NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #227: Air Pollution Convention (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: CONDEMING resolution #227 for it's attempt at saving environments around the world

NOTING that nations would be nowhere without the chemicals and gases used

FURTHER NOTING that we should cut back on poullutants used, but we should not cut it out entirly

SHOWING that environmentaly friendly alternatives are currently few and expensive to produce

PREDICTING that economy's would take a seirous blow due to this resolution

INDICATING that we would not have the leisures we have today without industry.

HERBY REPEALS resolution #227

I'm looking for feedback. Thanks :)

Insta-repeals really only work for egregiously illegal or extremely controversial resolutions; the UN can't become a "Vote it in, vote it out, Disco Lady" body; we'd all go schizophrenic and seriously injure our necks as the resolutions and repeals keep bouncing back and forth like a tennis match. And I say that as the author of an insta-repeal.

Also:

CONDEMING resolution #227 for it's attempt at saving environments around the worldI think you might have meant "COMMENDING," but that's still funny as hell. http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

no i meant to condem. as "i condem you for getting this far."

but if it gets votes then hey! no complaints here

Since the council of three has continued to refuse to define "non-natural," it is not and cannot be clear what the aim of this resolution is. I again warn that "non-natural" could be defined as anything produced by humans (which is contradictory because humans are a part of nature). Without providing a specific definition of "non-natural" this resolution potentially gives the United Nations the power to regulate all human activity within any nation. Accordingly, this proposal represents a complete usurpation of each member nation's sovereignty and must be repealed immediately. Please put this repeal resolution up for a vote among all member nations.

"IF this ever gets to a vote, the Shazbotdom Empire will vote NO."

The Holy Empire of Capitalsim (and it's puppets) WHOLE HEARTEDLY supports this resolution, and will promise FULL POWER in helping it to be repealed. If there is anything we can do, please telegram us IMMEDIATLY.

DOWN WITH RESOLUTION 227!!!

Oh dear, we wish the ambassador's delegation the best of luck, we really do, but we won’t be supporting for what we hope are rather obvious reasons.

However, that doesn’t stop us from offering our assistance with improving this as much as possible in the spirit of cooperation between delegations does it? So we would like to recommend a few changes: “its” not “it’s,” “pollutants” not “poullutants,” “entirely” not “entirly,” “environmentally” not “environmentaly,” “serious” not “seirous,” and “luxuries” or “leisure” not “leisures.”

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

well, EXCUSE me if repeals have no spell check option

lol :sniper::mp5::gundge:

Right. And repeal authors can't possibly be bothered to expend any effort on their repeal argument. But then the sniper smiley says it all, eh?

well, EXCUSE me if repeals have no spell check option

And your computer doesn't have any sort of word processing program that does have one?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: I was actually about ready to call bullshit on your claim of a lack of spellcheck button for repeals, but I checked and I'll be damned if there ain't one there.

"We feel that the Deligation from Mirahge doesn't understand entirely how the process works. We here in the Shazbotdom Empire believe in the use of a Spellcheck. Be it an online dictionary web site, or a program with Spellcheck built into it. We also suggest that the Deligation from Mirahge rethink the use of the Smiley Emoticons. They are rather useless in the halls of the NationStates United Nations."

"We also suggest that the Deligation from Mirahge rethink the use of the Smiley Emoticons. They are rather useless in the halls of the NationStates United Nations."

OOC: although if somebody could come up with a 'defenstrate' emoticon... ;)

Sour grapes.

Against.

Long live resolution 227!

no i meant to condem. as "i condem you for getting this far." Yeah, I think the word's "commend (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/commend;_ylt=AtviR2SclBZENaHuOmWjKKOsgMMF)." specifically definition #2

Sorry I'm all for helping out the environment and hope that it gets passed because people need to be aware that they are killing the environment and making it worse with all the nuclear plants and gassage. It needs to be stopped or helped by cutting down on using Cars so much. We have legs we can walk to nearby stores or just walk instead of using the car that day. It would help alot and the earth will thank you for it. ^__^

Really? i'm pretty sure it's condem

Anyway, think about it. Like i mean sure, i agree we could all walk to the store instead of a stupid 1min drive to it, but industry NEEDS fuels and chemicals, even if they are dangerous to the environment. If this resolution is intact, we will not have pesticides to control crops, and will lead to less food stores and possible famines. We wouldn't have cars, motorcycles, mopeds, or even bikes! To go green, we need just a little industry and pollution.

VOTE 4 REPEAL RESOLUTION 227 :D

Really? i'm pretty sure it's condem

Anyway, think about it. Like i mean sure, i agree we could all walk to the store instead of a stupid 1min drive to it, but industry NEEDS fuels and chemicals, even if they are dangerous to the environment. If this resolution is intact, we will not have pesticides to control crops, and will lead to less food stores and possible famines. We wouldn't have cars, motorcycles, mopeds, or even bikes! To go green, we need just a little industry and pollution.

VOTE 4 REPEAL RESOLUTION 227 :D

You are severely overstating the consequences of the resolution on your local industries. It is designed to protect other nations from your rubbish, which seems to indicate that you'd have to produce one hell of a lot of pesticides in an irresponsible fashion to even have to worry.

And you're insane if you seriously expect a resolution to pass in the UN which CONDEMNS even the intent of saving the environment.

227 must live on.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador.

I notice many people on forums just LOVE to contradict, crush, beat down, kick, and spit on the many people they find with an error or two with them, but dosnt everybody have errors? so maybe this resolution wont pass but why are you attacking my point of view

something called human people

plus i bet someone is gonna contradict me here after this post

While I don't agree with your arguments I do want to see #227 go away. I oppose #227 because it is useless and it punishes the good nations. There is no way to ensure that countries provide accurate data. #227 has individual nations supply data rather than collecting it themselves with non-bias individuals. I will support any effort to repeal #227.

Really? i'm pretty sure it's condem

Anyway, think about it. Like i mean sure, i agree we could all walk to the store instead of a stupid 1min drive to it, but industry NEEDS fuels and chemicals, even if they are dangerous to the environment. If this resolution is intact, we will not have pesticides to control crops, and will lead to less food stores and possible famines. We wouldn't have cars, motorcycles, mopeds, or even bikes! To go green, we need just a little industry and pollution.

VOTE 4 REPEAL RESOLUTION 227

I notice many people on forums just LOVE to contradict, crush, beat down, kick, and spit on the many people they find with an error or two with them, but dosnt everybody have errors? so maybe this resolution wont pass but why are you attacking my point of view

something called human people

plus i bet someone is gonna contradict me here after this post

"Actually. I was wondering if the Deligation from Mirahge understand that there are companies in the world that this resolution does help? Shazbotdom Based Shazbotdom Motors has 0% toxic byproducts due to strict regulations within their own company. So you can see, this resolution can not only help the envitonment but also help companies who are environmentally friendly."

Really? i'm pretty sure it's condem
condemn
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈdem\
Function:
transitive verb
1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widely condemned as racist>

commend
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈmend\
Function:
verb
transitive verb 1 : to entrust for care or preservation
2 : to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice
3 : to mention with approbation : praise

There is no way to ensure that countries provide accurate data. #227 has individual nations supply data rather than collecting it themselves with non-bias individuals.
We seem to recall the resolution containing some provision for the establishment of a standardised data collection procedure so we’re reasonably confident that any inaccurate data would result in conflict with already collected information from other nations so would be discovered by the bureaucracy so that the nation can be immediately brought into line with the resolution’s mandate as non-compliance is not possible. The Embodiment said something like that, anyway.

If this resolution is intact, we will not have pesticides to control crops, and will lead to less food stores and possible famines. We wouldn't have cars, motorcycles, mopeds, or even bikes! To go green, we need just a little industry and pollution.
Oh dear, oh my. If you are attempting to repeal the resolution our nation created then we would like to request that you don’t misconstrue its effect on the international community in order to achieve your aims, deception is not something we appreciate.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

"Actually. I was wondering if the Deligation from Mirahge understand that there are companies in the world that this resolution does help? Shazbotdom Based Shazbotdom Motors has 0% toxic byproducts due to strict regulations within their own company. So you can see, this resolution can not only help the envitonment but also help companies who are environmentally friendly."

AHA! But you see, you only said ENVIRONMENTALY FRIENDLY!!! What about the other corperations? will they get ahead? ANd let me remind you not many companies are going green.

We seem to recall the resolution containing some provision for the establishment of a standardised data collection procedure so we’re reasonably confident that any inaccurate data would result in conflict with already collected information from other nations so would be discovered by the bureaucracy so that the nation can be immediately brought into line with the resolution’s mandate as non-compliance is not possible. The Embodiment said something like that, anyway.

Nations in a region are close to each other. You cannot prevent false data completely. If many nations in a region decide to provide false data your data for the whole region is messed up and you can't look to other nations for the answers because they are providing false data as well. Also you don't know which country is providing false data in your plan. I would support this resolution if it had UN outsiders collecting the data but as it stands false data will happen making this resolution worthless. You spelled standardized wrong. A standardized test does not mean data can't be changed. Also pollution in one area, for example the middle of my nation, may not coincide with data from the surrounding area. Other countries can't know whether or not my pollution is very bad in the interior.

AHA! But you see, you only said ENVIRONMENTALY FRIENDLY!!! What about the other corperations? will they get ahead? ANd let me remind you not many companies are going green.

The greed, incompetence, lack of vision or creativity of companies that cannot match their competitors in going "green" are not our concern. Nor is propping up such uncompetitive enterprises. If they go under, so be it. Saving those companies is no reason at all to repeal this resolution.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

You spelled standardized wrong
I just lost any desire to refute any arguments you may think you have in an IC or OOC manner dear. I typically find that individuals that attempt to use spelling as an argument are incredibly arrogant and I do not give my time to such people (Anravelle being such an IC example of my pet hate, sweetness used to hide arrogance and bitterness. I don’t mind spelling as long it’s phonetically appropriate as communication of ideas is the only thing I consider important).

You are actually incorrect because I’m British; we can and do use the “ise” suffix.

Also pollution in one area, for example the middle of my nation, may not coincide with data from the surrounding area. Other countries can't know whether or not my pollution is very bad in the interior.As long as you manage to confine your pollution to your own nation, you can poison yourself to your heart's content.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

I'll try this experiment in the honest attempt at cooperation as well. . .

It's most helpful to actually submit your repeal after reasonable time having others help in a forum like this one. I would have to think you would have had a better chance at success had you gone that route.

CONDEMING should be CONDEMNING.
it's should be its.
poullutants should be pollutants.
entirly should be entirely.
seirous should be serious.
HERBY should be HEREBY.

Other than the misspellings (it happens to everyone), New Sequoyah will fully support this resolution.

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

The greed, incompetence, lack of vision or creativity of companies that cannot match their competitors in going "green" are not our concern. Nor is propping up such uncompetitive enterprises. If they go under, so be it. Saving those companies is no reason at all to repeal this resolution.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

You dont see it the way i do. If we only allow ecofriendly companies to go on, (which, as i pointed out, are very few and most products those companies make is soap, bleach, etc.) Our WHOLE economy would crash! Boom! bop! confuzlment! we would begin to start failing, no one would be able to buy gum, cars (well, exept hybrids), planes, or even the most primitive form of technology.

Plus Rubina, it is IMPOSSIBLE to quarintine any poullution in the air! it's their, and it's not gonna go away and will, of course, eventualy drift into another nation because theirs 1.9 million nations so i'm thinkin' it's pretty small in this world so poullutants would easily be able to just drift.

(stops, and breaths heavily)

Plus Rubina, it is IMPOSSIBLE to quarintine any poullution in the air! it's their, and it's not gonna go away and will, of course, eventualy drift into another nationHave a cookie. You are correct that one cannot quarantine air and that the pollution created by one geographical entity tends to drift across political borders. However, the current procedures for air quality measurement show us that different geographic areas within a nation can and do have varying levels of air pollutants. (Consider the mythical Los Angeles versus the mythical Podunkville, Iowa.)

My comment was primarily directed at the Carcarcian's, who were claiming that data collected under #227 would be errant due to varying levels of pollution within a nation.

And while I'm at it, industry will continue (free market theory be damned) to use the air and water as dumping grounds until made to cease and desist, because it is cheaper for them. UNR#227 hits polluters where it will do the most good--in their pocket books. All industries are capable of "green" behaviors when they put their minds to it.

--L.T.

HERBY should be HEREBY.Maybe he's talking about the Love Bug...

Maybe he's talking about the Love Bug...

No, that's Herbie.

You dont see it the way i do. If we only allow ecofriendly companies to go on, (which, as i pointed out, are very few and most products those companies make is soap, bleach, etc.) Our WHOLE economy would crash! Boom! bop! confuzlment! we would begin to start failing, no one would be able to buy gum, cars (well, exept hybrids), planes, or even the most primitive form of technology.

You're right, we don't see it the way your nation does. I am not prepared to undergo the physical contortions and inserting of heads in certain places that would be required to see things from your perspective, though, and neither are most Altanari, I should think.

If your whole economy is on the verge of collapse due to #227, your economy was none too stable to begin with. Since this resolution was implemented, Altanar's economy has not suffered in any noticeable fashion. Nor have we noticed any kind of shortage of the goods, services and amenities that a modern state enjoys. We simply don't buy the claim that this resolution is the resolution of dooooooooom, economically speaking, that its opponents claim it is, and have been claiming (in an alarmist and unsuccessful fashion) since before #227 even passed.

I also feel it worth pointing out that #227 doesn't instantly zap un-ecofriendly companies off the map. Those companies will have the chance to adapt, adjust and meet the competitive challenge of not using the world as their dumping ground while still making products and profits, as many companies already do. #227 encourages companies to meet that challenge, and I can't think of a single reason why that's a bad thing.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador