NationStates Jolt Archive

Congress of Green Nations

This is less a role-playing episode then a meeting of green nations to form an ‘EcoAlliance’. What sort of organisation this is exactly is open but I thought it would be a good opportunity to formulate a ‘Green Manifesto’. I would like to see the development of a Green Economic Organisation with political solidarity because I believe that ‘green’ is separate to socialist and capitalist economics.

This forum is completely open please add an expression of interest or your opinions. This thread was started t direct the individual nations already interested.

*tag*

OOC: I'm not really sure of what sort of response you're after, but after I've heard a little more about what the intentions, goals, beliefs and methods of this alliance/organisation/treaty/cheese club are, I might be interested in joining in. Taerkasten's whole society is based around nature, so any organisation interested in its preservation would be of interest to them. Consider this a TAG until future notice, anyway...

*tag*

OOC:
*Coughs politely*

IC:
Ten thosand Goblins immidiatly siezed upon the idea that "Green is Good", and obtained cardboard signs on sticks to wave. What precicely theyre waving about has yet to be ascertained.
When interviewed the Goblins in question would only shout clever slogans such as "GREEN POWAH!"
A few politicians have siezed on the idea, one Goblin leader was quoted as saying:
"We is a green nashun, we jus' don' lik da chrees. Dey taste funny anyway."

*Totally, Awesomely Green*

Ok so we should probably have a charter that just does the basic things – outline what we think Green is and what the spirit of our organisation will be. Probably add some stuff like agreeing to ban nuclear/WMD weapons. Then we can start talking about how strong an organisation we want.

A Green Nation
Political and economic institutions embrace the interconnectedness of economic and environmental activity
The economic system doesn’t rely on the unsustainable exploitation of ecological and natural resources
Measurements and understandings of the standard of living include the registration of social and environmental data
A political system that recognises and respects the relationship between local environments and local people – and that there are a diversity of these relationships
A respect for the inherent value of life to the rights to dignity, freedom, creativity and liberty against cruelty, oppression, colonialism and exploitation
Rejection of war, xenophobia, fear and terror as a legitimate or acceptable method of political, economic and social control
The adoption of democratic political institutions as the only acceptable form of government
A Green Nation cannot have an economy based on the production of profit over the improvement of the welfare of the community

The Charter then in an agreement of defining Green Nations should be signed in a similar spirit of recognising the interdependence of nations, reflecting the relationship between people and their environment.

The charter should also provide an alternative economic system that refuses to engage in the ‘industrial ideologies’ of capitalism or socialism. At the heart of Green ideology the question isn’t first about who owns the means of production but what we are producing and why. I hesitate to call this a ‘green market’ but for convenience I will. It would need to incorporate the integrity of all peoples to control their own economic development and security while allowing for the distribution of goods and services between societies, especially necessities and infrastructure that cannot be provided by the sovereign government.

Trade should first look at what these necessities are, who produces what and who needs them.

Biotopia has a large medical production industry and so can provide and help develop medicines and produce medical equipment. We also have a large information technology sector which can be employed a variety of tasks from creating a modern meteorological system to analysing models for better agricultural production etc. We also create sophisticated transport equipment, emission free public transport but also heavy vehicles for infrastructure development and shipping. I recommend that each nations provide a more detailed list of hat they can offer and what they would like.

Ok well I look forward to hearing your own thoughts and information.

PS: glad to see another non-human nation has joined in!

We congratulate our friends in Biotopia for their efforts. The criteria set down meet with our approval, though we would appreciate clarification on a couple of the points made.

1) Would we seek to take a position on the use of nuclear power? I suspect that many of us are divided on its viability as a 'green' energy source.

2) 'The adoption of democratic political institutions as the only acceptable form of government'

Some green anarchist nations may argue that this would invalidate their claims for membership, since they may not hold elections, etc.

Should representatives wish to see confirmation of Ecopoeia's environmental credentials, we would be happy to submit excerpts from our constitution and other pertinent documents.

Chisato Nakamura
Deputy Speaker for the Environment

OOC: Now there's three of us!

IC:
Methkarr Yupanqui, speaker of the Great Council, was delighted with the speed his nation was integrating into the world community. He had commented on the special session on the Council about this 'Congress of Green Nations' idea, and the elders and high representatives had loved it. So much that the High Councilor, Foyentükk, decided to address the question personally.

To the organizers of the Congress of Green Nations, Biotopia

Greentings from the Clan Confederacy of Lobisonia. As a nation that values nature very much, and that has learned to live under the wisdom and shadow of ancient forests and mountains, we would be pleased to participate on your proposed Congress of Green Nations.
We think that the existance of natural forces and sapient peoples is not contradictory, but that, on the opposite, both can learn to live very well in harmony with one another.
For such reason, we agree with pretty much everything that is written on your proposed charter.
We would like to warn though, that we think the question of banning nuclear weapons must be adressed carefully. Nuclear weapons are indeed terrible, monstrous, polluting machines that have no place on this world (Lobisonia has already banned them, after all). However, we think a multinational nuclear ban should be done cautiously, to avoid any power unbalance between nations that agree to ban said weapons and nations that don't.
But other than that issue, we agree entirely with what has been said, and are looking forward to contribute on this conference.
Honourably yours,

Foyentükk, High Councilor of the Great Lobisonian Council, The Socialist Confederacy of Lobisonia

Greetings and Salutations gentle Biotopians.

The people of the Most Serene Republic of The Happy Nation are in complete agreement with the Biotopians on the need to create a Green Alliance in order to protect our environments. We agree with all points in the draft charter and applaud the advances you have made.

We would like to join an alliance with your nation and other green nations to secure all our environments.

in happiness
julie of the mountain
elected leader of Most Serene Republic of The Happy Nation :)

Ready, aye, ready.

Well I’m glad that everyone is in such general agreement at this early stage. To first address the easiest question – point number two raised by Ecopoeia and to take a line from my (sadly) otherwise unused first year political science book;

“Democracy therefore means ‘rule by the demos’, demos standing for ‘the many’ or ‘the people’… This highlights two contrasting models of democracy: direct democracy and representative democracy. Moreover the modern understanding of democracy is dominated by the form of electoral democracy that has developed in the industrial West, often called liberal democracy. Despite its undoubted success, liberal democracy is only one of a number of possible models of democracy, and one whose democratic credentials have sometimes been called into question…” pg 221 Political Theory An Introduction (2nd Edition)

From my (limited) understanding of anarchy the definition of democracy as “rule by the demos” is still maintained within that kind of socio-political system.

However I would feel concerned by watering down the checks against allowing authoritarian governments from joining and it must be enshrined that rule by the people and Green government are entwined and inseparable.

As to the issue of nuclear weapons: yes the potential destructive force that these weapons have is of a perpetually grave concern however we cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by these criminal weapons. The ownership of nuclear weapons does not assure safety against nuclear and conventional attack on NS, it also prompts the constant threat of accidentally starting a nuclear war. There are technologies available to counter nuclear weapons and if it’s agreed to be an important enough issue then we should consider pooling our resources to develop these. My belief however is that the best means to avoid reaching a nuclear climax is through diplomacy, negotiations and collective action – an attack on one is an attack on.

Therefore is it agreed that we should have a mutual defence agreement? This does not necessarily require a nation establish a military force, rather that in the event of say attack by a WMD that all nations provide full humanitarian assistance and that the option for military intervention be available? I believe this should also include humanitarian intervention as a means to give ‘teeth’ to our belief in the right to dignity, liberty and sovereignty against oppression etc.

Essentially this is less about formulating a Green military pact and rather producing an evolving and comprehensive shared value system that centralises the otherwise fragmented and frequently overlooked marginalised perspectives of Green nations. Obviously one way to do this is provide more then moral backing to our arguments in times of crises such as an aggressive attack, colonisation, anti-democratic coups etc. Another would be dealing with trade.

There are two extreme poles on Green economic thought; the romanticised ‘Eden’ concept. Here there is no industrial development and society lives within proportion to what the natural environment can provide. This quite extreme and revels in ‘back-to-nature’ approach that rejects modernism and revels in a mystical and subsistence level existence. A more moderate and popular opinion is the agrarian-utopia. Here industry is at craft level, people live in communes and villages within the limits of their eco-region. At the other end of the spectrum is the Green technotopia where advanced technology, efficiency, R&D and a service-based economic system embrace modernism and provides for a continuing level of material welfare and technical know-how within the planet’s limits.

Without wanting to dictate economic models we need to create a framework that will provide opportunities for all models. Obviously not all nations will want to participate and it would be ironic to support growth-model economics with its attachments of materialism and consumerism. So rather this should be a co-operative and dynamic system to provide people’s needs. I would recommend that work on this be left after resolving the earlier issues but it’s something to keep in mind.

Finally (yes, I haven’t stopped gasbagging yet) the issue of nuclear power. This type of power source is inherently large-scale, capital intense, expensive and produces the worst kind of waste of any energy source available. I don’t think any EcoAlliance can endorse nuclear power, any more then it could coal, petroleum or gas burning for electricity however we need to remain pragmatic to the production of energy. What I prepose then is a set of guidelines:

All members sign a moratorium to building new nuclear plants
All members ban the export and mining of uranium
An annual alternative energy exhibition is established to provide a forum for sustainable energy manufacturers, scientists and related parties to meet and share their developments and expertise.
One option may to implement a series of ‘carbon taxes’ to raise revenue for funding this organisation, which will then subsidise the phasing of nuclear to alternative energy sources
Another may be providing interest-free loans fro member nations for the same purpose

OK well this all starts to lead onto economic principles of the organisation but I await your responses!

*tag*

Opposition party in my government is the Greens, and the current party is currently funding a Green Energy Discoveries programme headed by a panel of environmental scientists.

Count me in.

All members sign a moratorium to building new nuclear plants
All members ban the export and mining of uranium
An annual alternative energy exhibition is established to provide a forum for sustainable energy manufacturers, scientists and related parties to meet and share their developments and expertise.
One option may to implement a series of ‘carbon taxes’ to raise revenue for funding this organisation, which will then subsidise the phasing of nuclear to alternative energy sources
Another may be providing interest-free loans fro member nations for the same purpose

Point 1: Disagree. Nuclear power, albeit risky, is clean and in comparison to other sources of power supply, cheap. With the risk, all power plant types have their risks, nuclear just happens to be lower. The Green Energy Discoveries Commission is looking into an environmentally responsible power supply source that will be beneficial to human survival in the developed world, but sustainable and non-harmful to the environment.

Point 2: Disagree. Uranium, of course, is needed to power nuclear plants, and disposal of used nuclear waste, including worn-out U235 and U238 reactor fuel has become better and more qualified, including new safety procedures.

Point 3 and 4 could be more specific. I'm afraid I don't understand those points, but I think we're moving in a good direction here.

While not a green nation as described by the preliminary platform presented herein, the United Kingdom would like to offer its support for the Congress of Green Nations. Unfortuantely, our government's policy of non-interference in business affairs has come to grow a portion of the business community driven and motivated by profits, not their social responsibilities. Our nation also suffers from rampant overpopulation and resource exploitation leaving the UK with a significant environmental problem that we currently struggle to gain control of so as not to impact the economic security of our citizens. So while we do not ask for acceptance into the organizaion, we'd like to offer the friendship of the United Kingdom in attempting to bring about environmentally aware, if not responsible, governments throughout the world.

Emily Deveraux
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Count me in.

Agree that there are more eco-friendly sources of power than nuclear, too many dangerous risks, remember Chernobyl, Three Mile Island.

Like the idea of 'back to nature' but think agrarian-green industry more realistic.

First a response to the honourable Pracitalia

Counter-Point 1: 25,000 year long dangerous waste does not constitute as a ‘clean’ energy source. Although nuclear power plants might have more safety features the comparative danger of a spillage at a coal plant to a nuclear facility is vastly different. To employ my favourite analogy; the difference between dangers is like that of standing on a wet hill and standing in a dry balcony in a high block of flats. While there is more incidence of slipping on the hill the worst outcome is a scratched knee. A fall from the ‘nuclear balcony’ can be fatal. Nuclear power is also highly expensive with long-term construction phases and limited life spans.

Counter-Point 2: Uranium is not necessary to producing nuclear power. Thorium is a viable alternative and has a considerably shorter life span then uranium waste. Technological improvements have been short from the nuclear industry, since the development of commercial nuclear power the promised ‘fail-safe’ system from mining to storage has never been achieved and never will because no matter how technically sophisticated ‘human error’ will always cause accidents, and some accidents will be disasters. Uranium mining requires a huge drain on water resources, contamination can be extensive and difficult to store, it also exposes low-radiative particles to be blown into populated regions.

Counter-Point 3: these were only intended to be vague suggestions. My point is that if we want a really effective organisation, one that can provide solutions it needs real backing, material and in principle. One way to do this is to voluntarily pay for operations, but that has the problem of being an organisation for generally small economies but also low-capital nations and that a member could hold back funding if they disagreed with the majority. To get around this problem the organisation could be self-funding and I was suggesting a few options for raising those finances.

I thought this might provide an basic outline to how we define a Green nation/economy. Depending on responses we could create a criteria membership system with a few points optional but I’ve tried to boil things down to their minimum as it is. If you agree I would like this to be the basis for our organisation. I’ll attach a preamble afterwards

Foundations for a Green Economy

Abolition of the stock market
Abolition of currency speculation
Redistribution of political & economic organisation along eco-regional boundaries
Establishment of a ‘living wage’
De-capitalisation of industry and business
Socialisation of public infrastructure and services
Decentralisation of public infrastructure to the eco-regional scale
De-Industrialisation of agriculture
Free and independent trade unions

Components of a Green Economy

Decentralised population
Federalisation of eco-regions
Eco-regional economies of scale
Negative – low population growth
Broad socialisation of manufacturing and industry
Greenhouse neutral industrial processes
0 waste production target
Federal regulation of working conditions, wages and business practices
Sustainable production levels

The Green Nation

Constitutional establishment of humane rights
’Democratic’ government
Eco-regional political division
Abolition of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Cultural autonomy
Abolition of any official aristocracy, caste or elite
Provision for the equality of opportunity

That may be true, but there have really only been two notable nuclear power plant accidents in history. Coal and oil power plant accidents are higher in quantity, and sometimes, the consequences of the accident are more environmentally severe. And, as I said, especially in Pacitalia, safety steps have been increased dramatically since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and not even one minor glitch has occurred. I also agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is still inefficient and dangerous for 25,000 years, but again, the Pacitalian Nuclear Power Authority is working nearly non-stop to find a solution that disposes of nuclear waste cleanly, safely and easily, without the long half-life period.

As for your comments on alternatives to uranium, we do use a compound thorium isotope in some of our power plants, but, although having the positive of a shorter half-life, thorium has been studied and it has been found that the isotope does not produce as much power capacity as a uranium-235 or uranium-238 isotope would in the same power plant.

I agree that we need a unilaterally beneficial green plan for all nations involved, but I think extremism in the case of your bulleted suggestions is going a little too far. Your green policies appear almost socialist to us, and the true definition of a green nation is to be economically neutral, or centrist if you will, but socially libertarian. Socialist and libertarian are two different ideologies, as I'm sure you know. Therefore, I would promote a platform of balance among the member nations, incorporating some green policies in a capitalist economy like Pacitalia's, which is already being done. The CGN should remain economically conservative but socially libertarian in order to promote our green agenda, if we do have one.

Official Statement From Red Tide Goverment and Red Tide Corporations
"We condemn these Tree-Hugging, Communistic, nations. If it were not for them, mankind would have reached a era of prosperity never seen before. If they had it their way, we would be living like it was 2,000 BC. In short, we condemn thee."
End Statement

Official Statement From Tech-Com Corporation
Now Internationally Shipping! I have been to Communistic, Tree-Hugging, Pacitalia T-Shirt! Only $20! Get one now while stocks last!"
End Statement

We'll see who's laughing when you have no natural resources left because you were foolish ultrafascists.

- Random Pacitalian

Simply because only two nuclear accidents gained global public attention does not make them the only incidents of significance. Furthermore it took the advent of those accidents to cease construction of new facilities which would go a long-way in explaining why no other major accidents followed since. Nuclear power is one of the least cost effective means of producing energy and involves high-capital, centralisation and the introduction of laws curtailing civil liberties in the event of a nuclear accident and to provide security throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Unless you use FT there is no way to de-irradiate nuclear waste, any contamination of the water-cycle or atmosphere cannot be undone and will become an immediate international incident, especially if the particles are air-born.

Nuclear power like any other large-scale power production promotes centralisation and cities are one of the most vapid resource consumers creating a huge impact on the ecological systems sometimes across entire nations. Nuclear power presents a constant security threat. Any destabilisation of the government could result in accidents, contamination and even the hijacking of nuclear waste and facilities to be used as blackmail against the population. Nuclear power also means the threat of developing nuclear weapons at gives an enormously powerful bargaining chip to use against nations within their firing range, just consider the attention N Korea brings to itself regularly.

Such power generation promotes the treadmill of production and consumption that is capitalism. It undermines the 0-low growth fundamentals of Green Economics. For this reason I have to disagree that we must as an imperative keep this organisation economically conservative. Also there is no such thing as a “true” or absolute definition of any ideology. There is a spectrum, broad or narrow of discourse on the subject but never a single concept that can claim to be right and any Green society would have to recognise this. However having said all this I believe we’re able to agree that there can be an acceptable spectrum of different economic and political models – a diversity.

As I’ve said myself there are different perspective on what it means to be Green and so my concern is that we should create an organisation that won’t disadvantage small-scale, non-capitalist, low-technology economies from high-tech, large scale and capitalist and non-capitalist economies. I myself have a powerful, modernised economy and so according to capitalist rationality it would be in my interest to subject those economies to my economic interests so you’re not the only being targeted in the interest of these smaller states. What we do need as a set definition of the Green Nation, any further suggestions anybody?

Biotopia - your foundations and components of a green economy are sound and your points on a Green Nation also sound. Looks like the political studies were not a waste afterall! I agree with all your points and could not have put it any better than you have, or even near how you have but then I do not have a political background apart from handing out how to vote cards for the Greens.

Pacitalia - try telling the people of Chernobyl there have 'only' been 2 nuclear accidents. I still say 'no nukes is good nukes'

Ha, you flatter me, good thing I was already blushing from the endasemesta drinking.

Pracitalia I do not want to alienate you from this organisation and I feel that you are headed in the right direction however I cannot compromise on the issue of being nuclear-neutral or for that matter openly embracing capitalism. Simply because one recycles, taxes the most polluting factories or eats organic produce does not make them ‘Green’ in the capital “G” sense of the word. I think your efforts should be encouraged but not entirely condoned.

I believe that we can accommodate certain degrees of Green development within an over-arching organisation. So I think perhaps we should move on as I want the input of other delegates as to what they want from this organisation. I believe that a mutual defence agreement would be acceptable. I think we can also sponsor a forum or regular meeting to discuss ideas, technology, events, trade etc. Finally and I think the most exciting prospect is an eco-market. Do people have suggestions for this? We might need to establish a permanent forum to organise these things in detail but I believe it will be of great benefit for all concerned and help forge bonds between kindred nations.

The problem with the nuclear issue is that it brings up the matter of tech levels. Fusion power would be great, for example, but I have no intention of RPing Ecopoeia in an FT (even if it may prove to be near-FT) universe.

As for the question of 'green capitalism', the principles as laid down are very much non-capitalist. If there is an convincing manner in which a capitalist society could operate and still be classified as green, then we should accept it. Suggestions?

I agree with you on the point that if 'green capitalism' can be proven to be within green principls it should be accepted. So how are defining 'greeness'?

although i'm not looking to join, i thought i would add a thought or two. A "green capitalism" is certainly possible, however, it would require a conscientiously "green" minded civilian populace. As capitalism operates on the fundamental principle of supply and demand driving market prices and overall products out on the market, if one nation has a population very aware of green issues - say because of a horrible environmental accident in their past - said civilian populace would potentially be willing to shun non-green products/services for green products/services. Because of this economic choice, companies would soon stop selling non-green products/services and begin to sell green products/services because that would be the demand in the marketplace. So if you don't have a green-minded civilian population, more than likely you won't be able to field a "green capitalism", but if you can, either by social awareness through history or through a successful educational system, than it is well within the realistic realm of possibility - as opposed to the NS realm - that a green styled capitalism would succeed. that's just my two cents, however...