NationStates Jolt Archive

Environmental: Woodchipping

Paper Consumption Tax

RECOGNIZING the dangers posed by the removal or destruction
of significant areas of forest;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING In many countries, massive deforestation is ongoing
and is shaping climate and geography;

ASSERTING that viable alternatives to wood paper pulp exist
(Hemp, Kenaf, and Rice Paper);

REQUIRES member nations to impose a natural resources consumption tax on all wood pulp paper products;

Presumably this is has a category of Environmental: Woodchipping? Beyond that, this would appear to be a simple, elegant and precise proposal; we offer our sincerest congratulations to the delegation of Liberdem.

Hayden Siegfried looked thuroughly annoyed as he was pushed in a wheel chair by a thuroughly depressed Gregory Placeholder. Seigfried sighed this had been the only way his doctors in Catawaba would let him get back to work. Not a moment too soon really, if all the traffic home from the guest ambassadors was correct, not to mention the frequent reports from Hayden's aide William M. Churchill.

Well, former aide William M. Churchill, Seigfried reflecting as he turned to glower up at Placeholder. The Office for Foriegn Affairs had apparently thought Churchill's performance was exemplary and put him new in line to get his own diplomatic post. While that was all well and good for Churchill, it was a torturous hell for Hayden. He'd been stuck with Placeholder, who the Foriegn Office was trying to get rid of a like a carnivorous wallaby in their pants.

Placeholder steered Seigfried's chair up to the Catawaban desk and then flopped down in the unglorified diplomatic aide's chair. Seigfried entirely ignored him as he reviewed the scant proposal before the floor. "Why only paper? If you are worried about deforestation, why not an extension into other areas...furniture making such as?"

"In your wording you leave a glaring hole that one could march a division through, namely 'STRONGLY URGES member nations to imposing a natural resources consumption tax on all wood pulp paper products where viable alternatives are legal and/or available," Seigfried looked up towards the ambassador from Lieberdem.

"In essence with this wording, my government need only to outlaw the production of wood pulp alternatives or restrict key components in the production of these alternates to limit their availiblity and we've just sidestepped the entire proposal."

Siegfried patted his pockets looking for something. He turned and held his hand out expectantly behind him. Mr. Placeholder sighed and handed Seigfried his glasses. Seigfried slipped his glasses on and continued. "There is also no attempt of reforestation mentioned or encouraged. If the fear of deforestation runs rampant, shouldn't a nation be allowed to use wood-pulp paper if they also make inroads to replant what is cut down?"

"I'd also like to ensure that by 'rice paper' you mean paper made from rice straw and infused with hemp rather than the misnomer used to refer to paper made from the cores of certain tree species."

Gobbannium thank you.
Catawaban I agree with many of the points you have made. I have made some changes.

Any suggestions would be helpful

Ambassador Hayden Seigfried blinked at being called Catawaba. He twisted in his wheelchair and glared at his aide, the former interim ambassador. "Have you been calling yourself 'Catawaba,' Placeholder? That is distinctly not my name nor yours."

Placeholder sputtered something about never dreaming to assert that he was, but Seigfried cut him off. He looked back at the ambassador from Liberdem. "Sir, my name is Hayden Seigfried, not Catawaba."

He glanced down at the revised proposal. "Now with that loophole closed, I can express my true feelings for this proposal. Catawaba heartily opposes the use of taxation to force the abandonment of wood-pulp paper."

"This is illegal from the standpoint that the UN taxation ban does not allow the United Nations to levy or require taxes. Also this proposal does nothing to attempt to reverse deforestation that it so sensationalizes. Where will the fund of this 'sin tax' go? To what purpose?'

Seigfried glance down at his legal pad. "You have ignored my point in allowing nations or taxed individuals or industries to avoid taxation by acting in some way to replant what is cut down or in some way encourage reforestation."

He pulled report from the Catawaban Office of Agriculture. "While alternatives to woodpulp do exist, care must be taken before exploring those alternatives. Many of the plants from which these alternatives originate are not native to all lands. The haphazard adoption and introduction of these species must be discouraged until scientific research can realize their impact upon the environments of adopting nations. A foriegn plant species can have as much a detrimental impact on the local ecology, and yes the forests you so want to protect, as deforestation itself."

This is illegal from the standpoint that the UN taxation ban does not allow the United Nations to levy or require taxes.
OOC: If you're referring to Resolution #4, the 'UN taxation ban' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5), then that only says that the UN can not collect taxes directly from any member-nation's citizens, and so would seem to still allow UN taxation of corporations within member-states (except in any cases where those companies are legally defined as 'citizens' in their own right). However this proposal would contravene Resolution #128 'Representation in Taxation' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129)...

Seigfried had just finished talking when he frowned and looked down at his notes. He turned viciously on diplomatic aide Placeholder. Though gritted teeth he growled, "You gorramed fool! You referenced the wrong gorram resolution! I needed One Twenty Eight not Four! My God, Placeholder, learn to type my preparations correctly or so help me I'll have Secretary Rich assign you to collecting Vornskrari fecal samples for the Office of the Interior! You've made me look like a gorramed idiot my first day back!"

Gregory Placeholder sank down in his chair and attempted to will his brain unlock any latent human abilites that might hide him from view.

His Holiness Ted supports this use of the gentle hand of worldly economics in the preservation of His Holiness' verdant nation. I and the entire assembly have been encouraged by Ted (most blessed) to support this resolution in any way possible.

Regards
Assemblyperson L. Jones IV

Alright. One, I am against this proposal.

As much as I personally believe trees has rights that should be respected, most countries has "tree farms" where the trees are grown, harvested, and then turned into pulp. These trees are grown for the purpose of being cut down, and therefore, they do not hurt forests, or engage in deforestation. So, paper does not lead to deforestation.

Two, I am personally against this proposal because we already got existing laws that protect forests, especially stopping 'illegal logging'. Why add one more? The trees are already 'legal', and deforestation is halted throughout the UN. Why then do we need this brand new tax? Once you take away the whole 'deforesation' angle, there is no reason for this tax, really.

Three, you got a loophole. You have the states decide what this tax IS, and that means I can put a $0.000001 tax on the paper, and be in 'compliance'. And, as St. Edmund says, the state has the right to decide how to run its own tax policies anyway, so the resolution is illegal.

If you still want to engage in this, and close this loophole, then have the UN mandate an actual tax on all "natural resources consumption tax on all wood pulp paper products", and have the revuenes be devoted straight to the UN Enviromental Agency (UNEA). You may have to specify the exact tax policy you want to levy on "wood pulp paper products", or, more simply, just let UNEA decide how much to tax.

I strongly suggest the latter, if we are going to have this 'tax', I'll let trained professionals decide.
---Dr. Bob

I dislike this idea simply because in my opinion it would be hypocritical for the UN to tax companies who use large amounts of paper when the UN itself probably uses more paper than any company. Furthermore, trees are a renewable resource. They can be replanted.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Nigel stood up, "First of all I'd like to welcome back my the esteemed ambassador from Catawaba, we are very glad to see you are doing better.

We would strongly oppose this resolution, and indeed take steps to make sure it does not pass. There is no hard data that the delegate from Liberdem can point to that will say that a consumption tax will motivate industries to move away from anything. They will simply pass that cost on to consumers and make using wood pulp products more expensive. Which in turn will cost our citizens more in the long run.

Asking wood pulp industries to change to a different source is also a costly proposition and that cost will also be translated down the line to our citizens. Which is unacceptable.

Again we oppose this measure.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

RESPONCE
That is totally false the un would see no tax dollars so it is not a diret tax. it would cost no more to the consumer or the companies. It was used before prohibition at cheaper cost to everyone. There is no reason to believe this. Replanting is as big a joke as the carbon car. it would take 80 years to regrow in trees what can be regrown in one year from hemp. Hemp has been grown in every culture aross the globe and has no adverse effects on the ecosystem. I sinserly hope that none of your really belive this nonsence.

Asking wood pulp industries to change to a different source is also a costly proposition and that cost will also be translated down the line to our citizens. Which is unacceptable.


No one is asking the idustry to change. Its is helping to guide the market by making alternatives cheaper. people buy alternatives corporations follow the market changes. it becomes more expensive to cut down trees. alternatives fill the void. How do you think we switched from hemp to wood pulp after prohibition? No one looses.

OOC: I'm no rules guru, so if I'm wrong I'm sorry. However is hemp and rice a RL reference?

We would strongly oppose this resolution, and indeed take steps to make sure it does not pass. There is no hard data that the delegate from Liberdem can point to that will say that a consumption tax will motivate industries to move away from anything. They will simply pass that cost on to consumers and make using wood pulp products more expensive. Which in turn will cost our citizens more in the long run.

It is a shame that the honoured ambassador stopped his analysis at this point, rather than taking the additional step which might have changed his mind. It is our experience that when presented with increased prices, consumers have a strong tendency to use cheaper alternatives or economise on their usage of the expensive element. Thus managed, the "market forces" so beloved of many nations herein provide precisely the reduction in the usage of woodpulp products that the ambassador finds so unlikely.

OOC: I'm no rules guru, so if I'm wrong I'm sorry. However is hemp and rice a RL reference?

OOC: Since there was a resolution entitled "Support Hemp Production" at one time (it's been repealed) I'm going to say no.

Liberdem...let us start.

RESPONCE
That is totally false the un would see no tax dollars so it is not a diret tax.

You cannot tell us nations to place a tax on wood, because we'll just loophole our way around it. You are going to need to have the UN put a direct tax on wood, otherwise, we WILL loophole around it.

Plus, by having us set the tax, you defeat the only redeeming reason for the tax, which is to help the UNEA by giving it money. A reveune resource, if you will, which may be devoted for funding alternative ways of creating 'paper'.

it would cost no more to the consumer or the companies.

Uh...isn't that the point of a tax?

It was used before prohibition at cheaper cost to everyone.

Prohibition? Please realize, "RL" is imaginary. It does not exist.

And, even in imaginary RL, I think it kinda didn't work. People still got drunk, even with a 'excise tax'. In fact, I think imaginary RL still have the 'excise tax', and people are still getting drunk.

The point of the excise tax is NOT to stop people getting drunk, but to make a ton of money by profitting off drunk people.

Replanting is as big a joke as the carbon car. it would take 80 years to regrow in trees what can be regrown in one year from hemp.

Says whom? "RL" again?

Anyway, many people here believes replanting works, and these people are quite intelligent. More intelligent than I am, to be honest. And if we use trees that regrows in about 6 months, then why not?

We already got tons of regulations on the wood industry already. I trust these regulations, and they are policed by a group of gnomes that force compliance. These trees that we use for paper are legal, and therefore will not be bad.

Hemp has been grown in every culture aross the globe and has no adverse effects on the ecosystem. I sinserly hope that none of your really belive this nonsence.

...

1) Never, never insult the Voters. They are the ones who decide if they want to support your proposal or not. The fact that you got a lot of people against you may indicate that you will have a hard time getting this to quorom.

2) Listen, you want us to stop using wood pulp, right? If so, then why not just BAN the use of 'wood pulp paper products' rather than just have these 'higher taxes'? Once it get banned, everyone just switch over to hemp, digtal, kenaf, whatever, because they got no other choice.

A tax isn't going to change a thing, because even if it becomes a 'tad more expensive' to buy paper, we'll still buy the paper anyway because the alternatives are more expesnvie. Paper is already so cheap that we can afford to pay a couple cents more, so it isn't going to affect consumption.
---Dr. Bob

Catawaba's Ambassador snorted. "Sir, do you know a thing about Catawaba's growing season? Do you know how the introduction these foriegn plant species might have an effect on local fauna such as our beloved vornskrari? You do not know, sir. My government not so libertine as yours, sir. We believe basic caution and restraint must be taken as to the methods we use to assist the enviroment. It is strong, self-correcting, but if humans rush to its aid with out any study or forethought we can damage it far more than we ever did when we were actually hurting it."

"As Doctor Bob of the SSE pointed out, most wood-pulp industries harvest from controlled 'tree plantations.' So any additional mandated or encouraged reforestation is only an added benefit to your cause, sir, even at its incredibly slow rate."

"I have stated my disapproval of taxation on wood-pulp, but not to alternative sources for paper. I will heap my disapproval of your lack of respect for your fellow delegate on top, if you so wish.

The people of Thanmos are rather concerned by this proposal. First off we don't like more taxes. Second, growing plants that are not indiginous to an area has been known through history to be a bad idea. There are countries that are now overrun with plant and animal species that are not native and now almost impossible to get rid of. I realize that deforestation is an extremely important problem as it leads to climate change and makes agricultural production in some areas almost impossible. In Thanmos we are making sure that we don't cut more trees down than we can regrow and endevor to find alternatives to paper products. Unfortunately, we need butt wipe and houses ( both made out of wood ). Until science can do a complete investigation on alternate products in our country we will vote against this measure.

RESPONCEThat is totally false the un would see no tax dollars
Then who would? The Congress has yet to come across any explanation as to exactly WHOM this tax goes to. If it's not to the UN, then is to an environmental organization? The relatives of the recently deceased trees?

...it would cost no more to the consumer or the companies.
It certainly would cost more. That's what taxes do; the taxed pay money they would have otherwise kept.

Replanting is as big a joke as the carbon car. it would take 80 years to regrow in trees what can be regrown in one year from hemp.
We know not how your agricultural system operates, but ours has developed a sufficient farm system in which the only trees being cut down are those grown for the sole purpose of being made into paper-products. Our Executive of Agriculture informs us that we have a self-sustaining production-to-growth ratio, so, in our case, replanting is not an issue.

Hemp has been grown in every culture aross the globe and has no adverse effects on the ecosystem.
Unfortunately the climate of Unkerlantum is a unique one, not existing on whatever this "globe" of yours is. We have filed through the history archives of our nation, and have come across manuscripts describing an attempt in the 1800s by immigrants from Malachor III to grow cannabis domestically so that it could be sold on the black market. All attempts were a complete failure, and the market in Unkerlantum remains to this day made entirely of foreign imports illegally shipped in. It cannot be grown here.

I sinserly hope that none of your really belive this nonsence.
We sincerely hope your legislation never sees the light of day.

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

OOC: Since there was a resolution entitled "Support Hemp Production" at one time (it's been repealed) I'm going to say no.

OOC: DUH. Sorry.

You cannot tell us nations to place a tax on wood, because we'll just loophole our way around it. You are going to need to have the UN put a direct tax on wood, otherwise, we WILL loophole around it.
On the contrary, one can do exactly that. Perhaps the point concerning revisiting the tax definition to remove proto-loopholes is a wise one, but beyond that this is pure rhetoric, and we strongly advise Dr Bob to calm himself before he does himself an injury.

Edit: A more valid and unfortunate problem is that requiring nations to place a tax on wood pulp products would contravene resolution 128, Representation in Taxation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129). The only way around this problem, aside from repealing resolution 128, is to STRONGLY URGE rather than REQUIRE imposition of the tax, markedly reducing the effectiveness of the proposal.

Plus, by having us set the tax, you defeat the only redeeming reason for the tax, which is to help the UNEA by giving it money.
In the strange universe inhabited by the SilentScope delegation, the concept of the reason for a tax being purely to provide market pressure clearly does not exist. How sad.

1) Never, never insult the Voters.
::The ambassador just looks at Dr Bob::

2) Listen, you want us to stop using wood pulp, right? If so, then why not just BAN the use of 'wood pulp paper products' rather than just have these 'higher taxes'? Once it get banned, everyone just switch over to hemp, digtal, kenaf, whatever, because they got no other choice.
Because the taxation route provides an attitudinal shift. You yourself earlier mentioned the example of Prohibition, which while fictional still brings together the essence of many previous and current attempts to ban substances and their most basic lesson; that banning something makes it more attractive, not less. Rendering something more expensive, on the other hand, does tend to make it less attractive -- up to a point, whereafter the expense itself becomes attractive. Since we don't expect anyone to tax paper to the point where it is in the same price range as beaten gold, we venture to suggest that such is unlikely to become an issue.

Because the taxation route provides an attitudinal shift. You yourself earlier mentioned the example of Prohibition, which while fictional still brings together the essence of many previous and current attempts to ban substances and their most basic lesson; that banning something makes it more attractive, not less.

There is a difference between getting drunk and writing on a piece of paper. A big, big difference. A person may risk getting caught if he feels he can receive pleasure by getting drunk. Writing on a piece of paper causes no such problem.

You also underestimate the power of the gnomes in enforcing compliance. One of the reasons that Prohibition is fiction is that it assumed, quite wrongly, that the police are ineffective and can easily be bribed. The ICIPIN could never be that ineffective nor is the ICIPIN ever corrupt.

Rendering something more expensive, on the other hand, does tend to make it less attractive -- up to a point, whereafter the expense itself becomes attractive.

Uh. Simple economics indicate that this may not be true. Demand decrease, yes, when prices increases, but the demand decreases at a rate known as 'elasticity'. If elasticty is at a 1, then demand decreases in the same proportion as price increases. We bet paper isn't elastic at all, since we use wood-based paper all the time. So, we just build in the price.

Think of high gas taxes in the USA in this imaginary RL too. Just because there are higher gas taxes does not mean people switch over to hybrids in large numbers. In small numbers, yes. But those numbers aren't that important in the longer term. And considering the fact that paper is more used than gas, there will be no such 'large' decrease in demand.

Note, however, that I say high gas taxes in the USA. The high gas taxes in the UK, in this imaginary RL, could have a higher effect in that it does discourage the use of cars far more effectively. Of course, that is because the gas taxes in the UK are much higher, and alternatives are easily allowed. However, this proves the rule: If you make paper the price of gold, I'll count it the same as a 'de facto' ban.

But, we aren't convinced that there is in fact a point to having any tax to 'discourage' stuff when we already protect forests, but you heard this far too many times.

There is a difference between getting drunk and writing on a piece of paper. A big, big difference. A person may risk getting caught if he feels he can receive pleasure by getting drunk. Writing on a piece of paper causes no such problem.
We are happy that you live in a society where that statement is true. Most of the time. Many others are less fortunate.

You also underestimate the power of the gnomes in enforcing compliance. One of the reasons that Prohibition is fiction is that it assumed, quite wrongly, that the police are ineffective and can easily be bribed.
You, conversely, overestimate the remit of the gnomes. They are not and will not be national police; they merely ensure that the laws that the national police enforce are in compliance with UN regulations.

Uh. Simple economics indicate that this may not be true. Demand decrease, yes, when prices increases, but the demand decreases at a rate known as 'elasticity'. If elasticty is at a 1, then demand decreases in the same proportion as price increases. We bet paper isn't elastic at all, since we use wood-based paper all the time. So, we just build in the price.
Where, pray, did we imply a one-for-one exchange between price and demand? Or a scale of any sort, for that matter? Our point, that you have already conceded, is that elasticity is strictly positive.

Think of high gas taxes in the USA in this imaginary RL too. Just because there are higher gas taxes does not mean people switch over to hybrids in large numbers. In small numbers, yes. But those numbers aren't that important in the longer term. And considering the fact that paper is more used than gas, there will be no such 'large' decrease in demand.
The reasons for the lack of switch on increasing petroleum taxes in this case being the relative and perceived expense of conventional and hybrid vehicles, the infrequency of purchasing a car, and the perceptual decoupling between fuel prices and vehicle prices. As you subsequently admit, all these factors are reversed in the case of paper against similar non-woodpulp products.

But, we aren't convinced that there is in fact a point to having any tax to 'discourage' stuff when we already protect forests, but you heard this far too many times.
There are many such points, but you have ignored them far too many times also.