[DRAFT] Biodiversity Sanctuary Act

[Percussionland]

By ready, I mean is it ready to be submitted with a legitimate chance of making quorum and passing? Would you vote for it?

[Separatist Peoples]

By ready, I mean is it ready to be submitted with a legitimate chance of making quorum and passing? Would you vote for it?

"No. I find the idea of internationally forced preservation confusing. I much prefer internationally backed conservation movements, taking the stance that, as a government, our ultimate duty is to our citizens, not the natural world. While preservation methods can be a part of that, I find this to be far too intrusive. However, I think you'll find that this is about as good as it's likely to get. Any other suggestions would likely be topical at this point."

[Percussionland]

Well, ok then. Thanks to everyone for the constructive criticism that made this possible.

[Minyos]

"May become extinct" not "go extinct". But I love the sentiments.

[Percussionland]

Well, if you like it, then try to get your delegate to approve it.

[Elke and Elba]

I still see ENTIRELY NO USE with this proposal post Sensible Limits on Hunting and GA #66.

OPPOSED.

[Percussionland]

Those protect individual species, this protects entire ecosystems as a whole, preserves biodiversity, and strengthens WA environmental protection.

[Elke and Elba]

Those protect individual species, this protects entire ecosystems as a whole, preserves biodiversity, and strengthens WA environmental protection.

Ah whatever, tell me if it's passed.

I have my repeal content ready.

[Percussionland]

If it passed, you would have a hard time forcing a repeal through a body of nations that just approved and passed the legislation you would be trying to repeal.

[Elke and Elba]

If it passed, you would have a hard time forcing a repeal through a body of nations that just approved and passed the legislation you would be trying to repeal.

You think so? GA#281 got repealed by GA#283.

With your proposal landing in the same category of loopholeyness, I think not.

[Percussionland]

One, I have worked out all of the loopholes, two, if you wanted to criticise how it was written, it was up for well over a month taking suggested edits, a period of time during which you failed to make an appearance.

[Elke and Elba]

One, I have worked out all of the loopholes, two, if you wanted to criticise how it was written, it was up for well over a month taking suggested edits, a period of time during which you failed to make an appearance.

Because I have no intention to see this passed at all, given that it was largely a DOA for me once it appeared, nothing can convince me any edit insofar will work. Thus the lack of comments.

EDIT: To say one has worked out all the loopholes is certainly too large a statement to be made. If so, repeals wouldn't have been made. If so, I wouldn't have been able to find an angle of which a repeal can be worked upon.

[Percussionland]

For all we know you don't have an angle a repeal could work upon, and are just saying you do so that it doesn't pass in the first place when nations think; "What's the point if its going to be repealed?"

[Elke and Elba]

For all we know you don't have an angle a repeal could work upon, and are just saying you do so that it doesn't pass in the first place when nations think; "What's the point if its going to be repealed?"

I reserve my right not to disclose what my intent is, nor what my future intention will be.

[Percussionland]

Translation: You're doing exactly what I said you were.

[Elke and Elba]

Translation: You're doing exactly what I said you were.

What?

In any case, I do have an angle if you were wondering, but I'm not going to divulge it for you to get the upper hand by removing the proposal and removing that.

I have entirely no business seeing this proposal passed (especially seeing how shabbily written) and my ultimate aim and intent is not to get it passed, obviously then. That, is all you will need to know, until this proposal reaches quorum and goes into voting, or fails to reach quorum.

Say if you must, but I must say I've fallen into the camp of "trying to make things well and fine before submitting them, and even after submitting them" as Bears or Gruen or Scion would be happy to hear, and therefore it is my imperative to deny/help those which are not up to par. Yours belong to the former stack for me because for me the proposal serves no real purpose even in good faith.

[Percussionland]

You have no angle. I spent over a month fielding such angles and editing to nullify them. Please debate within the realm of veritable fact.

[Separatist Peoples]

You have no angle. I spent over a month fielding such angles and editing to nullify them. Please debate within the realm of veritable fact.

"Arguing that this places a serious burden on the resources of a nation, potentially makes previously established facilities and sites for resource extraction unusable, does nothing to help the citizens of a nation, and generally takes a one-size-fits-all approach to an issue which requires an extremely specialized angle sounds like a solid basis to me."

[Elke and Elba]

You have no angle. I spent over a month fielding such angles and editing to nullify them. Please debate within the realm of veritable fact.

I can't convince you the other way since I don't intend to divulge much.

I'll be merely stating that this two clauses are enough to warrant a repeal, and a strong enough one too:

STATES that it will be the duty of the IBPC to determine when an area must be preserved, to maintain Biodiversity Sanctuaries, and to ensure that they are created when mandated.

MANDATES that member nations include the entire qualifying area in all Biodiversity Sanctuaries when they are created.

[Araraukar]

One, I have worked out all of the loopholes

Not even close. I half suspect SP drove you into submitting it so that it would either 1) fail, or 2) be easily repealed.

I spent over a month fielding such angles and editing to nullify them.

Let's give credit where credit's due, you did very little fielding of any angles until you were forced to by myself and others, with threats of having mods pull it as illegal, if you had submitted it as it was.

[Separatist Peoples]

One, I have worked out all of the loopholes

Not even close. I half suspect SP drove you into submitting it so that it would either 1) fail, or 2) be easily repealed.

OOC: Not really. I seriously felt like this reached the point where it was as good as it was going to get. Since percussionland refuses a complete rewrite and a scaling back of the powers, I'm pretty sure we're at the end of this proposal's life.

[Texan Hotrodders]

I will certainly admit that this is a fairly well written and well-intentioned proposal.

Were it to be implemented, it is unlikely to have any effect in the Federation, primarily because we have already eradicated the biodiversity in our territory. One cannot preserve what does not exist, after all. I suspect that we are far from the only nation to have already irreversibly degraded our biodiversity in the pursuit of economic success. I also suspect that many nations who support this venture already have structures in place to protect the biodiversity in their territories. There may be a few nations who would like to preserve the biodiversity in their territories and do not have the necessary structures to do so, and this proposal might be helpful to them if implemented.

Like the distinguished Ambassador from the Separatist Peoples, I would recommend a change of scope for the proposal. I will not be able to support it in its current state.

Nonetheless, I wish the author well in their future legislative endeavors.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Araraukar]

Were it to be implemented, it is unlikely to have any effect in the Federation, primarily because we have already eradicated the biodiversity in our territory.

I don't think you're understanding "biodiversity" properly. It's actual definition is "a degree of variation of life" - so if you just have one forest (could be a city park) and one meadow (could be in same city park), you do have biodiversity - even if your whole nation consisted of one big city, if there are any non-sentient lifeforms (and if you intend to breathe oxygen, I would think there were) present, you're bound to have biodiversity, because the city itself would form different ecosystems and habitats with different species.

So this proposal does in fact concern everyone, and could force a nation to declare all of its territory one ginormous Biodiversity Sanctuary, if some WA committee arbitrarily so decided.

OOC: If one wanted to be nitpicky, you'd be bound to have biodiversity within your own citizens, as long as they were biological beings.

[Separatist Peoples]

Were it to be implemented, it is unlikely to have any effect in the Federation, primarily because we have already eradicated the biodiversity in our territory.

I don't think you're understanding "biodiversity" properly. It's actual definition is "a degree of variation of life" - so if you just have one forest (could be a city park) and one meadow (could be in same city park), you do have biodiversity - even if your whole nation consisted of one big city, if there are any non-sentient lifeforms (and if you intend to breathe oxygen, I would think there were) present, you're bound to have biodiversity, because the city itself would form different ecosystems and habitats with different species.

So this proposal does in fact concern everyone, and could force a nation to declare all of its territory one ginormous Biodiversity Sanctuary, if some WA committee arbitrarily so decided.

OOC: If one wanted to be nitpicky, you'd be bound to have biodiversity within your own citizens, as long as they were biological beings.

"Another point against this for failing to deal with pest control. This law would likely protect rat sub-species in such a nation, regardless of the disease-ridden chewing damage they do to the infants when they get in an orphanage. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

[St James]

DEFINES a threatened species as a species of any kingdom with a population of or under 10,000 organisms and is at risk of becoming endangered.

DEFINES an endangered species as a species of any kingdom with a population of or under 3,000 organisms and is at risk of becoming extinct.

1) You used the word "organism". Bacteria is an organism too. Are we protecting bacteria?

1) It is nearly impossible for a type of bacteria to get to such a low number, because they reproduce asexually, they can always bounce back if they happen to grow to a low number.

2) It is nearly impossible to be able to count the number of bacteria because it is always fluctuating

3) You make it seem like we could do without bacteria, like if it needed protection, it wasn't worth giving. Try living in a world without bacteria and you'll die pretty quickly.