undermine the fact that there is linguistic separation between the actions of the natural life cycle such as respiration, or photosynthesis and how intelligent beings use their self-awareness to create processes independent of that natural equilibrium. This issue is black and white for us.

There is a clear definition of non-natural and artificial sources of pollution in environmental science and international common culture thus we are confident this is not an issue as the UNEA’s experts would be aware of these powerful distinctions. Further elaboration is possible but we are yet to be shown that it is necessary.

Emdodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

As the Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg resigned its membership of the United Nations some months ago, we have no vote to cast against this proposal, but I rise today to speak in opposition to it anyway, in the hope that some of these who are empowered to vote against the Air Pollution Convention - surely a mistake, as this document should undoubtedly have been named The Communist Manifesto v 2.0 - will do so, when presented with our reasoned and technical analysis of the policies therein.

THIS PROPOSAL IS SOCIALISM!!!!!

The communistic plans of its authors are evident from the foul vehemence of its wildly anticapitalist preamble, but further evidence is abundant. To take one example, consider the following:
(Holds up large poster, bearing the following image:)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/lots_of_ants.jpg
The national flag of the nation responsible for co-authoring this assault on universal freedom. Innocent enough? Why yes, until you notice the colour of the lips in the flag:

RED!!!

Yes, surely this proposal - masquerading under the supposed innocence of its so-called "green" so-called credentials - is in fact an extension of the red blade the slavish octopus-monster of UN domination has already thrust deep into the once pure, ever fragile heart of national freedom, sovereignty, and capitalism, striking its inexorable blows with the demented frenzy we have come to know all too well as the hallmark of...

INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!

There is a rank irony in its definition of "air pollution", for what is socialism itself but the injection into the air that we once breathed freely, before Marxist claws enveloped our ribcages in their crushing embrace, of substances which endanger health, which harm material property, which impair legitimate uses of the environment? In the name of socialism our air is infected with the poisonous ideas of "social equality" and "sexual emancipation" and "cultural tolerance"; in the name of socialism our daily lives our disrupted by needless regulations, despite irrefutable scientific evidence (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=520) of their being unnecessary.

If there is any air pollution to be stopped, it is the cosmic plague inflicted upon us by the peddlers of Marxist infamy. Is this all some mere fantastical whim, some flight of rhetoric, some metaphor taken to ludicrous extremes? It is not.

Today, I present groundbreaking scientific research that will show, for the first time, how the weapons of communist tyranny do in fact use literal pollution to control the minds of previously rational people, by injecting particles called "socialons" into the air, usually in the form of cholorfluorosocialate. The socialon reacts with human brain chemistry in adverse and mysterious ways, not fully known to science; but the effects of exposure to high concentrations of socialons could be disastrous (http://www.nationstates.net/iron%20felix).

Most threatening of all is the forbidding shadow of communism, feminism, anti-clericalism, vegetarianism and antidisestablishmentarianism cast by item 6 h, which reads:
Charges the UNEA with the following:
...
h. Assigning liability for damages in cases where a causal link is established.
This can clearly mean only one thing: the United Nations Ecoterrorist Agency is given blanket permission to molest vast sums of reparations for invisible, unquantifiable "damages"! Pah! I ask, nay, I demand, that all sensible and rational delegates of the UN tell the grasping tentacles of international socialist oppression to keep their demonic slime hold from our national coffers!

I conclude by quoting the philosopher universally regarded as the most eminent of all time (even if she is a woman), Ayn Rand:
Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.
Members of the UN, do not sign away your liberty to the United Nations Evil Agency and its mercenary army of tree-hugging human-haters! Oppose the vicious incipience of international socialism, and:

OPPOSE THE AIR POLLUTION CONVENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Sits down and lights cigar, before rising a few times to accept, with a bow, the tumultous applause his august address has brought.)

~Rono Pyandran
Former Chief of Staff, Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs
Chair, Gruenberger State Institute for Research and Development

Good to see you again, Rono. Great speech as always. I bet this thing not only causes cancer, but it probably kills puppies, too.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I have a problem, since this resolution is to enact itself upon all nations. With one nation seeing a problem with the pollution of the air of other nations. But does not speak of the quality of air in ones own nation. I say rescind this alarmist policy.

"There is a clear definition of non-natural and artificial sources of pollution in environmental science and international common culture thus we are confident this is not an issue as the UNEA’s experts would be aware of these powerful distinctions. Further elaboration is possible but we are yet to be shown that it is necessary."

If there a "clear definition," then please by all means provide that definition. You claim that you have not been shown that "further elaboration" is necessary, yet without further elaboration, no nation is able to intelligently decide how to vote on this proposal. Without a "further elaboration" the language of this proposal is meaningless - how are we even to know what it is aimed at.

Suppose this resolution passes and it is determined that "non-natural" releases into the atmosphere is defined as anything human created. This would allow the United Nations to regulate any human activity in any and all nations, thus infringing on all facets of each member nation's sovereignty. For this reason, I continue to encourage all nations to vote against this proposal.

We are unaccustomed to repeating ourselves but we shall re-iterate. You have again negated to consider that linguistically natural is given meaning in relation to artificial; there are many polar opposites of this description in many cultures that are assumed and commonly known without a requirement for a definition.

Further non-natural has its meaning reinforced by the subject of the proposal as non-natural or artificial has constantly referred to pollutants resulting from processes created by sapients in environmental science; it is an important distinction that is firmly established within this field so that two effective classifications of sources can be created.

If you still wish to contact us with your concerns then we recommend you send communications intended for the Council via diplomatic channels or consult Faithful Representative Anravelle as we have achieved our aims here thus remaining no longer serves a purpose. We are returning to Ithania.

Embodiment Ganatra,
Council of Three.

OOC: Which is an IC way of saying "lalalala, I'm ignored yooouuuu" so good luck. I’m not wasting my lovely, sweet Embodiments on a debate with no end because a certain nation's ambassador doesn't like reasonable assumptions. :p

I congratulate you on the passing of this resolution. I do have to agree that there is a part of the definition in clause 1 that troubled me, actually two parts, "as the non-natural introduction, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the air resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment."

The first part was the problem that natural introduction could be strongly influenced by people. Let's say you raise a ton of your national amimal. That national animal emits a ton of methane into the atmosphere. Hey that's all "natural" right? That's picking nits of course or perhaps I'm just having national animals blowing some wind.

The second part was the "energy" part of the definition. Because for the life of me I can't think of a single example. If you do let me know because it's been banned now so I probably will never see it again in a UN nation state.

I believe the energy section could refer to such thins as harmful radiation and its ilk. Say, a country erects a new type of power plant that has the side effect of building up massive amounts of microwaves, which it disposes of by beaming into the atmosphere...coincidentally, at just the right angle to reflect back down on some other poor saps...I mean people, causing serious health problems etc. I believe that qualifies as energy pollution...doesn't it?