NationStates Jolt Archive

I am seeking in put on on a new act which will deal with the environment. All proposals will be considered. Any thing dealing with the environmental, air quality, renewable resources and etc.

It would help if you could give us YOUR ideas to build from. What do you think would make a good environmental proposal? What areas of environmental protection would you like to address?

My advice, don't try to cover everything with one resolution. With the character limit there's no way to cover everything and do it well.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I am proposing to have this resoultion focus on setting limits on the amount of polutions going into the enviorment and setting a world carbon emssions limit.

Long-distance shipping of food is responsible for an astonishing amount of expended energy and pollution. By imposing a 25-mile limit between food retailers and restaurants and a food's point of origin, we may reduce emissions, conserve energy, and foster the creation of environmentally-sustainable, community-centered agricultural markets.

In fact there are no reliable statistic for carbon emissions available, how on earth would one set a limit in an environment where the level of current emissions are not known ?

And as for banning the transport of food stuffs beyond distances of 25 miles, well that is ludicrous beyond words, the economic cost would be astronomical. Whole economies would collapse if the trade in food stuffs were banned.


Yours,

Yes, that is the idea. Subsistence agrarian economies, supplemented with gathering, are the ideal model of environmental sustainability. A new social and economic model is necessary in order for humanity to exist not just peacefully with nature, but as a part of nature. The industrial model has fallen on its face; nature has been falsely seen as a thing to be dominated, to be exploited, its value determined by what it can give us rather than what it is independently of anything else.

Balawaristan anticipates that a fundamental paradigm shift will soon be underway. The old model defining interaction with nature, as a set of exploitable resources, will either lead to our own destruction when we demand more of Mother Nature than she can give us, or we will set aside childish things.

The way out is the philosophy of ecocentrism. Rather than evaluating everything with reference to human benefit alone, we must move to a nature-centered system of values. We must recognize our human welfare as of equal importance to the welfare of the biosphere of which we are just one component. The fish, the the flowers, the rocks collectively have no less intrinsic value than humanity. The morality of action must take into consideration nature as our sustainer and fellow as much as our neighbors in man.

The capitalist market and the war against nature are bedfellows. With the rise of market economies in recent centuries, species extinction has become an epidemic. The very stability of the biosphere is threatened and, with it, the possibility of maintaining quality human life. We must recognize that just as we are part of nature, the well-being of nature is an essential component of our happiness, and the Workers' struggle for liberation must also seek to break the shackles of nature.

An ecological, collectivist mode of life is an inevitability. For the greater part of his existence, man has lived in peace with nature, and only now does he violate her, and only now will he suffer the consequences. It is not sufficient to simply return to old ways, living like baboons. We must strive, within the context of sustainability and an ecocentrist ethic, to achieve a human existence that is humane, just, and genuine. A true socialism, founded on nature both human and global, is the single shining path.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador, the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

What a charmingly quaint and parochial view.

A peasant's paradise eh ? How chillingly backward a world that would be, thankfully it will never come to pass.

Yours,

<snip>

I be pretty certain that would be illegal.



In fact there are no reliable statistic for carbon emissions available, how on earth would one set a limit in an environment where the level of current emissions are not known ?

You just create a committee and give them the task of calculating emissions, then have the proposal say they would set the standards or something to that effect.

You just create a committee and give them the task of calculating emissions, then have the proposal say they would set the standards or something to that effect.


Presumably this committee would need information from non-member states in order to makes its calculations meaningful, would it be legal for such a committee to demand such information form non-member states ? And then once it had come up with the appropriate reduction amount this could only apply to w.a. states, who would either have to incorporate the level of reduction needed of non-member states into their own, thus drastically disadvantaging themselves in comparison to non-member states or else risk making only a token reduction of emissions which in the long term would have no effect.


All of this would have little or no effect on the Confederated Sublime Khanate since we moved away from carbon fuels centuries ago but none the less it all seems rather futile, especially since no evidence exists that carbon emissions have had any effect on this world.


Yours,

All of this would have little or no effect on the Confederated Sublime Khanate since we moved away from carbon fuels centuries ago but none the less it all seems rather futile, especially since no evidence exists that carbon emissions have had any effect on this world.


Yours,

This is true. You wouldn't necessarily have to measure nation by nation, you could just create an approximation in the atmosphere, for those that are on a planet, and in space. Of course if you used that model it would be unfair to member nations because they would have to take up the slack of those who create a lot of emissions.

Blasted Pirates have no emissions, since we have no industry to speak of. The only thing that would qualify is flatulence, which we have an abundance of.

Arr, (I am required by law to say this.)
William Young Manley Peterson,
Deputy Ambassador/Translator
The Disputed Territories of Blasted Pirates

Long-distance shipping of food is responsible for an astonishing amount of expended energy and pollution. By imposing a 25-mile limit between food retailers and restaurants and a food's point of origin,Well, there go the deep-sea fishing and whaling industries... :(

Emissions reduction with an emphasis on alternative fuel research for those nations that don't already have it would be beneficial in reducing the impact of both food miles and sapient transport, as well as several other industries and 'carbon footprint' factors. A rewards system for nations that encourage and promote the use of public transport within and between their nations as well as the use of sapient-powered transport such as bicycles and whatnot.

allthough we of axmanland have long ago given up our enviroment as a "lost cause" we would be willing to support a resolution that rewarded nations who showed a responsable enviromental attitude

however we would be unable to support any action witch economicly shackled member states while giving the industry of non WA nations a huge advantage